# What have people got against cyclists?



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...ople-got-against-cyclists?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

As if we don't have enough rancorous cyclist vs driver threads....


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 2, 2015)

Obvious troll is obvious.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 2, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> Obvious troll is obvious.


dull troll is dull too


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> Obvious troll is obvious.


I think it's a timely article that makes some very good points about the disproportionate hatred towards cyclists. Not a troll at all.


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 2, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> I think it's a timely article that makes some very good points about the disproportionate hatred towards cyclists. Not a troll at all.



What points? You could at least have highlighted those that you considered to be the most salient.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> What points? You could at least have highlighted those that you considered to be the most salient.


The whole article is spot on.
One is the disproportionate annoyance many people have towards red light jumpers, while many motorists do it too, and 80% of motorists admit to speeding regularly, which is much more dangerous. Read the article.


----------



## souljacker (Jul 2, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> As if we don't have enough rancorous cyclist vs driver threads....



We've got loads but you still thought another one would be a good idea?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 2, 2015)

Cyclists are bad people.

They don't pay _road tax_, are largely uninsured, and they jump red lights.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

souljacker said:


> We've got loads but you still thought another one would be a good idea?


It's always worth discussing.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 2, 2015)

And they cycle on pavements.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 2, 2015)

And they're rude and aggressive.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 2, 2015)

its true, when you do your (voluntary, paid for by the motorist) cycling proficiency test there's  a half hour section on abusive gestures and foul mouthed shouting. Of course, I passed with flying colours. Always amusing to see the timid really getting into it.


----------



## marty21 (Jul 2, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Cyclists are bad people.
> 
> They don't pay _road tax_, are largely uninsured, and they jump red lights.


You know there is no road tax right ?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 2, 2015)

marty21 said:


> You know there is no road tax right ?



No, I had no idea. 

I've only been on these boards for 15 years and have completely missed the ten million threads about it!


----------



## ska invita (Jul 2, 2015)

That thing about putting wire out at neck height was pretty shocking tbh - that goes a bit beyond tutting at a bike nipping through a red light
psychopathic behaviour - not sure if its related to general biker-hating


----------



## joustmaster (Jul 2, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> Obvious troll is obvious.



No.
This is: 



Spymaster said:


> Cyclists are bad people.
> 
> They don't pay _road tax_, are largely uninsured, and they jump red lights.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

marty21 said:


> You know there is no road tax right ?


Don't respond!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 2, 2015)

.


----------



## joustmaster (Jul 2, 2015)

Its only a very small percentage of road users that seem to hate me when I am cycling. The vast majority seem indifferent, or even make a special effort to give me space. But it's hard to remember that, when every single day, without fail, some twunt seems to be livid that I am in front of their car motor vehicle.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 2, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> .



I saw one without a helmet yesterday.

Wanker.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

One galling claim by some motorists is that 'they think they own the road'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 2, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> I saw one without a helmet yesterday.
> 
> Wanker.


you take dislike of cyclists to a whole new level and i'm not sure it's entirely pleasant.


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 2, 2015)

joustmaster said:


> Its only a very small percentage of road users that seem to hate me when I am cycling. The vast majority seem indifferent, or even make a special effort to give me space. But it's hard to remember that, when every single day, without fail, some twunt seems to be livid that I am in front of their car motor vehicle.



Every single day I drive some twunt seems to be livid that I am in front of them too.

Some people are just angry twunts.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 2, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> One galling claim by some motorists is that 'they think they own the road'.


i'm sure some of the cyclists in leafy private roads do indeed own the road.


----------



## joustmaster (Jul 2, 2015)

and what's with all the stupid lycra that they wear?


----------



## ska invita (Jul 2, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> I saw one without a helmet yesterday.
> 
> Wanker.


“pompous little pointy plastic hats"


----------



## ska invita (Jul 2, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> Every single day I drive some twunt seems to be livid that I am in front of them too.
> 
> Some people are just angry twunts.


how can you tell what drivers behind you are feeling?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 2, 2015)

joustmaster said:


> and what's with all the stupid lycra that they wear?


the people with the most lycra seem to be the people with the least need for it.


----------



## joustmaster (Jul 2, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> Every single day I drive some twunt seems to be livid that I am in front of them too.
> 
> Some people are just angry twunts.


Its a little more frightening when you are balanced on a few kilograms of aluminum, and the punishment pass you, though.


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 2, 2015)

ska invita said:


> how can you tell what drivers behind you are feeling?



Usually by their behaviour.


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 2, 2015)

joustmaster said:


> Its a little more frightening when you are balanced on a few kilograms of aluminum, and the punishment pass you, though.



Yes, but that doesn't mean that these angry people are specifically getting angry and resentful towards cyclists and no one else.
Horse riders, pedestrians and other motorists are also the subject of this behaviour.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

“What you see in discourses about cycling is the absolute classic 1960s and 1970s social psychology of prejudice,” he explains. “It’s exactly those things that used to be done about minority ethnic groups and so on – the overgeneralisation of negative traits, under-representation of negative behaviours by one’s own group, that kind of thing. It’s just textbook prejudiced behaviour.”


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 2, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Cyclists are bad people.
> 
> They don't pay _road tax_, are largely uninsured, and they jump red lights.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 2, 2015)

I have no problem with cyclists as long as they stay off the pavement and on the road. 

Worst of all are the ones who cycle on the pavement when there is a perfectly good cycle lane right next to them.


----------



## fuck seals (Jul 2, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> “What you see in discourses about cycling is the absolute classic 1960s and 1970s social psychology of prejudice,” he explains. “It’s exactly those things that used to be done about minority ethnic groups and so on – the overgeneralisation of negative traits, under-representation of negative behaviours by one’s own group, that kind of thing. It’s just textbook prejudiced behaviour.”




You may be over thinking your persecution complex ou. What utter crap.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 2, 2015)

fuck seals said:


> You may be over thinking your persecution complex ou. What utter crap.


ah the 'chip on the shoulder' line- thats just what the quote is talking about


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 2, 2015)

Cyclists are just jealous that they can't eat their Coco Pops on the move.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

fuck seals said:


> You may be over thinking your persecution complex ou. What utter crap.


How is it crap? I think it's spot on.


----------



## Pingu (Jul 2, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Cyclists are just jealous that they can't eat their Coco Pops on the move.



and that they get wet when it rains

I am looking into wiring up the shell of my car to a big capacitor just in case I have to drive in a city. and add big spikes to the wheels.


----------



## EastEnder (Jul 2, 2015)

I've got absolutely nothing against cyclists. But I really hate arseholes. Sometimes arseholes ride bikes, sometimes they drive cars, sometimes they walk on the pavement. Cyclists yes, arseholes no.


----------



## Rebelda (Jul 2, 2015)

My front wheel, usually.


----------



## spanglechick (Jul 2, 2015)

I don't hate cyclists at all.  But sometimes the mistakes any road-user makes force me to take emergency evasive action / emergency stop.  When a driver does that, it's annoying.  When it's a cyclist, it shits mne right up, because with slower reactions, or if i was distracted by kids in the car or whatever - I'd have hit them and I'd have hurt them.  So I find the most stressful moments on the road by far are caused by cyclists.  

Most of those moments, btw - are when cyclists have decided there is another lane in the road, especially to my left (where no cycle lane exists).  Overtaking stationary vehicles to the left or right is fine.  Overtaking moving vehicles must be done on the right, and with some sense of reading the road ahead.  No matter what vehicle, no one takes a purely straight path through traffic.  We adjust to make room for buses coming the other way, or because there's crap in the road, loads of things.  It's why when I overtake a cyclist I leave as much space as I can, and at least a metre...  If I'm stood still in traffic, I check my mirrors before i move off... but while i'm actually driving I have to spend most of my time looking ahead, and I'm not necessarily going to see someone who's decided they can go faster than me by squeezing through the gap between me and the parked cars to my left.  But that gap won't always stay the same width...

It stops my heart when it happens.  Really upsetting.


----------



## CNT36 (Jul 2, 2015)

My main issue with cyclists is when there is a cycle path and they ride just outside of it. Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances but not always. When I have encountered problems it usually seems to be Lycra types. It is a minority but some seem not to concentrate at all on what is going on behind them pulling out to avoid an obstacle sometimes a long way before with no indication or even a look over their shoulder (also an indication).


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 2, 2015)

spanglechick said:


> When it's a cyclist, it shits mne right up, because with slower reactions, or if i was distracted by kids in the car or whatever - I'd have hit them and I'd have hurt them....



.... and quite possibly damaged the car.


----------



## Santino (Jul 2, 2015)

This morning while waiting to cross a road, I saw a cyclist come up a bus lane the wrong direction, and then turn right onto a pavement. All of the cars, as dangerous as they may be, were an anonymous mass of hot metal, but this cyclist stuck out with her flagrant disregard for the rules of the road and the safety of others.


----------



## joustmaster (Jul 2, 2015)

CNT36 said:


> My main issue with cyclists is when there is a cycle path and they ride just outside of it. Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances but not always. When I have encountered problems it usually seems to be Lycra types. It is a minority but some seem not to concentrate at all on what is going on behind them pulling out to avoid an obstacle sometimes a long way before with no indication or even a look over their shoulder (also an indication).


I often ride just outside the cycle lane.
I do it for safety reasons.


----------



## Winot (Jul 2, 2015)

Santino said:


> This morning while waiting to cross a road, I saw a cyclist come up a bus lane the wrong direction, and then turn right onto a pavement. All of the cars, as dangerous as they may be, were an *anonymous* mass of hot metal, but this cyclist stuck out with her flagrant disregard for the rules of the road and the safety of others.



I think 'anonymous' is interesting.  Harder to hate an anonymous mass of hot metal than a visible human.  Yet inside the car is a human who is in charge of what it does.


----------



## CNT36 (Jul 2, 2015)

joustmaster said:


> I often ride just outside the cycle lane.
> I do it for safety reasons.


Such as? I know sometimes there is shit in them, overgrown stuff etc.


----------



## spanglechick (Jul 2, 2015)

spanglechick said:


> I don't hate cyclists at all.  But sometimes the mistakes any road-user makes force me to take emergency evasive action / emergency stop.  When a driver does that, it's annoying.  When it's a cyclist, it shits mne right up, because with slower reactions, or if i was distracted by kids in the car or whatever - I'd have hit them and I'd have hurt them.  So I find the most stressful moments on the road by far are caused by cyclists.
> 
> Most of those moments, btw - are when cyclists have decided there is another lane in the road, especially to my left (where no cycle lane exists).  Overtaking stationary vehicles to the left or right is fine.  Overtaking moving vehicles must be done on the right, and with some sense of reading the road ahead.  No matter what vehicle, no one takes a purely straight path through traffic.  We adjust to make room for buses coming the other way, or because there's crap in the road, loads of things.  It's why when I overtake a cyclist I leave as much space as I can, and at least a metre...  If I'm stood still in traffic, I check my mirrors before i move off... but while i'm actually driving I have to spend most of my time looking ahead, and I'm not necessarily going to see someone who's decided they can go faster than me by squeezing through the gap between me and the parked cars to my left.  But that gap won't always stay the same width...
> 
> It stops my heart when it happens.  Really upsetting.


I think this particular problem is due to the nature of my commute.  Not proper inner city, with bus lanes and lots of lorries, and mostly wide roads, but also not far enough out to be suburban school-run lower-density traffic.


----------



## Winot (Jul 2, 2015)

spanglechick said:


> I don't hate cyclists at all.  But sometimes the mistakes any road-user makes force me to take emergency evasive action / emergency stop.  When a driver does that, it's annoying.  When it's a cyclist, it shits mne right up, because with slower reactions, or if i was distracted by kids in the car or whatever - I'd have hit them and I'd have hurt them.  So I find the most stressful moments on the road by far are caused by cyclists.
> 
> Most of those moments, btw - are when cyclists have decided there is another lane in the road, especially to my left (where no cycle lane exists).  Overtaking stationary vehicles to the left or right is fine.  Overtaking moving vehicles must be done on the right, and with some sense of reading the road ahead.  No matter what vehicle, no one takes a purely straight path through traffic.  We adjust to make room for buses coming the other way, or because there's crap in the road, loads of things.  It's why when I overtake a cyclist I leave as much space as I can, and at least a metre...  If I'm stood still in traffic, I check my mirrors before i move off... but while i'm actually driving I have to spend most of my time looking ahead, and I'm not necessarily going to see someone who's decided they can go faster than me by squeezing through the gap between me and the parked cars to my left.  But that gap won't always stay the same width...
> 
> It stops my heart when it happens.  Really upsetting.



It sounds like you're a good, careful driver. 

The overtaking thing is interesting.  Cyclists are told off for not staying in cycle lanes and told off for being on the inside of lorries, yet cycle lanes are pretty much always on the left.  Cycle lanes also cease to exist suddenly.  Cyclists are then told off for undertaking when there's not a cycle lane.  Yet when they switch from the left to overtake on the right, they are told off for 'weaving through traffic'.

Oh yes, and we are told that when we get killed it is our fault.

I'm fucking sick of it.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 2, 2015)

cycle lanes are for old men and the weak. Hardly appropriate for one who is ridin' dirty


----------



## Santino (Jul 2, 2015)

There's often hostility towards liminal things. Cyclists break up the easy binary of vehicle-pedestrian. A cyclist demands the respect afforded to a wheeled vehicle, but may at no notice mount the kerb and proceed up the pavement, ignoring the lights that prevent motorised vehicles from continuing their journey. A cyclist may demand that they are given the same space as other vehicles while being overtaken, but will slip into small spaces in order to move up the queue of traffic. This can be very aggravating.


----------



## joustmaster (Jul 2, 2015)

CNT36 said:


> Such as? I know sometimes there is shit in them, overgrown stuff etc.


If there is a left hand bend ahead. 
If there is a traffic island ahead. 
If the ground is damaged ahead. 
If the cycle lane/road is too narrow. 
If the vehicle behind me is too big.
And loads of other reason.

The end result is that I mostly end up to the right of the cycle lane for most of the journey. And that means the car behind me just has to wait.
Be patient.


----------



## Santino (Jul 2, 2015)

joustmaster said:


> If there is a left hand bend ahead.
> If there is a traffic island ahead.
> If the ground is damaged ahead.
> If the cycle lane/road is too narrow.
> ...


As patient as a cyclist at a Pelican crossing where there is no pedestrian actually in front of them?


----------



## spanglechick (Jul 2, 2015)

Winot said:


> It sounds like you're a good, careful driver.
> 
> The overtaking thing is interesting.  Cyclists are told off for not staying in cycle lanes and told off for being on the inside of lorries, yet cycle lanes are pretty much always on the left.  Cycle lanes also cease to exist suddenly.  Cyclists are then told off for undertaking when there's not a cycle lane.  Yet when they switch from the left to overtake on the right, they are told off for 'weaving through traffic'.
> 
> ...


OK - so damned if you do and damnedf if you don't?  

Then, from this driver's point of view, PLEASE do the thing that makes you safest and more easily seen.  Personally, I much prefer cyclists to take primary,  (because most of my work journey isn't fast enough to overtake cyclists) but if they must overtake, going from the centre of the lane to the right is the safest thing to do, as it allows evasive action into the opposite lane (and if the opp lane isn't clear, it probably isn't safe to overtake).


----------



## Sweet FA (Jul 2, 2015)

When I'm in my car, cyclists ride like cunts and when I'm on my bike, drivers drive like cunts. 

Everyone rides/drives like a cunt bar me


----------



## JimW (Jul 2, 2015)

Been biking to work while house-sitting and so far drivers have been very nice, often stopping to give you right of way. Suppose that's upside of out in the sticks in general.
Most of route is cycle track along old rail line, great to have safe dedicated path but the surface is shocking, mind so are the roads in Glos


----------



## joustmaster (Jul 2, 2015)

Santino said:


> As patient as a cyclist at a Pelican crossing where there is no pedestrian actually in front of them?


Do you think they are comparable?


----------



## Santino (Jul 2, 2015)

joustmaster said:


> Do you think they are comparable?


Yes. I can compare them.


----------



## CNT36 (Jul 2, 2015)

joustmaster said:


> If there is a left hand bend ahead.
> If there is a traffic island ahead.
> If the ground is damaged ahead.
> If the cycle lane/road is too narrow.
> ...


The extenuating circumstances I meant other than than a left hand bend I've never done that. Its rare I'm not patient. It is usually only a problem when there are a thousand other things happening.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 2, 2015)

It has been said that there is a difference between "cyclists" and "people on bicycles", not unlike the difference between taxpayers and the Taxpayers Alliance.


----------



## Winot (Jul 2, 2015)

Santino said:


> There's often hostility towards liminal things. Cyclists break up the easy binary of vehicle-pedestrian. A cyclist demands the respect afforded to a wheeled vehicle, but may at no notice mount the kerb and proceed up the pavement, ignoring the lights that prevent motorised vehicles from continuing their journey. A cyclist may demand that they are given the same space as other vehicles while being overtaken, but will slip into small spaces in order to move up the queue of traffic. This can be very aggravating.



I suggest that you try not to get aggravated and instead try a little abstract thought, like thinking about what is best for society in terms of addressing the problems of congestion, pollution and obesity.  On all counts, it would be better if more people could be encouraged to cycle.  And if you agree with that, have a think about some of the changes that would achieve that objective (and it doesn't have to mean an acceptance of bad behaviour by cyclists).


----------



## Santino (Jul 2, 2015)

Winot said:


> I suggest that you try not to get aggravated and instead try a little abstract thought, like thinking about what is best for society in terms of addressing the problems of congestion, pollution and obesity.


That's not very abstract. Abstract thought would be more like 'what are the conditions of possibility for a mind to perceive an object in the world?' or 'what are we saying about an action when we say that it is morally justified?'


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 2, 2015)

CNT36 said:


> My main issue with cyclists is when there is a cycle path and they ride just outside of it. Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances but not always. When I have encountered problems it usually seems to be Lycra types. It is a minority but some seem not to concentrate at all on what is going on behind them pulling out to avoid an obstacle sometimes a long way before with no indication or even a look over their shoulder (also an indication).



I usually ride just outside cycle lanes. Why? Cos cycle lanes are usually too narrow and force me to ride in the gutter. I prefer to ride in secondary or primary.


----------



## Winot (Jul 2, 2015)

spanglechick said:


> OK - so damned if you do and damnedf if you don't?
> 
> Then, from this driver's point of view, PLEASE do the thing that makes you safest and more easily seen.  Personally, I much prefer cyclists to take primary,  (because most of my work journey isn't fast enough to overtake cyclists)



Thank you, I've been cycling everywhere for 33 years and I do.



spanglechick said:


> but if they must overtake, going from the centre of the lane to the right is the safest thing to do, as it allows evasive action into the opposite lane (and if the opp lane isn't clear, it probably isn't safe to overtake).



If the cyclist is overtaking you, you can't be moving much more than 10-15 mph.  Rather than veering to the left if there is a bus, you can just stop.


----------



## Winot (Jul 2, 2015)

Santino said:


> That's not very abstract. Abstract thought would be more like 'what are the conditions of possibility for a mind to perceive an object in the world?' or 'what are we saying about an action when we say that it is morally justified?'



OK, just try some 'thought' then.


----------



## joustmaster (Jul 2, 2015)

Santino said:


> Yes. I can compare them.


Alright, pickmans.


----------



## Santino (Jul 2, 2015)

joustmaster said:


> Alright, pickmans.


One person is endangering another's safety through impatience and selfishness, and so is the other.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 2, 2015)

EastEnder said:


> I've got absolutely nothing against cyclists. But I really hate arseholes. Sometimes arseholes ride bikes, sometimes they drive cars, sometimes they walk on the pavement. Cyclists yes, arseholes no.



This.

I will admit to being irritated by the number and speed of people cycling on the pavement atm, though.  As a pedestrian I've had a few near misses in the last few months with people riding up the pavement just expecting you to get out of their way, most recently on my way to work yesterday when a lad missed me by inches as he went by at speed.  I'd never try and stop people cycling on the pavement full stop - there are times when it's safer - but slow down and have some consideration for pedestrians, ffs.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 2, 2015)

One thing I absolutely know for sure is this 'them and us' mentality between cyclists and motorists is utterly toxic and needs sorting out.


----------



## spanglechick (Jul 2, 2015)

Winot said:


> Thank you, I've been cycling everywhere for 33 years and I do.
> 
> 
> 
> If the cyclist is overtaking you, you can't be moving much more than 10-15 mph.  Rather than veering to the left if there is a bus, you can just stop.


I could - but stopping habitually in that situation on the offchance that a cyclist is trying to do something dangerous, would make me a very frustrating driver for vehicles behind me.  These are crowded streets, and all road users refine their position pretty much constantly.  You can't stop every time.


----------



## joustmaster (Jul 2, 2015)

Santino said:


> One person is endangering another's safety through impatience and selfishness, and so is the other.


In the example the cyclist was breaking the law and jumping the crossing. The driver was just being pissed off that a cyclist was in the way.

Either way, a "which is more dangerous" argument is pointless. Its comparing millimeters to kilometers.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 2, 2015)

Personally I'd like to see all cyclists removed from roads. Roads are for cars, sorry. But I'd also like to see billions of pounds worth of investment in creating a network of cycle paths everywhere. Proper ones, like you see in Europe, separate from the roads.


----------



## Belushi (Jul 2, 2015)

Roadkill said:


> This.
> 
> I will admit to being irritated by the number and speed of people cycling on the pavement atm, though.  As a pedestrian I've had a few near misses in the last few months with people riding up the pavement just expecting you to get out of their way, most recently on my way to work yesterday when I lad missed me by inches as he went by at speed.  I'd never try and stop people cycling on the pavement full stop - there are times when it's safer - but slow down and have some consideration for pedestrians, ffs.



This, especially now I'm walking with a stick. Next one who yells at me to move is getting it through his spokes.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 2, 2015)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Personally I'd like to see all cyclists removed from roads. Roads are for cars, sorry. But I'd also like to see billions of pounds worth of investment in creating a network of cycle paths everywhere. Proper ones, like you see in Europe, separate from the roads.




you mean a bit like milton keynes pedestrian redways that are now havens for crime and 17 year old twats on nicked chicken chasers right. It was a great idea but they didn't think it through


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 2, 2015)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Personally I'd like to see all cyclists removed from roads. Roads are for cars, sorry. But I'd also like to see billions of pounds worth of investment in creating a network of cycle paths everywhere. Proper ones, like you see in Europe, separate from the roads.



I agree with this but thanks to the piecemeal way our towns and cities have developed it means in most cases to create these cycle paths you either have to use existing pavements or roads.  Realistically it has to be roads.


----------



## Belushi (Jul 2, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> you mean a bit like milton keynes pedestrian redways that are now havens for crime and 17 year old twats on nicked chicken chasers right. It was a great idea but they didn't think it through



There are loads in the new parts of Peterborough too, I don't know if it's the case now but in the eighties hardly anyone used them, people were only interested in driving.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 2, 2015)

Belushi said:


> This, especially now I'm walking with a stick. Next one who yells at me to move is getting it through his spokes.



FFS, what kind of twat yells at someone to move when they're walking with a stick, especially when they're walking along the pavement - which, after all, is what the pavement is for?! 

I've not seen that recently, thankfully, although the other year I did see someone riding fast down Old Compton Street blowing a whistle to clear people out of his way.


----------



## Winot (Jul 2, 2015)

spanglechick said:


> I could - but stopping habitually in that situation on the offchance that a cyclist is trying to do something dangerous, would make me a very frustrating driver for vehicles behind me.  These are crowded streets, and all road users refine their position pretty much constantly.  You can't stop every time.



OK - I don't want a row as you are clearly a thoughtful driver - I don't really understand the scenario you are describing though - I thought you were talking about having to veer left to take evasive action in unusual situations e.g. when a bus coming towards you veered into your lane?

Anyway, I suspect that we are thinking about different scenarios - I cycle in central London and undertaking on right when traffic slows is common and mostly safe, providing as you say the cyclist is looking ahead and thinking.


----------



## joustmaster (Jul 2, 2015)

a stick attack seems justified.
Swipe away!


----------



## Crispy (Jul 2, 2015)

(repeating myself from a previous thread)

I think it's interesting that this thread is about "cyclists" but other forms of traffic are generally named after the vehicle. That car just jumped a red. That bus is going too slow. That truck is taking up two lanes. That _cyclist_ is weaving through traffic.

I think that a significant proportion of "what people have got against cyclists" is that they're a visible person, acting in a certain way. When people drive larger vehicles badly, we give the vehicle itself some agency, and it's harder to have strong feelings about a machine.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

spanglechick said:


> I don't hate cyclists at all.  But sometimes the mistakes any road-user makes force me to take emergency evasive action / emergency stop.  When a driver does that, it's annoying.  When it's a cyclist, it shits mne right up, because with slower reactions, or if i was distracted by kids in the car or whatever - I'd have hit them and I'd have hurt them.  So I find the most stressful moments on the road by far are caused by cyclists.
> 
> Most of those moments, btw - are when cyclists have decided there is another lane in the road, especially to my left (where no cycle lane exists).  Overtaking stationary vehicles to the left or right is fine.  Overtaking moving vehicles must be done on the right, and with some sense of reading the road ahead.  No matter what vehicle, no one takes a purely straight path through traffic.  We adjust to make room for buses coming the other way, or because there's crap in the road, loads of things.  It's why when I overtake a cyclist I leave as much space as I can, and at least a metre...  If I'm stood still in traffic, I check my mirrors before i move off... but while i'm actually driving I have to spend most of my time looking ahead, and I'm not necessarily going to see someone who's decided they can go faster than me by squeezing through the gap between me and the parked cars to my left.  But that gap won't always stay the same width...
> 
> It stops my heart when it happens.  Really upsetting.


Good stuff, though you need to leave as much room as you leave a car when passing a cyclist. Not many drivers seem to be aware of this. I think questions on article 166 are left out of theory tests, as so many are unaware.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

CNT36 said:


> My main issue with cyclists is when there is a cycle path and they ride just outside of it. Sometimes there are extenuating circumstances but not always. When I have encountered problems it usually seems to be Lycra types. It is a minority but some seem not to concentrate at all on what is going on behind them pulling out to avoid an obstacle sometimes a long way before with no indication or even a look over their shoulder (also an indication).


If it's an on road cycle path, it's justified to ride outside of it. I often ride outside of them.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 2, 2015)

Teaboy said:


> I agree with this but thanks to the piecemeal way our towns and cities have developed it means in most cases to create these cycle paths you either have to use existing pavements or roads.  Realistically it has to be roads.


So you at least put a small kerb in to separate the bikes away from the cars.


----------



## Winot (Jul 2, 2015)

Crispy said:


> (repeating myself from a previous thread)
> 
> I think it's interesting that this thread is about "cyclists" but other forms of traffic are generally named after the vehicle. That car just jumped a red. That bus is going too slow. That truck is taking up two lanes. That _cyclist_ is weaving through traffic.
> 
> I think that a significant proportion of "what people have got against cyclists" is that they're a visible person, acting in a certain way. When people drive larger vehicles badly, we give the vehicle itself some agency, and it's harder to have strong feelings about a machine.



Yes!



Winot said:


> I think 'anonymous' is interesting.  Harder to hate an anonymous mass of hot metal than a visible human.  Yet inside the car is a human who is in charge of what it does.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

CNT36 said:


> Such as? I know sometimes there is shit in them, overgrown stuff etc.


They're often on narrow roads, and give drivers licence to pass too closely, leaving you with no swerve room. And so often there is debris on a cycle lane that needs to be swerved. There are often also parked cars immediately next to a cycle lane.


----------



## Winot (Jul 2, 2015)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Personally I'd like to see all cyclists removed from roads. Roads are for cars, sorry. But I'd also like to see billions of pounds worth of investment in creating a network of cycle paths everywhere. Proper ones, like you see in Europe, separate from the roads.



Where do you drive?  Your idea isn't practical in London (I don't know much about cycling in other cities).


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> It has been said that there is a difference between "cyclists" and "people on bicycles", not unlike the difference between taxpayers and the Taxpayers Alliance.


What nonsense is this?


----------



## plurker (Jul 2, 2015)

I usually ride just outside of the cycle path - if there is one, or 1mtr from kerb/cars/etc

Aside from the reasons above, I'm faster than 95% of other cyclists - safer for me to keep a clean line and drivers to see that I'm doing so, than to keep pulling in and out round slower riders

And it gives me a metre on my nearside to swerve into if, as an example, a car's turning into a side-road across me, or anything else unexpected happens.

They're also slipperier in the wet - the painted ones, at least.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Personally I'd like to see all cyclists removed from roads. Roads are for cars, sorry. But I'd also like to see billions of pounds worth of investment in creating a network of cycle paths everywhere. Proper ones, like you see in Europe, separate from the roads.


Tarmacced roads were built for cyclists originally


----------



## gentlegreen (Jul 2, 2015)

Indeed - and even in the USA


----------



## Winot (Jul 2, 2015)

Santino said:


> That's not very abstract. Abstract thought would be more like 'what are the conditions of possibility for a mind to perceive an object in the world?' or 'what are we saying about an action when we say that it is morally justified?'



So Santino, do you think it would be better if more people could be encouraged to cycle?


----------



## Sea Star (Jul 2, 2015)

ska invita said:


> how can you tell what drivers behind you are feeling?


Most of them seem insistent on telling you just how they feel using words and angry gestures. Sometimes its a look on their face and sometimes its the way they are beeping their horn, gesticulating and revving their engines at you, and sometimes actually physically engaging with your bicycle. I had to replace three back wheels that had been destroyed by angry motorists behind me before I gave up cycling entirely.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 2, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Tarmacced roads were built for cyclists originally


And?


----------



## Belushi (Jul 2, 2015)

The first paved roads were built for pedestrians ( I think marching Roman Legions count) :thumbs :


----------



## fen_boy (Jul 2, 2015)

I'd like to see cars restricted to motorways and leave roads to the cyclists for which they were built.


----------



## Sea Star (Jul 2, 2015)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> And?


I find this fact interesting after being told for years by pissed off motorists that the roads were built for cars. They clearly weren't.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 2, 2015)

Belushi said:


> The first paved roads were built for pedestrians ( I think marching Roman Legions count) :thumbs :



Macadam's process was designed with horse-drawn carriages in mind though, and pitch was added to the mix well before the term "tarmac" was coined.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> And?


It's interesting. And shows your notion that roads are for cars to be bollocks. What are road bikes for? What is the Tour De France raced on?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 2, 2015)

Belushi said:


> The first paved roads were built for pedestrians ( I think marching Roman Legions count) :thumbs :


thats where we get mile from. Good old soldiering.


----------



## CNT36 (Jul 2, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> They're often on narrow roads, and give drivers licence to pass too closely, leaving you with no swerve room. And so often there is debris on a cycle lane that needs to be swerved. There are often also parked cars immediately next to a cycle lane.


When I've been in a perfectly adequate wide,clear cycle lane and ahead of me someone else is riding in the road I can't understand why. Where I am thinking of is a pretty dangerous bit of road with a lot going on.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 2, 2015)

Winot said:


> Where do you drive?  Your idea isn't practical in London (I don't know much about cycling in other cities).


Anything can be done if the will is there. If it means a reduction in road capacity so be it.

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate cyclists. I just hate them being on the roads, cars (and more importantly HGV's) and bikes are two modes of transport that shouldn't mix. So let's build a huge cycle network that is designed to be safe for those using it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/15/cyclists-paved-way-for-roads


----------



## ska invita (Jul 2, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> Most of them seem insistent on telling you just how they feel using words and angry gestures. Sometimes its a look on their face and sometimes its the way they are beeping their horn, gesticulating and revving their engines at you, and sometimes actually physically engaging with your bicycle. I had to replace three back wheels that had been destroyed by angry motorists behind me before I gave up cycling entirely.


that is terrible - what did they do to destroy your back wheel - ram you off your bike?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Anything can be done if the will is there. If it means a reduction in road capacity so be it.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I don't hate cyclists. I just hate them being on the roads, cars (and more importantly HGV's) and bikes are two modes of transport that shouldn't mix. So let's build a huge cycle network that is designed to be safe for those using it.


Where possible, yes. But not in some places. We have to learn to co-exist too.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 2, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> It's interesting. And shows your notion that roads are for cars to be bollocks. What ate road bikes for? What is the Tour De France raced on?


Things change, the world moves on. Roads are for cars now and that isn't going to change. So let's build something more appropriate for bikes.


----------



## Sea Star (Jul 2, 2015)

ska invita said:


> that is terrible - what did they do to destroy your back wheel - ram you off your bike?


In one case it was a black cab behind me waiting for red lights to change. He'd already tried to overtake me dangerously but because it wasn't safe and I was going too fast he coulodn't but was obviously annoyed about it. When the lights went red he mounted my rear wheel and crushed it!! 

The other times they just rammed me and tried to knock me off.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 2, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Where possible, yes. But not in some places. We have to learn to co-exist too.


Quiet residential streets wouldn't need it. But there's no reason why anywhere else couldn't be done, other than money. It would cost billions, but so will a Trident replacement and I know which would be better for us all.


----------



## plurker (Jul 2, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> In one case it was a black cab behind me waiting for red lights to change. He'd already tried to overtake me dangerously but because it wasn't safe and I was going too fast he coulodn't but was obviously annoyed about it. When the lights went red he mounted my rear wheel and crushed it!!
> 
> The other times they just rammed me and tried to knock me off.




I've seen this done twice - once deliberately as you describe, and the other where a car pulled when lights changed and simply didn't see the rider who had been in the ASB, and just drove up over him.


----------



## Sea Star (Jul 2, 2015)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Things change, the world moves on. Roads are for cars now and that isn't going to change. So let's build something more appropriate for bikes.


How does one cycle to places served only by roads if not allowed to cycle on roads. It will be impossible to build cycle lanes in most places unless you can come up with a way that no-one else has thought of yet. and how to fund this?


----------



## Winot (Jul 2, 2015)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Anything can be done if the will is there. If it means a reduction in road capacity so be it.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I don't hate cyclists. I just hate them being on the roads, cars (and more importantly HGV's) and bikes are two modes of transport that shouldn't mix. So let's build a huge cycle network that is designed to be safe for those using it.



Fair enough.  I suspect the world you and I would like to see looks similar.  Until it happens though, we need to rub along.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Things change, the world moves on. Roads are for cars now and that isn't going to change. So let's build something more appropriate for bikes.


They are still for cyclists too. Might does not equal right. It's not possible to build separate routes every where, so motorists and cyclists are going to have to learn to accommodate each other.


----------



## Sea Star (Jul 2, 2015)

Winot said:


> Fair enough.  I suspect the world you and I would like to see looks similar.  Until it happens though, we need to rub along.


Exactly - nothing would make me happier than to be able to cycle away from motorised transport and pedestrians but I just can't see it being practicable or affordable. Or for that matter there ever being the political will. So therefore we are stuck with things how they are and there's no point talking about a mythical utopian system we may or may not have one day. At the moment cycle facilities are so underfunded we just need to prioritise and make sure what we have is fit for purpose.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Quiet residential streets wouldn't need it. But there's no reason why anywhere else couldn't be done, other than money. It would cost billions, but so will a Trident replacement and I know which would be better for us all.


Quiet residential streets is where I see most dangerous driving, unfortunately.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 2, 2015)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Things change, the world moves on. Roads are for cars now and that isn't going to change. So let's build something more appropriate for bikes.


 a 50 year building project at conservative estimate- for everyone not just city wankers- should be just in time for peak oil at which point I hope to be still able enough to unicycle round the centre of the M25 at what was once called rush hour


----------



## Sea Star (Jul 2, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Quiet residential streets is where I see most dangerous driving, unfortunately.


Exactly the roads I used to avoid - not enough space for on-coming cars to pass easily, cars always pulling out, loads of blind spots, speeding rat runners. Avoid!


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> Exactly the roads I used to avoid - not enough space for on-coming cars to pass easily, cars always pulling out, loads of blind spots, speeding rat runners. Avoid!


Which is why I try to use the bigger roads, the roads we're being told are for cars, not cyclists.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 2, 2015)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Personally I'd like to see all cyclists removed from roads. Roads are for cars, sorry. But I'd also like to see billions of pounds worth of investment in creating a network of cycle paths everywhere. Proper ones, like you see in Europe, separate from the roads.


 
Me too.  Having cyclists mostly on the roads leads to a stupid 'keeping up with the traffic' machismo which doesn't help anybody.  Not least when you get some pedestrianisation / shared areas or whatever and you have cyclists getting the arse on about being stuck behind someone on foot.

You'd get a lot less injury and death having bicycles and people on foot sharing space than bicycles and 18-wheelers.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

8ball said:


> Me too.  Having cyclists mostly on the roads leads to a stupid 'keeping up with the traffic' machismo which doesn't help anybody.


And also motorists refusing to make allowances for the presence of cyclists. Abd refusing to slow down and overtaking primary positioned cyclists who are just trying to stay alive.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 2, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> And also motorists refusing to make allowances for the presence of cyclists. Abd refusing to slow down and overtaking primary positioned cyclists who are just trying to stay alive.


 
And also cyclists failing to stop at traffic lights, and tearing too fast along pavements when they don't like the look of what's on the road, and acting like lycra is somehow acceptable on a 45 year old man.


----------



## Sea Star (Jul 2, 2015)

8ball said:


> and acting like lycra is somehow acceptable on a 45 year old man.



your irrational prejudice is showing.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 2, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> your irrational prejudice is showing.


 
Your inability to grasp context is showing.


----------



## Santino (Jul 2, 2015)

Winot said:


> So Santino, do you think it would be better if more people could be encouraged to cycle?


It depends.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 2, 2015)

Santino said:


> It depends.


 
Comfy fence?


----------



## Winot (Jul 2, 2015)

8ball said:


> And also cyclists failing to stop at traffic lights, and tearing too fast along pavements when they don't like the look of what's on the road, and acting like lycra is somehow acceptable on a 45 year old man.



As someone once said - why does every other cyclist on the road have to obey the law in order for me to deserve not to have my life put in danger?


----------



## 8ball (Jul 2, 2015)

Winot said:


> As someone once said - why does every other cyclist on the road have to obey the law in order for me to deserve not to have my life put in danger?


 
I can see I'm going to have to go a lot simpler with this...


----------



## Santino (Jul 2, 2015)

8ball said:


> Comfy fence?


That metaphor is more suited to the cyclist, being a liminal figure straddling the categories of vehicle and person and inhabiting neither completely.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 2, 2015)

Santino said:


> That metaphor is more suited to the cyclist, being a liminal figure straddling the categories of vehicle and person and inhabiting neither completely.


 
This is going to go well...


----------



## Belushi (Jul 2, 2015)

I'm going to try and work 'liminal' into my conversations today, probably when I go to the shop :thumbs :


----------



## 8ball (Jul 2, 2015)

... but anyway, I'd personally be much more likely to get a pushbike if it was a more relaxed way of getting about as opposed to a horrifying gauntlet where a minor mistake on my part or someone else's (the former frankly being much more likely) was likely to end in disaster.

When driving a car, which I don't do much these days, I'm happy to accommodate cyclists who want to do this, but it's not for me and I think there is a limit to how much uptake of cycling there will be with this approach, which is a shame as it has a lot going for it.

Maybe I'm being a wuss, but I might be a healthier wuss on a bike.


----------



## Santino (Jul 2, 2015)

Belushi said:


> I'm going to try and work 'liminal' into my conversations today, probably when I go to the shop :thumbs :


Try 'sagittal' too. I've never managed to crowbar it in.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jul 2, 2015)

8ball said:


> ... but anyway, I'd personally be much more likely to get a pushbike if it was a more relaxed way of getting about as opposed to a horrifying gauntlet where a minor mistake on my part or someone else's (the former frankly being much more likely) was likely to end in disaster.


It's other cyclists I have to watch out for these days - I have 38 years' experience with 4 wheeled traffic and I know their ways - and a lot of the time they aren't going anywhere, but the new crop of macho men on bikes is actively spoiling what had become the best part of my day.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 2, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> you mean a bit like milton keynes pedestrian redways that are now havens for crime and 17 year old twats on nicked chicken chasers right. It was a great idea but they didn't think it through



Aren't the MK and Stevenage stuff all parallel networks? So rather than taking the direct roads, you take a more roundabout traffic free route. What Bees is talking about, what they have in NL/DK/Germany is more like pavements, running alongside the existing road network, not in parallel to it.
I bet the pavements in MK are still busy. If the redways aren't, and the pavements are, then it's not down to a lack of demand, it's down to a shit network, of the wrong type, one built on the idea of grade separation that was big in the post-war period but has shown to be a failure wherever it's been implemented.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 2, 2015)

Santino said:


> That metaphor is more suited to the cyclist, being a liminal figure straddling the categories of vehicle and person and inhabiting neither completely.


pseuds' corner >>>>


----------



## 8ball (Jul 2, 2015)

gentlegreen said:


> It's other cyclists I have to watch out for these days - I have 38 years' experience with 4 wheeled traffic and I know their ways - and a lot of the time they aren't going anywhere, but the new crop of macho men on bikes is actively spoiling what had become the best part of my day.


 
I think it's the need to compete with motorized traffic that has led to this.  You need to be in a pretty hyper-alert state and be able to assert your position on the road at a moment's notice, which is easy to tip into a default state of aggression.

Why car drivers are so aggressive is a bit more of a mystery on the other hand, being comfy and protected.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

8ball said:


> And also cyclists failing to stop at traffic lights, and tearing too fast along pavements when they don't like the look of what's on the road, and acting like lycra is somehow acceptable on a 45 year old man.


You were doing so well until the last bit, which is just silly prejudiced nonsense


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 2, 2015)

BigTom said:


> Aren't the MK and Stevenage stuff all parallel networks? So rather than taking the direct roads, you take a more roundabout traffic free route. What Bees is talking about, what they have in NL/DK/Germany is more like pavements, running alongside the existing road network, not in parallel to it.
> I bet the pavements in MK are still busy. If the redways aren't, and the pavements are, then it's not down to a lack of demand, it's down to a shit network, of the wrong type, one built on the idea of grade separation that was big in the post-war period but has shown to be a failure wherever it's been implemented.


the redway network is massive, in many places there simply isn't a road (that has a pavement). You walk up an incline to hit the bus stop at the appropriate point or you walk the redway. The road system is fasciticaly gridded into V an H directions. A right cunt, make three wrong turns and you are back where you started


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 2, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> You were doing so well until the last bit, which is just silly prejudiced nonsense


i think it's time for you to fess up how much lycra you own


----------



## 8ball (Jul 2, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> You were doing so well until the last bit, which is just silly prejudiced nonsense


I was aping your stance of throwing about generalized nonsense with no recourse to the point made.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i think it's time for you to fess up how much lycra you own


I have some unused in a closet that is waiting for me to be less fat.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

8ball said:


> I was aping your stance of throwing about generalized nonsense with no recourse to the point made.


Please qualify this


----------



## 8ball (Jul 2, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Please qualify this


 
None of it (ie. pointing out bad things that drivers often do) relates to the point that having vehicles of very different speed and vulnerability creates the risk that creates a certain kind of culture, any more than pointing out cases of cyclists' infractions (the lycra thing was meant to be taken as obvious hyperbole).

It would cost a huge amount of money to change things so that cyclists did not have to share space with heavy traffic at least some of the time, but the risks (which are probably not as great as they are perceived to be) and the expectations of what you need to do and how you need to act to get around alive on a bike in heavy traffic are pretty offputting.

I like the idea of shared areas for modes of transport from walking to a-little-faster-than-running speed, and then separate areas for machines that can crush you like a bug.


----------



## Sea Star (Jul 2, 2015)

Santino said:


> That metaphor is more suited to the cyclist, being a liminal figure straddling the categories of vehicle and person and inhabiting neither completely.


How is a cyclist not a person completely?


----------



## Santino (Jul 2, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> pseuds' corner >>>>


 A corner would be more appropriate for someone who has taken up a position to such an extreme degree that they are boxed in on two sides by the ridiculousness of their own arguments.


----------



## fen_boy (Jul 2, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> I have some unused in a closet that is waiting for me to be less fat.



Lycra's great if you're fat. It stretches and prevents chaffing.


----------



## spanglechick (Jul 2, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Good stuff, though you need to leave as much room as you leave a car when passing a cyclist. Not many drivers seem to be aware of this. I think questions on article 166 are left out of theory tests, as so many are unaware.


I leave easily as much space as I do for cars.  Very rarely overtake cars, but if they are slowing down to turn left, say, then I'd overtake a car with 1 metre clearance, same as.

Not trying to be provocative at all - is there a reason why a bike shouldn't also leave a significant clearance when overtaking another vehicle?


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 2, 2015)

8ball said:


> I like the idea of shared areas for modes of transport from walking to a-little-faster-than-running speed, and then separate areas for machines that can crush you like a bug.



From my pov the problem is that many cyclists aren't moving at a little more than running speed: they're going fast enough to keep up with the motorised traffic, but doing it on the pavement where it would only take one step to the side by a pedestrian who's not heard them coming for there to be a nasty accident.


----------



## Sea Star (Jul 2, 2015)

gentlegreen said:


> It's other cyclists I have to watch out for these days - I have 38 years' experience with 4 wheeled traffic and I know their ways - and a lot of the time they aren't going anywhere, but the new crop of macho men on bikes is actively spoiling what had become the best part of my day.


I have to admit the fact that I had so many run ins with young braying men on bikes worth my mortgage who don't seem to have learned to show any consideration to others is part of why I gave up cycling after 35 years and bought a car.


----------



## Santino (Jul 2, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> How is a cyclist not a person completely?


In the context of transport, a cyclist is hermeneutically understood as both wheeled vehicle and person, but has sacrificed part of their personhood in order to achieve capabilities beyond that of a pedestrian - the mark of pure personhood in this field is reserved solely for those with two able legs; those using wheelchairs, buggies and scooters are also, in different ways, treated as Others in varying degrees and respects.


----------



## fen_boy (Jul 2, 2015)

Santino said:


> In the context of transport, a cyclist is hermeneutically understood as both wheeled vehicle and person, but has sacrificed part of their personhood in order to achieve capabilities beyond that of a pedestrian



Like Robocop?


----------



## Sea Star (Jul 2, 2015)

Santino said:


> In the context of transport, a cyclist is hermeneutically understood as both wheeled vehicle and person, but has sacrificed part of their personhood in order to achieve capabilities beyond that of a pedestrian - the mark of pure personhood in this field is reserved solely for those with two able legs; those using wheelchairs, buggies and scooters are also, in different ways, treated as Others in varying degrees and respects.


I never felt that I sacrificed part of my personhood. Isn't this just claptrap designed to enable others to treat us like annoying objects?


----------



## Santino (Jul 2, 2015)

Partly.


----------



## Sea Star (Jul 2, 2015)

fen_boy said:


> Like Robocop?


----------



## 8ball (Jul 2, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> How is a cyclist not a person completely?


 
I think that was possibly just a verbal slip.

edit: nope - got to that too late


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

8ball said:


> None of it (ie. pointing out bad things that drivers often do) relates to the point that having vehicles of very different speed and vulnerability creates the risk that creates a certain kind of culture, any more than pointing out cases of cyclists' infractions (the lycra thing was meant to be taken as obvious hyperbole).
> 
> It would cost a huge amount of money to change things so that cyclists did not have to share space with heavy traffic at least some of the time, but the risks (which are probably not as great as they are perceived to be) and the expectations of what you need to do and how you need to act to get around alive on a bike in heavy traffic are pretty offputting.
> 
> I like the idea of shared areas for modes of transport from walking to a-little-faster-than-running speed, and then separate areas for machines that can crush you like a bug.


Great stuff, though not what I asked!


----------



## fredfelt (Jul 2, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> the people with the most lycra seem to be the people with the least need for it.



Not sure about that.  It's very helpful in the prevention of chaffing.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

spanglechick said:


> I leave easily as much space as I do for cars.  Very rarely overtake cars, but if they are slowing down to turn left, say, then I'd overtake a car with 1 metre clearance, same as.
> 
> Not trying to be provocative at all - is there a reason why a bike shouldn't also leave a significant clearance when overtaking another vehicle?


It should. Cyclists need to pass with enough clearance to avoid a dooring


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 2, 2015)

fredfelt said:


> Not sure about that.  It's very helpful in the prevention of chaffing.


how is it for chafing?


----------



## 8ball (Jul 2, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Great stuff, though not what I asked!


 
What, specifically, were you asking me to qualify?


----------



## plurker (Jul 2, 2015)

Roadkill said:


> From my pov the problem is that many cyclists aren't moving at a little more than running speed: they're going fast enough to keep up with the motorised traffic, but doing it on the pavement where it would only take one step to the side by a pedestrian who's not heard them coming for there to be a nasty accident.



In all honesty I don't think I've ever seen a rider doing 20+ mph on a pavement. If there are these people then they're twats.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 2, 2015)

Roadkill said:


> From my pov the problem is that many cyclists aren't moving at a little more than running speed: they're going fast enough to keep up with the motorised traffic, but doing it on the pavement where it would only take one step to the side by a pedestrian who's not heard them coming for there to be a nasty accident.


 
Well, obviously that's not good.  Any shared area is going to need people to behave responsibly.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

8ball said:


> What, specifically, were you asking me to qualify?


The statement I quoted, of course.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

I do get the arse with riders who go the same speed on shared paths than they do on the road. I hope they fall in the canal.


----------



## fredfelt (Jul 2, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> how is it for chafing?



From the point of view of a dyslexic there's absolutely no difference.

or as I should have said, there's no chaffing difference!


----------



## 8ball (Jul 2, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> The statement I quoted, of course..


 
Try re-reading #119 and follow it up with the first paragraph of #142.

edit: fluffed the quote a bit there - now fixed


----------



## The Boy (Jul 2, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Where possible, yes. But not in some places. We have to learn to co-exist too.


Even in Holland there are large parts of the road network where vehicles and bicycle mix.  The bikes tend to have priority though, as they often do at junctions.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

8ball said:


> Try re-reading #119 and follow it up with the first paragraph of #142.


I will have to wait til I get home, cos my phone doesn't identify post numbers


----------



## The Boy (Jul 2, 2015)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Things change, the world moves on. Roads are for cars now and that isn't going to change. So let's build something more appropriate for bikes.


No they're not.  They're for all road users ( apart from the roads which non-drivers have to subsidise such as motorways, obvs).

Until there is an actual network of proper cycle paths, built to a decent standard, which are properly interconnected and actually go where people want to go then the roads are there for everyone.


----------



## fredfelt (Jul 2, 2015)

Is it that those people who have an axe to grind about cyclists are generally angry, even jealous of the freedoms, space, and fitness that a bicycle rewards its owner with?  I'm sure for most people this cyclists vs driver thing is a nonsense. 

I'm also sure that any sane person simply wants to get on with their day without hating anyone.

However, if I have had to spend this beautiful weather we have been having over the last few days sweltering in a car I'm sure I'd end up hating everyone else - not just cyclists.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 2, 2015)

Cars have air con, they're one of the better places to be in this weather


----------



## 8ball (Jul 2, 2015)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Cars have air con, they're one of the better places to be in this weather


 
Mine doesn't. 

Fortunately the windows open...


----------



## The Boy (Jul 2, 2015)

8ball said:


> Why car drivers are so aggressive is a bit more of a mystery on the other hand, being comfy and protected.



A car is a pretty alien environment.  You're insulated from the outside world very efficiently in a modern car, ime.  Everyone else is too, so it's easy to dehumanise ( not really the word I'm looking for) interactions with other road users.  

Add in the frankly pretty macho culture that seems to surround cars and car driving and it all adds up.

The above is based on nothing more than idle speciation obvs.


----------



## fredfelt (Jul 2, 2015)

The more important questions, as far as I'm concerned, are

Why is so little money spent on cycling? 
Why is it always assumed that to ease congestion more money needs to be spent on building more roads? 
Why do we endlessly encourage more cars on the road by building more roads?
Why are we surprised when people become dependant on their cars and get aggravated by traffic jams caused by too many cars?
Is it surprising that a car dependant nation sees the solution to traffic jams as more roads?
Why are we surprised when cyclists behave badly when they are, at best, an after thought in planning transport infrastructure?
Why not have a vision where we plan for people friendly cities, build infrastructure for people friendly cities, and then get people friendly cities?


----------



## 8ball (Jul 2, 2015)

The Boy said:


> A car is a pretty alien environment.  You're insulated from the outside world very efficiently in a modern car, ime.  Everyone else is too, so it's easy to dehumanise ( not really the word I'm looking for) interactions with other road users.
> 
> Add in the frankly pretty macho culture that seems to surround cars and car driving and it all adds up.
> 
> The above is based on nothing more than idle speciation obvs.


 
I think there's something in that. 

Also an element of it being a mobile element of your 'property/territory'.

And maybe a bit of the cognitive dissonance caused by having to be 'responsible' and law-abiding and mindful of safety in an environment which can be unpredictable and frustrating.

And paying tens of thousands of pounds for a symbol of freedom and potency only to be sat stationary for an hour behind an Ocado van.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 2, 2015)

plurker said:


> In all honesty I don't think I've ever seen a rider doing 20+ mph on a pavement. If there are these people then they're twats.



I'm not going to try and estimate exact speeds, but several times I've seen or been passed by people on bikes, on the pavement and on pedestrianised streets, travelling at well over running speed.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Cars have air con, they're one of the better places to be in this weather


There is natural air con on a bike!


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 2, 2015)

If you are riding dirty then its absolutely possible to weave safely between both pedestrians and traffic while doing about 15 mph. If you don't like that then you can move to north korea


----------



## fuck seals (Jul 2, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> How is it crap? I think it's spot on.



In that the attitudes to cycling & cyclists - sometimes right, sometimes wrong - are not equatable to social prejudice in 70s & 60s.  that seems to me to be dramatic hyperbole that weakens your position.  i think that you can see that really.

full disclosure: i'm a london cyclist & a london driver.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

fuck seals said:


> In that the attitudes to cycling & cyclists - sometimes right, sometimes wrong - are not equatable to social prejudice in 70s & 60s.  that seems to me to be dramatic hyperbole that weakens your position.  i think that you can see that really.
> 
> full disclosure: i'm a london cyclist & a london driver.


I would say comparable rather than equatable.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 2, 2015)

Roadkill said:


> I'm not going to try and estimate exact speeds, but several times I've seen or been passed by people on bikes, on the pavement and on pedestrianised streets, travelling at well over running speed.




In that case they are massive dickheads who are sooner or later going to hurt themselves or others.


----------



## fuck seals (Jul 2, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> I would say comparable rather than equatable.



fair enough.  not sure i agree still, but hey-ho, if u75 teaches one thing, it's that differing views not need not be dismissed in light of each other's position.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 2, 2015)

Artaxerxes said:


> In that case they are massive dickheads who are sooner or later going to hurt themselves or others.



Yeah.  Nearly me yesterday morning, which is why I've a bee in my bonnet atm!


----------



## EastEnder (Jul 2, 2015)

fredfelt said:


> Is it that those people who have an axe to grind about cyclists are generally angry, even jealous of the freedoms, space, and fitness that a bicycle rewards its owner with?


I think my smug-o-meter just exploded.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 2, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> There is natural air con on a bike!


Yep, lovely hot, polluted air. Along with the sweaty smell, aching limbs and lack of breath at your destination it's such a relaxing way to travel.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 2, 2015)

cos they're different! and making an effort so make the drivers sometimes feel bad and judged 
or they're so important that nothing must get tin their way or question their choices!

bit similar to people getting worked up about vegetarians and vegans!


----------



## Santino (Jul 2, 2015)

I'm at a work event and several vegans took their reserved lunches, and then helped themselves to the general table of sandwiches, resulting in a few people not getting any lunch.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 2, 2015)

Santino said:


> I'm at a work event and several vegans took their reserved lunches, and then helped themselves to the general table of sandwiches, resulting in a few people not getting any lunch.



Were they cyclists? 

Bastards.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 2, 2015)

Santino said:


> I'm at a work event and several vegans took their reserved lunches, and then helped themselves to the general table of sandwiches, resulting in a few people not getting any lunch.


More proof that a vegan diet is inadequate and leads to poor behaviour


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Yep, lovely hot, polluted air. Along with the sweaty smell, aching limbs and lack of breath at your destination it's such a relaxing way to travel.


It feels cool on a bike, silly. And I wasn't aware that air con removed pollution. That's revolutionary technology. 
Nowt wrong with getting fit. It relaxes you, anyway.


----------



## ddraig (Jul 2, 2015)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> More proof that a vegan diet is inadequate and leads to poor behaviour


could you beat any of these?
http://www.veganrunners.org.uk/
no not in your car

how healthy are you these days?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 2, 2015)

Santino said:


> I'm at a work event and several vegans took their reserved lunches, and then helped themselves to the general table of sandwiches, resulting in a few people not getting any lunch.


i think what you're saying is other people were slow off the mark.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 2, 2015)

CNT36 said:


> When I've been in a perfectly adequate wide,clear cycle lane and ahead of me someone else is riding in the road I can't understand why. Where I am thinking of is a pretty dangerous bit of road with a lot going on.



I often see cyclists in the cycle lane and wonder why they're not out in the road where they can be seen.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 2, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> It feels cool on a bike, silly. And I wasn't aware that air con removed pollution. That's revolutionary technology.
> Nowt wrong with getting fit. It relaxes you, anyway.


yeh but from what you've said above you're on the journey - the getting - but not approaching the destination - the being - too rapidly.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 2, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> I often see cyclists in the cycle lane and wonder why they're not out in the road where they can be seen.


where they can be *noticed*


----------



## Santino (Jul 2, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i think what you're saying is other people were slow off the mark.


Only because they had to go the long way round because of their wheelchairs.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 2, 2015)

Santino said:


> Only because they had to go the long way round because of their wheelchairs.


vegans are crafty like that, you have to watch them like a hawk.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 2, 2015)

ddraig said:


> could you beat any of these?
> http://www.veganrunners.org.uk/


Jesus, veganism and running. A double dose of stupid.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 2, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> It feels cool on a bike, silly. And I wasn't aware that air con removed pollution. That's revolutionary technology.
> Nowt wrong with getting fit. It relaxes you, anyway.


Last time I tried this "getting fit" lark it was anything but relaxing. Unless your idea of relaxing is feeling like death and in need of a pint


----------



## souljacker (Jul 2, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> And I wasn't aware that air con removed pollution. That's revolutionary technology.



If you use the recirculate button, it cools air from the inside of the car rather than getting it from the outside.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 2, 2015)

souljacker said:


> If you use the recirculate button, it cools air from the inside of the car rather than getting it from the outside.



Very clever that: it recycles your farts.


----------



## Sea Star (Jul 2, 2015)

EastEnder said:


> I think my smug-o-meter just exploded.


Was it a motorist with air con?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Jesus, veganism and running. A double dose of stupid.


Don't be a dick


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Last time I tried this "getting fit" lark it was anything but relaxing. Unless your idea of relaxing is feeling like death and in need of a pint


It allows you to relax. I never feel like death after a ride. I feel super chilled (unless I have an unpleasant encounter with a bad road user)


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

souljacker said:


> If you use the recirculate button, it cools air from the inside of the car rather than getting it from the outside.


And where does that air come from. There's more pollution to breathed in in a car, than on a bike, you know.


----------



## souljacker (Jul 2, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> And where does that air come from.



Inside the car, like I said.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 2, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> And I wasn't aware that air con removed pollution. That's revolutionary technology.



It's not. The air going into cars via a/c is filtered and sometimes cleaned.


----------



## CNT36 (Jul 2, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> I often see cyclists in the cycle lane and wonder why they're not out in the road where they can be seen.


I don't want to be seen.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

CNT36 said:


> I don't want to be seen.


Eh?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> It's not. The air going into cars via a/c is filtered and sometimes cleaned.


Well it doesn't work as there is more pollution inside a car as there is on a bike.


----------



## souljacker (Jul 2, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> It's not. The air going into cars via a/c is filtered and sometimes cleaned.



Usually only a pollen filter though, unless you have a merc or something extra flash.


----------



## souljacker (Jul 2, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Well it doesn't work as there is more pollution inside a car as there is on a bike.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 2, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Well it doesn't work as there is more pollution inside a car as there is on a bike.




That would depend on where you're driving/riding and probably on who's in the car with you.






You breathe all that shite.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

souljacker said:


>


https://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/air-pollution-worst-inside-cars-research


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 2, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> You breathe all that shite.




What, even the big twigs?



souljacker said:


> Usually only a pollen filter though, unless you have a merc or something extra flash.



What you driving these days Spymaster?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 2, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> https://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/air-pollution-worst-inside-cars-research



That study is based on drivers sitting in rush hour traffic jams whilst cyclist take less polluted side roads. That's not what happens in London. Cyclist are breathing the same shitty air (far more directly and unfiltered) as drivers are sitting in.


----------



## joustmaster (Jul 2, 2015)

The heats making people talk madness. 

Are we really arguing about not going outside because of mucky air?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 2, 2015)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> What you driving these days Spymaster?



A non-Audi


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> That study is based on drivers sitting in rush hour traffic jams whilst cyclist take less polluted side roads. That's not what happens in London. Cyclist are breathing the same shitty air (far more directly and unfiltered) as drivers are sitting in.


Nope.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2014/aug/12/london-air-pollution-public-transport-video


----------



## souljacker (Jul 2, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Nope.
> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2014/aug/12/london-air-pollution-public-transport-video



Interesting. Makes sense I suppose. I'd be interested to see what the figures are like for a car fitted with pollution filters though.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 2, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Nope.
> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2014/aug/12/london-air-pollution-public-transport-video



Had to stop watching at the bit where Vivienne was cycling on the pavements.

Worse than Hitler.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Had to stop watching at the bit where Vivienne was cycling on the pavements.
> 
> Worse than Hitler.


She was cycling on a shared use path on the South Bank


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 2, 2015)

souljacker said:


> I'd be interested to see what the figures are like for a car fitted with pollution filters though.



And for drivers wearing gas masks.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 2, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> She was cycling on a shared use path on the South Bank



Pure evil.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 2, 2015)

I nearly got run


Spymaster said:


> Had to stop watching at the bit where Vivienne was cycling on the pavements.
> 
> Worse than Hitler.



I nearly got hit by some idiot with shades on riding a bike with a fecking huge trailer riding on pavement about half an hour ago.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 2, 2015)

I'm not sure we're allowed to use "bint".


----------



## emanymton (Jul 2, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> I do get the arse with riders who go the same speed on shared paths than they do on the road. I hope they fall in the canal.


This. I didn't used to mind cyclist at all then I started to walk to work along a canal and pretty much every day some twat would go bombing past and almost knock me in.

I really seemed to develop a bit of a prejudice that I am working on.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 2, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> I'm not sure we're allowed to use "bint".


 Withdrawn and noted if it's sexist


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 2, 2015)

souljacker said:


> If you use the recirculate button, it cools air from the inside of the car rather than getting it from the outside.



And you slowly die of oxygen starvation


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 2, 2015)

emanymton said:


> This. I didn't used to mind cyclist at all then I started to walk to work along a canal and pretty much every day some twat would go bombing past and almost knock me in.
> 
> I really seemed to develop a bit of a prejudice that I am working on.



Learned prejudices wrt all modes of transport are an interesting one.

When I commuted by bike years ago I think I developed far more aggressively pro-cycling and anti-car views than I hold now.  These days, as a pedestrian and public transport user and very occasional driver, both piss me off equally, albeit for different reasons!


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 2, 2015)

CNT36 said:


> I don't want to be seen.



You don't want other road users to see you? Are you some sort of suicidal ninja cyclist?


----------



## emanymton (Jul 2, 2015)

Roadkill said:


> Learned prejudices wrt all modes of transport are an interesting one.
> 
> When I commuted by bike years ago I think I developed far more aggressively pro-cycling and anti-car views than I hold now.  These days, as a pedestrian and public transport user and very occasional driver, both piss me off equally, albeit for different reasons!


I don't drive or cycle I just walk and use puplic transport and have had far more problems with cyclists then drivers. But I imagine that is because they are more likly to try and use the same space as me. I imagine the majority of cyclists behave reasonably and tend to stick to the roads and so I am not really aware of them.

As a general rule if you are doing something that might require a pedestrian to 'dodge' then you shouldn't be doing it.


----------



## plurker (Jul 2, 2015)

I couldn't find a more up-to date stat that might reflect the numbers being higher since the London bike-hire scheme encourages more cockends onto bikes, but just going to drop this in here


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 2, 2015)

plurker said:


> I couldn't find a more up-to date stat that might reflect the numbers being higher since the London bike-hire scheme encourages more cockends onto bikes, but just going to drop this in here



Food for thought, although I suspect the proportion of cyclist/pedestrian altercations is understated because most are likely to be very minor and go unreported.  Certainly, in my experience cars moving on the pavement are much less common than bikes, although obviously much more dangerous when it does happen.

Have you a link for those stats?


----------



## plurker (Jul 2, 2015)

Roadkill said:


> Have you a link for those stats?



Only that image/headline figure- it's on the CTC website, where the full report must be also, but I can't find it.

(some updated stats in here http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_public/pedestrians4rrv2.pdf


----------



## ddraig (Jul 2, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> vegans are crafty like that, you have to watch them like a hawk.


how healthy are you lard arse?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 2, 2015)

ddraig said:


> how healthy are you lard arse?


fit as a fiddle  my pescetarian diet lets me kick vegan arse whenever i wamt


----------



## ddraig (Jul 2, 2015)

shit quoted wrong person!! 
meant to quote clever know it all clogs bees!


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 2, 2015)

ddraig said:


> shit quoted wrong person!!
> meant to quote clever know it all clogs bees!


I spend a lot of time working outdoors and countless hours loading heavy boxes in and out of trucks. I reckon I'm alright


----------



## ddraig (Jul 2, 2015)

aaahhh but could you beat a vegan runner? be honest now


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

plurker said:


> I couldn't find a more up-to date stat that might reflect the numbers being higher since the London bike-hire scheme encourages more cockends onto bikes, but just going to drop this in here


You can prove anything with facts


----------



## gentlegreen (Jul 2, 2015)

I don't think most of the cockends are riding hire bikes.
In Bristol, they usually have drop handlebars.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 2, 2015)

ddraig said:


> aaahhh but could you beat a vegan runner? be honest now



Supplements or no supplements?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 2, 2015)

ddraig said:


> aaahhh but could you beat a vegan runner? be honest now


I never run anywhere on principle. If you need to run you should have set off earlier. Running is nothing more than a sign of poor time management.


----------



## starfish (Jul 2, 2015)

Have nothing against cyclists per se, especially when I'm in the car. The only time I get annoyed with them is on the cycle path along Brighton seafront. They are supposed to stop & give way to pedestrians at the traffic crossings, there's even markings on the path for them to do so but I have still to see any stop. They end up just carrying on & barging through. That's it though & I like to consider myself considerate to them on the road.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I never run anywhere on principle. If you need to run you should have set off earlier. Running is nothing more than a sign of poor time management.


or keeping fit


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 2, 2015)

8ball said:


> Supplements or no supplements?


Whip or club?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 2, 2015)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Personally I'd like to see all cyclists removed from roads. Roads are for cars, sorry. But I'd also like to see billions of pounds worth of investment in creating a network of cycle paths everywhere. Proper ones, like you see in Europe, separate from the roads.



What, if anything, is your argument to support the assertion that roads are for cars?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 2, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> How does one cycle to places served only by roads if not allowed to cycle on roads. It will be impossible to build cycle lanes in most places unless you can come up with a way that no-one else has thought of yet. and how to fund this?



Build them all undrground, or in the sky.

e2a: or even UNDER THE SKY


----------



## CNT36 (Jul 2, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> You don't want other road users to see you? Are you some sort of suicidal ninja cyclist?


No, I'd rather be safe in the cyclepath than seen on the road.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 2, 2015)

CNT36 said:


> No, I'd rather be safe in the cyclepath than seen on the road.



You're safer out in the traffic.  That's the point.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 2, 2015)

CNT36 said:


> No, I'd rather be safe in the cyclepath than seen on the road.


thepoint is that it is often safer to be seen on the road, than swerving unseen from the cycle lane into the road, to avoid hitting a rock.


----------



## CNT36 (Jul 2, 2015)

Blagsta said:


> You're safer out in the traffic.  That's the point.


I get that but not really my experience as either a cyclist or driver. I'm not in your neck of the woods. Saw a cyclist on the cyclepath cut up by a fucking scooter yesterday though.


----------



## Blagsta (Jul 2, 2015)

CNT36 said:


> I get that but not really my experience as either a cyclist or driver. I'm not in your neck of the woods. Saw a cyclist on the cyclepath cut up by a fucking scooter yesterday though.



Its my experience both as a cyclist and a driver.  I can't imagine how it would be different in another area.  If you cycle in the gutter, you're at risk, especially from vehicles turning left.  Which is why secondary and primary position are recommended riding positions.


----------



## T & P (Jul 3, 2015)

Just today I cycled through Queen's Circus, which has just been redesigned as the first fully segregated roundabout in the country. There are separate lanes and traffic lights for motor vehicles and cycles. They were being tested today with plastic coppers at every exit giving advice to passing cyclists, ahead of the full switch-on next week.

It'll be interesting to see how well this design works. It seems safer for cyclists but the new traffic lights will mean both cars and cyclists will be likely to encounter a red light at most times if they're taking the second or third exit. Traffic jams were already mounting for the short period the lights were switched off. And a cyclist tried to jump the cycle traffic light right in front of the copper I was chatting to while waiting for it to turn green


----------



## snadge (Jul 3, 2015)

The only place in the country that I come across absolute idiots on the road is London, both cyclists and car/lorry drivers, most of the cringeworthy moments have been cyclists though.


----------



## Winot (Jul 3, 2015)

These drivers *really* hate cyclists.


----------



## fredfelt (Jul 3, 2015)

EastEnder said:


> I think my smug-o-meter just exploded.



Smug - no, that earlier comment on the rewards a bike offers was simply a statement of fact.

What would be smug, however, is returning to this thread to report on plans for my commute later today.  I'm riding home past a bottle shop to pick up some fizz, then on to a swimming spot on the river where I'll meet a 'friend' for a picnic.  I packed lycra especially for the occasion - perfect attire for biking and swimming.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2015)

ddraig said:


> aaahhh but could you beat a vegan runner? be honest now


yes. the trick is a) use an implement; b) catch them when they're not ready and can't run off


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> or keeping fit


or being hunted down


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 3, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> or being hunted down


Best way to keep fit - high motivating factor


----------



## Santino (Jul 3, 2015)

This morning a cyclist cycled into the mass of pedestrians crossing the road and then turned right, cycling among the pedestrians and mounted the pavement.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 3, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i think what you're saying is other people were slow off the mark.


call me anything but don't call me late for lunch


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 3, 2015)

Winot said:


> These drivers *really* hate cyclists.




Just watched that, despite the hyperbole about drivers 'hating' the cyclists (the sort of language that I was talking about earlier when I said the them and us mentality is toxic) much of it is just very careless driving.  The sort of shit you see day in day out even when you're in a car, cyclists are just much less visible and more vulnerable.


----------



## bi0boy (Jul 3, 2015)

Teaboy said:


> Just watched that, despite the hyperbole about drivers 'hating' the cyclists (the sort of language that I was talking about earlier when I said the them and us mentality is toxic) much of it is just very careless driving.  The sort of shit you see day in day out even when you're in a car, cyclists are just much less visible and more vulnerable.



The cyclist doesn't do himself any favours. Quite a few times when a long vehicle is passing him too close, he merrily carries on cycling alongside it at speed as he gets squeezed towards the kerb. Obviously the safe thing to do is to slow and get himself out of the tight spot. I guess he's trying to prove a point because he has a camera on his head.


----------



## souljacker (Jul 3, 2015)

There are also quite a few where the driver has stopped with plenty of time when crossing a junction. Yes, they've broken the box junction rules but they weren't anywhere near hitting him.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 3, 2015)

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...d-lights-and-lycra-the-cycling-ignorance-quiz


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 3, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...d-lights-and-lycra-the-cycling-ignorance-quiz




Would have got 100%, but messed up the question on falafel


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 3, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> “What you see in discourses about cycling is the absolute classic 1960s and 1970s social psychology of prejudice,” he explains. “It’s exactly those things that used to be done about minority ethnic groups and so on – the overgeneralisation of negative traits, under-representation of negative behaviours by one’s own group, that kind of thing. It’s just textbook prejudiced behaviour.”



TBF, the author is talking shite. The type of prejudice he's talking about happening 40-50 years ago had no rational basis. Prejudice against cyclists has an admittedly-thin rational basis, in that (as with car drivers) the bad behaviour of a minority provides a basis for idiots to castigate the majority.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 3, 2015)

Sweet FA said:


> When I'm in my car, cyclists ride like cunts and when I'm on my bike, drivers drive like cunts.
> 
> Everyone rides/drives like a cunt bar me



Or, and this is just a suggestion, you're a homicidal pyschopath with sociopathic tendencies.


----------



## Santino (Jul 3, 2015)

On the way home a cyclist shot up a one way street the wrong way, then dismounted in order to kick a puppy and vote against gay marriage.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 3, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> pseuds' corner >>>>



Is that where they send philosophy grads?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 3, 2015)

Santino said:


> On the way home a cyclist shot up a one way street the wrong way, then dismounted in order to kick a puppy and vote against gay marriage.



Ah, a Tory cyclist, then.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 3, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> How is a cyclist not a person completely?



The gradual transmogrification of rider into cycle, and cycle into rider (cf. Flann O'Brien's "The Third Policeman")


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 3, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...d-lights-and-lycra-the-cycling-ignorance-quiz



I got 100%.

But the answers in the quiz are all wrong.


----------



## T & P (Jul 3, 2015)

Teaboy said:


> Just watched that, despite the hyperbole about drivers 'hating' the cyclists (the sort of language that I was talking about earlier when I said the them and us mentality is toxic) much of it is just very careless driving.  The sort of shit you see day in day out even when you're in a car, cyclists are just much less visible and more vulnerable.


I've always avoided any language implying some drivers were 'trying to kill me' or even deliberately injure or hit me, as both IME and IMO that's extremely rare and most people will luckily never come across such person, anymore than you would be likely to encounter a nutter armed with a kitchen knife running amok on the street.

But incidents where a driver acts recklessly and dangerously around cyclists, whether because they think they're proficient enough to pass a cyclist safely at speed leaving just a foot's clearance, or because they feel like teaching the cyclist a lesson/ giving them a scare, are depressingly common. I'm sure most of those drivers would be horrified if their actions did result in a collision and serious injury/ death to the cyclist. But the fact they think their actions are acceptable at all in the first place is fucking shocking.

I had one such encounter with a driver last week on Chelsea Embankment. Overtook me at at least 35-40mph no more than half a metre away. I shouted bloody murder at him and I'm sure he noticed my displeasure, though I suspect he'd probably thought I was being a drama queen and his manoeuvre was perfectly safe as he's a pretty good driver and all that...


----------



## Dogsauce (Jul 4, 2015)

emanymton said:


> Worst of all are the ones who cycle on the pavement when there is a perfectly good cycle lane right next to them.



Which country were you in when you saw a perfectly good cycle lane? Maybe they'll build one here one day, just for the novelty.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jul 4, 2015)

Possibly the first major off-road cycle facility in the UK and Bristol's pride and joy, the Bristol-Bath railway path, is very under-spec especially with the team jersey nobheads cutting up other cyclists and pedestrians left, right and centre.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 4, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> Which country were you in when you saw a perfectly good cycle lane? Maybe they'll build one here one day, just for the novelty.


Looked fine to me but if not ride on the road nor the pavement.


----------



## Sea Star (Jul 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> The gradual transmogrification of rider into cycle, and cycle into rider (cf. Flann O'Brien's "The Third Policeman")


I read that but its not real.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> I read that but its not real.



Hmm, how would you *know* it's not real?
How do you *know* that your opinion is valid?
How can you prove that a policeman and his bicycle *don't* interact at a molecular level?

It'd explain so much about coppers, and about why some bicycles appear to make a hobby out of tripping people over.


----------



## Sea Star (Jul 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Hmm, how would you *know* it's not real?
> How do you *know* that your opinion is valid?
> How can you prove that a policeman and his bicycle *don't* interact at a molecular level?
> 
> It'd explain so much about coppers, and about why some bicycles appear to make a hobby out of tripping people over.


My grip on reality is poor enough today without your BS


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> My grip on reality is poor enough today without your BS



Then why bother replying in the first place?


----------



## Sea Star (Jul 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Then why bother replying in the first place?


Because your reply was weird.


----------



## Sea Star (Jul 6, 2015)

But if it makes you happy I'll put you on ignore. your posts only seem designed to wind people up anyway.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> Because your reply was weird.



No, my reply was normal. It was challenging your assertion that something wasn't real by pointing out that *you* would be unable to prove your claim, except through insisting "it's not real".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> But if it makes you happy I'll put you on ignore. your posts only seem designed to wind people up anyway.



You do that, little Prima Donna, you do that.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, my reply was normal. It was challenging your assertion that something wasn't real by pointing out that *you* would be unable to prove your claim, except through insisting "it's not real".


Don't be a dick all your life


----------



## Sea Star (Jul 6, 2015)

..


----------



## Sea Star (Jul 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> You do that, little Prima Donna, you do that.


oh you know me so well


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Don't be a dick all your life



Don't be an arrogant, judgemental fuck all of yours.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> oh you know me so well



I don't know you at all, *except* by what you put up here.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Don't be an arrogant, judgemental fuck all of yours.


You're as arrogant and judgey as anyone, so your insults are redundant.
Fuck off being all clever clever on this thread. 
 I like Flann O'Brien but not everyone's read him.


----------



## Sea Star (Jul 6, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> You're as arrogant and judgey as anyone, so your insults are redundant.
> Fuck off being all clever clever on this thread.
> I like Flann O'Brien but not everyone's read him.


I read him years ago and it's fantasy. Does not pertain to this thread in any way at all except as a lighthearted throwaway comment.


----------



## Sea Star (Jul 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> I don't know you at all, *except* by what you put up here.


So you admit you are acting out your prejudice?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Fuck off being all clever on this thread. I like Flann O'Brien but not everyone's read him.



"Being all clever"?
Please don't tell me you're the sort of dope who thinks every instance of erudition is someone rubbing someone else's nose in their lack of erudition. That'd be too bloody much,considering the reach-around you've just given yourself over liking Myles.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Being all clever"?
> Please don't tell me you're the sort of dope who thinks every instance of erudition is someone rubbing someone else's nose in their lack of erudition. That'd be too bloody much,considering the reach-around you've just given yourself over liking Myles.


It was, in this instance. You were trumpeting your knowledge all over the thread.
And who the fuck is Myles? What are you on about?


----------



## Sea Star (Jul 6, 2015)

I read the fucking book ten years ago - now get over it. I'm not sure what any of it has to say about actual cyclists in the real world. If anything.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> So you admit you are acting out your prejudice?



Where'd you get that from? I'm not acting from prejudice (although I'm sure you'd like to *believe* that I am), I'm acting from having read and replied to many of your posts, and seeing just how badly you take anyone criticising, critiquing or otherwise questioning you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> It was, in this instance. You were trumpeting your knowledge all over the thread.



Thank fuck you're not a judge. You'd have the black cap on all the time.


----------



## Sea Star (Jul 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Where'd you get that from? I'm not acting from prejudice (although I'm sure you'd like to *believe* that I am), I'm acting from having read and replied to many of your posts, and seeing just how badly you take anyone criticising, critiquing or otherwise questioning you.


I've never resorted to calling anyone "a little Prima Donna" for disagreeing with me.

Actually, I think its just you I react badly to. wonder why?


----------



## Sea Star (Jul 6, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> I read that but its not real.


This apparently is the post that upset you ViolentPanda and that I called your response bullshit, which it was. I would suggest its you who does not like criticism.


----------



## Sea Star (Jul 6, 2015)

You are on ignore now so don't bother. Bye.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> I've never resorted to calling anyone "a little Prima Donna" for disagreeing with me.



I called you a little Prima Donna for acting like one.



> Actually, I think its just you I react badly to. wonder why?



Feel free to speculate away.

BTW, it's not just me. How many people did you cunt off on the Green thread before the election because you "reacted badly" to them?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Thank fuck you're not a judge. You'd have the black cap on all the time.


Ooh look at me, aren't I clever. 


> Hmm, how would you *know* it's not real?
> How do you *know* that your opinion is valid?
> How can you prove that a policeman and his bicycle don't interact at a molecular level


Aw haw haw, aw haw haw, VP, you're such a _wag_


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> You are on ignore now so don't bother. Bye.



Cool. Run away, don't hurry back.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Ooh look at me, aren't I clever.



It's odd how often you fall back on the word "clever" as some kind of insult. 



> Aw haw haw, aw haw haw, VP, you're such a _wag_



No, I'm a cunt. I don't make any odds about it. The two non-political terms I've used most often to describe myself on Urban are "cunt" and "hack". Then again, I'm secure about being a cunt and a hack. I'm not here to be liked. I'm not *alive* to be liked.


----------



## jusali (Jul 6, 2015)

I was unaware of the hate towards cyclists here in Bristol. 
Until I came home to a tirade of abuse from one of our neighbours who hates George Ferguson (our Mayor) and fucking cyclists......."not you mate but"......
I think the planning surrounding the cycling transport issues in Bristol has been slightly antagonistic towards motorists and George Ferguson is a smug twat.
So thus the whole thing seems to have blown up again.........


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's odd how often you fall back on the word "clever" as some kind of insult.


Only when you're being a dick about it


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's odd how often you fall back on the word "clever" as some kind of insult.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm a cunt. I don't make any odds about it. The two non-political terms I've used most often to describe myself on Urban are "cunt" and "hack". Then again, I'm secure about being a cunt and a hack. I'm not here to be liked. I'm not *alive* to be liked.


Not sure why you bother getting all hot and bothered about being sussed as a dick then.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Only when you're being a dick about it



Nah, not only. Exercise a bit of reflexivity, why don't you?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nah, not only. Exercise a bit of reflexivity, why don't you?


Now you're being patronising you supercilious cunt.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Not sure why you bother getting all hot and bothered about being sussed as a dick then.



"Being sussed as a dick"? You "sussed" nothing. 
I *do* resent being called a dick by someone who's in no position to judge others though,which is a different thing entirely. If it were Gramsci calling me a dick, or even teuchter, I'd listen, but you've got form for going off half-cocked.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Being sussed as a dick"? You "sussed" nothing.
> I *do* resent being called a dick by someone who's in no position to judge others though,which is a different thing entirely. If it were Gramsci calling me a dick, or even teuchter, I'd listen, but you've got form for going off half-cocked.


Hit a nerve, have I?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Now you're being patronising you supercilious cunt.



No, now you're *feeling* patronised. Ask yourself why.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Hit a nerve, have I?



Nope. Like I said, you've got form for going off half-cocked.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nope.


Yep. I see (through) you and you don't like it


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, now you're *feeling* patronised. Ask yourself why.


You're going for a medal.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Yep. I see (through) you and you don't like it



Ah, we're onto that again-your "power" to see through others.
Not at all filtered by your own prejudices, of course!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> You're going for a medal.



No, I'm *hoping* that you ask yourself why you're like you are, with the way you go off judgementally at people on here.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, I'm *hoping* that you ask yourself why you're like you are, with the way you go off judgementally at people on here.


It's what you do, so be careful with your favourite accusation


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 6, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Ah, we're onto that again-your "power" to see through others.
> Not at all filtered by your own prejudices, of course!


No power. You are utterly transparent.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> It's what you do, so be careful with your favourite accusation



"Be careful"?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 6, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> No power. You are utterly transparent.



Or you're full of shit. Hmm.


----------



## Santino (Jul 7, 2015)

So, those cyclists eh? Tsk.


----------



## Santino (Jul 7, 2015)

Yesterday I saw two pedestrians crossing before the Little Green Man appeared when cars had ground to a halt, ignoring a cyclist who was perfectly entitled to continue his journey.


----------



## Bonfirelight (Jul 7, 2015)

Santino said:


> Yesterday I saw two pedestrians crossing before the Little Green Man appeared when cars had ground to a halt, ignoring a cyclist who was perfectly entitled to continue his journey.


Pedestrians are the worst.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jul 7, 2015)

Bloody hell.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 7, 2015)

Santino said:


> Yesterday I saw two pedestrians crossing before the Little Green Man appeared when cars had ground to a halt, ignoring a cyclist who was perfectly entitled to continue his journey.



Isn't there something in the highway code about pedestrians having right of way as soon as they step onto the road?  It's a long time since I've read the Highway Code and in practice it'd be a mad pedestrian that wanted to enforce that but still?


----------



## Santino (Jul 7, 2015)

Teaboy said:


> Isn't there something in the highway code about pedestrians having right of way as soon as they step onto the road?  It's a long time since I've read the Highway Code and in practice it'd be a mad pedestrian that wanted to enforce that but still?


On a zebra crossing maybe, but at a PeLiCon crossing I'd have thought that vehicles have right of way as long as the lights are in their favour.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 7, 2015)

Santino said:


> On a zebra crossing maybe, but at a PeLiCon crossing I'd have thought that vehicles have right of way as long as the lights are in their favour.



Well, on a Zebra crossing certainly but I thought it might be in general, regardless of whether there is a crossing there or not.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2015)

Santino said:


> Yesterday I saw two pedestrians crossing before the Little Green Man appeared when cars had ground to a halt, ignoring a cyclist who was perfectly entitled to continue his journey.


a sorry cyclist if he stops his journey solely because a couple of people cross the road. never get to work with an attitude like that. should have resumed cycling once they'd passed.


----------



## Santino (Jul 7, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> a sorry cyclist if he stops his journey solely because a couple of people cross the road. never get to work with an attitude like that. should have resumed cycling once they'd passed.


I didn't say he stopped.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jul 7, 2015)

I've had a couple of near misses (one very close) recently where pedestrians have suddenly veered into the bike lane without any indication they were going to do so, looking the other way.  Usually you get a bit of a clue from general direction of travel or body language, but these were completely out of the blue, I think the closest one nearly shat himself.  I also had a massive group of joggers coming towards me on a wide (~4m) shared path, taking up the full width.  I slowed right down, they saw me and shouted as a group, moved to the right to pass, except one guy merrily pacing along looking up at the sky and daydreaming who very nearly clattered right into me.  His surprised expression was priceless.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 7, 2015)

Teaboy said:


> Isn't there something in the highway code about pedestrians having right of way as soon as they step onto the road?  It's a long time since I've read the Highway Code and in practice it'd be a mad pedestrian that wanted to enforce that but still?





Teaboy said:


> Well, on a Zebra crossing certainly but I thought it might be in general, regardless of whether there is a crossing there or not.



Lights control Pelican crossing rights of way.

When the green man is illuminated the traffic lights are red. When the green man is flashing the traffic light is flashing amber, so motorists can go if there are no pedestrians on the crossing, and pedestrians should not begin to cross but can safely finish crossing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2015)

Santino said:


> I didn't say he stopped.


you implied it.


----------



## Santino (Jul 7, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> you implied it.


 You inferred it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2015)

Santino said:


> You inferred it.


your scenario: two people crossing the road when motor traffic stopped ignoring a cyclist entitled to continue. why the fuck bring it up if the cyclist did not halt?

e2a: why the fuck bring it up at all?


----------



## BigTom (Jul 7, 2015)

Teaboy said:


> Well, on a Zebra crossing certainly but I thought it might be in general, regardless of whether there is a crossing there or not.



Yes it is in general:



> *3. Road junctions (170 to 183)*
> *170*
> 
> Take extra care at junctions. You should
> ...




(my emphasis https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/road-junctions-170-to-183)


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 7, 2015)

Santino & Pickman's model

This isn't as good as VP v OU yesterday.

Can you two ramp up the insults a bit?

Cheers.


----------



## Santino (Jul 7, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> your scenario: two people crossing the road when motor traffic stopped ignoring a cyclist entitled to continue. why the fuck bring it up if the cyclist did not halt?
> 
> e2a: why the fuck bring it up at all?


To bring balance to the thread, which otherwise was at risk of becoming too full of cyclists behaving badly.

In this case, the cyclist was obliged to weave between the aforementioned pedestrians at a high velocity.


----------



## Santino (Jul 7, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> This isn't as good as VP v OU yesterday.
> 
> Can you two ramp up the insults a bit?
> 
> ...


 fuck you


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 7, 2015)

Much better.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2015)

Santino said:


> To bring balance to the thread, which otherwise was at risk of becoming too full of cyclists behaving badly.
> 
> In this case, the cyclist was obliged to weave between the aforementioned pedestrians at a high velocity.


being as the thread is "what have people got against cyclists" i submit that a litany of cyclists behaving badly is to be expected.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Much better.


dull and derivative tho. fuck you as likely to offend as blancmange is to offer a new and unfamiliar taste sensation.


----------



## Santino (Jul 7, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> dull and derivative tho. fuck you as likely to offend as blancmange is to offer a new and unfamiliar taste sensation.


Blancmange was the French title of Jimmy Cagney's gangster drama, White Heat.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2015)

Santino said:


> Blancmange was the French title of Jimmy Cagney's gangster drama, White Heat.


please don't lie so badly


----------



## T & P (Jul 7, 2015)

This subject certainly seems to bring the best in people


----------



## 8den (Jul 7, 2015)

Its not cyclists v motorists it's considerate v inconsiderate people. Take the river lea tow path its a walk that dog walkers families and cyclists take. When I lived in the area there were cyclists who treated that tow like their private tour de france.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jul 7, 2015)

8den said:


> Its not cyclists v motorists it's considerate v inconsiderate people. Take the river lea tow path its a walk that dog walkers families and cyclists take. When I lived in the area there were cyclists who treated that tow like their private tour de france.



But there are paths that are just for pedestrians, why should society fund paths just for pedestrians and then have them go on the towpath and get in the way of cyclists?  Madness.


----------



## Belushi (Jul 7, 2015)

8den said:


> Its not cyclists v motorists it's considerate v inconsiderate people. Take the river lea tow path its a walk that dog walkers families and cyclists take. When I lived in the area there were cyclists who treated that tow like their private tour de france.



Yeah, I live next to it, theres some right twats.


----------



## 8den (Jul 7, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> But there are paths that are just for pedestrians, why should society fund paths just for pedestrians and then have them go on the towpath and get in the way of cyclists?  Madness.


No its for both Pedestrians and cyclists and is about 3ft wide in places so dont piss down in at 30 miles a hour and swear at dog walkers.


----------



## Belushi (Jul 7, 2015)

8den said:


> No its for both Pedestrians and cyclists and is about 3ft wide in places so dont piss down in at 30 miles a hour and swear at dog walkers.



It's bloody dangerous as well, could easily knock someone in to the lea.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 7, 2015)

Well it seems that we're largey agreed that the vast majority of cyclists are cunts. The question is, what punitive action should be taken against them?

How should red light and tow path infringements be punished?


----------



## 8ball (Jul 7, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Santino & Pickman's model
> 
> This isn't as good as VP v OU yesterday.
> 
> Can you two ramp up the insults a bit?


 
That got a bit weird tbf.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 7, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Well it seems that we're largey agreed that the vast majority of cyclists are cunts. The question is, what punitive action should be taken against them?
> 
> How should red light and tow path infringements be punished?



Didn't we work out in a previous thread that shitty drivers should be made to cycle for a month->a year, and shitty cyclists should be made to unicycle whilst juggling for a month->a year?


----------



## 8den (Jul 7, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> Well it seems that we're largey agreed that the vast majority of cyclists are cunts. The question is, what punitive action should be taken against them?
> 
> How should red light and tow path infringements be punished?


Whoa you trolled that well. I never said anything approximately like the vast majority of cyclists are cunts.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 7, 2015)

BigTom said:


> Didn't we work out in a previous thread that shitty drivers should be made to cycle for a month->a year, and shitty cyclists should be made to unicycle whilst juggling for a month->a year?


 
What about shit unicyclist jugglers?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 7, 2015)

8den said:


> Whoa you trolled that well. I never said anything approximately like the vast majority of cyclists are cunts.



No. But we could all see that's what you meant. 

Not having a go. I agree with you.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 7, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> I've had a couple of near misses (one very close) recently where pedestrians have suddenly veered into the bike lane without any indication they were going to do so, looking the other way.  Usually you get a bit of a clue from general direction of travel or body language, but these were completely out of the blue, I think the closest one nearly shat himself.  I also had a massive group of joggers coming towards me on a wide (~4m) shared path, taking up the full width.  I slowed right down, they saw me and shouted as a group, moved to the right to pass, except one guy merrily pacing along looking up at the sky and daydreaming who very nearly clattered right into me.  His surprised expression was priceless.



IME quite a few pedestrians just don't look out for cyclists.  Years ago I was riding along a busy street in the middle of Hull and an elderly woman just stepped out into the road in front of me.  I'd spotted her standing at the kerb looking left and right so assumed she'd seen me, but evidently not, even though it was broad daylight.  I was doing 20-odd and if I'd hit her it'd have been nasty.  As it is, somehow I managed to miss her, stay on the bike and not end up embedded in the front of the bus that was coming the other way.  I gave her quite a mouthful for that.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 7, 2015)

8ball said:


> What about shit unicyclist jugglers?



Make them ride this. Whilst juggling fire clubs. On the M25.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 7, 2015)

Roadkill said:


> As it is, somehow I managed to miss her, stay on the bike and not end up embedded in the front of the bus that was coming the other way.



See, I actually disagree with 8den here, not *all* cyclists are cunts.

Roadie, as a cyclist, saved the old woman's life.

A fine piece of riding, sir.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jul 7, 2015)

8den said:


> No its for both Pedestrians and cyclists and is about 3ft wide in places so dont piss down in at 30 miles a hour and swear at dog walkers.



It's OK, I was just applying 'motorist's logic' to the situation   Ride respectably and according to the circumstances and all that.


----------



## Sea Star (Jul 7, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> you implied it.


I didn't infer it so I'm guessing it wasn't implied.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> I didn't infer it so I'm guessing it wasn't implied.


sorry to see you reduced to guessing, auntistella


----------



## Sea Star (Jul 7, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> sorry to see you reduced to guessing, auntistella


pedant


----------



## Santino (Jul 7, 2015)

BigTom said:


> Didn't we work out in a previous thread that shitty drivers should be made to cycle for a month->a year, and shitty cyclists should be made to unicycle whilst juggling for a month->a year?


No, after some consideration we agreed that it was an absurd argument to make.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> pedant


by no means, just disappointed you're so vague on the issue.


----------



## Sea Star (Jul 7, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> by no means, just disappointed you're so vague on the issue.


OK - it wasn't implied, you inferred it. Now fuck off!!
(I'm coming off citalopram so my mood is a bit strange and fuck you again!!)


----------



## Sea Star (Jul 7, 2015)

Santino said:


> No, after some consideration we agreed that it was an absurd argument to make.


the worst cyclists are ones that unicycle - middle class tossers!!!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> OK - it wasn't implied, you inferred it. Now fuck off!!
> (I'm coming off citalopram so my mood is a bit strange and fuck you again!!)


i've never to the best of my recollection said an unkind word to you but i am very tempted to now.


----------



## Sea Star (Jul 7, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> i've never to the best of my recollection said an unkind word to you but i am very tempted to now.


why? You wanted me to be less vague


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> why? You wanted me to be less vague


yeh. well, if 'fuck off' and 'fuck you again' is you being less vague then i suppose i got what i asked for.


----------



## Sea Star (Jul 7, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. well, if 'fuck off' and 'fuck you again' is you being less vague then i suppose i got what i asked for.


Anyway - accept my apologies - my mood is erratic to say the least and I'm all over the place today. You pissed me off a little bit but its no big deal is it? Don't stoop to my level.

(now I want to hug you )


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> Anyway - accept my apologies - my mood is erratic to say the least and I'm all over the place today. You pissed me off a little bit but its no big deal is it? Don't stoop to my level.


apology accepted


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> (now I want to hug you )


(((AuntiStella)))


----------



## Sea Star (Jul 7, 2015)

*Can't find the crying emoji*


----------



## George & Bill (Jul 9, 2015)

Oi m8, yr whl's goin rnd


----------



## Sea Star (Jul 9, 2015)

George & Bill said:


> Oi m8, yr whl's goin rnd


I first heard that when I was about 8 - in 1975


----------



## Dogsauce (Jul 9, 2015)

George & Bill said:


> Oi m8, yr whl's goin rnd



One thing I love about my weirdo Pashley 'Butchers bike' is that it confuses most of the local berks, in that they can't decide soon enough whether it's a 'girl's bike' or a 'gay bike'.  I remember one standing at the roadside once with their jaw agape pointing as I passed, and I could almost hear the cogs whiring in their head before they finally sputtered "Bike!" as I was almost out of earshot.


----------



## NoXion (Jul 10, 2015)

I used to cycle a lot when I lived up in North Wales and I never got any shit from motorists, at least not verbally. There was that one time when I nearly got run off the road into a hedge/wall/ditch, but I don't _think_ the driver of that tractor was actually trying to kill me as I went down that steep and narrow road.

I had a mountain bike and not one of those ridiculous spindly bikes with the curvy handlebars and stupid fiddly pedals, which wouldn't have lasted ten minutes on the country lanes and stony paths along which I frequently rode. I never wore a helmet and I wouldn't be caught dead in fucking Lycra, now or then.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2015)

NoXion said:


> I used to cycle a lot when I lived up in North Wales and I never got any shit from motorists, at least not verbally. There was that one time when I nearly got run off the road into a hedge/wall/ditch, but I don't _think_ the driver of that tractor was actually trying to kill me as I went down that steep and narrow road.
> 
> I had a mountain bike and not one of those ridiculous spindly bikes with the curvy handlebars and stupid fiddly pedals, which wouldn't have lasted ten minutes on the country lanes and stony paths along which I frequently rode. I never wore a helmet and I wouldn't be caught dead in fucking Lycra, now or then.


once you're dead you have no control over how you're dressed.


----------



## NoXion (Jul 10, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> once you're dead you have no control over how you're dressed.



It's a figure of speech. But you knew that already. So what was your point again?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2015)

NoXion said:


> It's a figure of speech. But you knew that already. So what was your point again?


it was a joke

it is a pity to have to point that out

perhaps i should mark them with a special sign for you


----------



## NoXion (Jul 10, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> it was a joke
> 
> it is a pity to have to point that out
> 
> perhaps i should mark them with a special sign for you



A joke is supposed to be funny, though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 10, 2015)

NoXion said:


> A joke is supposed to be funny, though.


yeh. so i misjudged your sense of humour. my bad.


----------



## Cid (Jul 10, 2015)

NoXion said:


> I used to cycle a lot when I lived up in North Wales and I never got any shit from motorists, at least not verbally. There was that one time when I nearly got run off the road into a hedge/wall/ditch, but I don't _think_ the driver of that tractor was actually trying to kill me as I went down that steep and narrow road.
> 
> I had a mountain bike and not one of those ridiculous spindly bikes with the curvy handlebars and stupid fiddly pedals, which wouldn't have lasted ten minutes on the country lanes and stony paths along which I frequently rode. I never wore a helmet and I wouldn't be caught dead in fucking Lycra, now or then.



Like these ridiculous spindly bikes with curved handlebars and stupid pedals?


----------



## NoXion (Jul 10, 2015)

Cid said:


> Like these ridiculous spindly bikes with curved handlebars and stupid pedals?



Exactly.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 10, 2015)

Cid said:


> Like these ridiculous spindly bikes with curved handlebars and stupid pedals?



All that clingy stuff is the exact opposite of sensible cyling clothing. People who wear that shit only even have bikes so they've got an excuse to display their balls in public for all to see.


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Jul 10, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> All that clingy stuff is the exact opposite of sensible cyling clothing. People who wear that shit only even have bikes so they've got an excuse to display their balls in public for all to see.


Are you jealous because secretly you want to be an exhibitionist too?


----------



## farmerbarleymow (Jul 10, 2015)

I stopped riding a bike years ago, partly because of the behaviour of some drivers but also the state of the roads. The roads seem even worse now so I don't envy cyclists.


----------



## Cid (Jul 10, 2015)

SpookyFrank said:


> All that clingy stuff is the exact opposite of sensible cyling clothing. People who wear that shit only even have bikes so they've got an excuse to display their balls in public for all to see.



To be fair lycra is very good for chafe-prevention, especially combined with chamois cream. Also you can build in padding to prevent infertility. So quite good really, although I'll stick with lycra undershorts and normal other clothes.


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Jul 13, 2015)

I've found most drivers to be polite and overtake at a good distance from me, but then I cycle as a road user & obey the rules. My problem has been with idiot cyclists particularly the 'salmon cyclists'  & pedestrians walking out in front of me concentrating in their bloody mobiles instead of looking where they're going


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 13, 2015)

What are salmon cyclists?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2015)

Spymaster said:


> What are salmon cyclists?


cycling upstream


----------



## Voley (Jul 13, 2015)

Spymaster said:
			
		

> What are salmon cyclists?



Cyclists who all cycle up the same cycle path together, once a year,dodging bears, then fucking SPAWN all over the shop, then die.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2015)

Voley said:


> Cyclists who all cycle up the same cycle path together, once a year,dodging bears, then fucking SPAWN all over the shop, then die.


oh


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 13, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> cycling upstream


As in on the wrong side of the road?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> As in on the wrong side of the road?


 against the flow of traffick on a one-way road


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 13, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> against the flow of traffick on a one-way road


Oh, I've not seen it that much. Hardly worth inventing a new term for the odd dickhead.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 13, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> Oh, I've not seen it that much. Hardly worth inventing a new term for the odd dickhead.


or maybe Voley meant cyclists who've been smoked


----------



## deadringer (Jul 13, 2015)

KeeperofDragons said:


> I've found most drivers to be polite and overtake at a good distance from me, but then I cycle as a road user & obey the rules. My problem has been with idiot cyclists particularly the 'salmon cyclists'  & pedestrians walking out in front of me concentrating in their bloody mobiles instead of looking where they're going



I found this too. I cycle in jeans/shorts and a T-shirt, no helmet, and don't tear about like a lunatic, and I honestly believe this is the way to normalise us as cyclists in the eyes of the motorist. When I look across at traffic lights and see some overweight middle aged dude in the full lycra get up, expensive bike and camera-ed up helmet, I think 'what a wally', I'm pretty sure plenty of drivers will too.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 13, 2015)

So you think it's OK to make judgements about people's personalities from their appearance. Well done you.


----------



## T & P (Jul 14, 2015)

If we're going to categorise and stereotype different types of cyclists, I'd venture that Boris bikers have by far the highest proportion of rule-breakers and reckless dickheads. In particular when it comes to riding on pavements or upstream. I don't know if it's because there's bound to be a significantly higher percentage of tourists & part timers amongst them than among those riding 'private' bikes, but the level of fuckwittery is astonishing.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 14, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> So you think it's OK to make judgements about people's personalities from their appearance.



In the way they dress? Most certainly.  

People's personalities are often very evident in what they choose to wear. It's one of the primary ways that folk express themselves.


----------



## deadringer (Jul 14, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> So you think it's OK to make judgements about people's personalities from their appearance. Well done you.



If someone is dressed for the Tour de France for their commute to work then yes, I'd make a judgement that they are a bit silly. It would be a bit like me wearing a full football kit to the pub to watch a match


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 14, 2015)

deadringer said:


> If someone is dressed for the Tour de France for their commute to work then yes, I'd make a judgement that they are a bit silly. It would be a bit like me wearing a full football kit to the pub to watch a match


I don't wear Lycra, but I don't see what's wrong with it. It's comfortable and cycling is sweaty. And you're judging others on weight and age. Fuck you.


----------



## Boycey (Jul 14, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> against the flow of traffick on a one-way road



do it enough and they install a contra-flow bike lane.


----------



## deadringer (Jul 14, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> I don't wear Lycra, but I don't see what's wrong with it. It's comfortable and cycling is sweaty. And you're judging others on weight and age. Fuck you.



For the record I also think that overweight middle aged guys who wear replica football shirts look silly too. Unless your competing I really don't see the point. There is plenty of breathable sports clothing out there that doesn't make you look silly. You originally asked what have people got against cyclists.....the Lycra thing is one.


----------



## Boycey (Jul 14, 2015)

deadringer said:


> For the record I also think that overweight middle aged guys who wear replica football shirts look silly too. Unless your competing I really don't see the point. There is plenty of breathable sports clothing out there that doesn't make you look silly. You originally asked what have people got against cyclists.....the Lycra thing is one.



it's just fucking clothes, not liking what someone is wearing shouldn't really be something you have against them ffs.


----------



## deadringer (Jul 14, 2015)

Boycey said:


> it's just fucking clothes, not liking what someone is wearing shouldn't really be something you have against them ffs.


 
We as cyclists need to be normalised in the eyes of motorists.....ditching the Lycra would go someway to help this, and would be a small price to pay, IMO.


----------



## Boycey (Jul 14, 2015)

maybe they should ditch the piercings and make sure their tats are covered too.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 14, 2015)

deadringer said:


> For the record I also think that overweight middle aged guys who wear replica football shirts look silly too. Unless your competing I really don't see the point. There is plenty of breathable sports clothing out there that doesn't make you look silly. You originally asked what have people got against cyclists.....the Lycra thing is one.


Why? It's appropriate clothing for cycling.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 14, 2015)

deadringer said:


> We as cyclists need to be normalised in the eyes of motorists.....ditching the Lycra would go someway to help this, and would be a small price to pay, IMO.


What utter bullshit


----------



## Santino (Jul 14, 2015)

Today a cyclist ignored a red light and just continued his journey at a crossing where the lights go red on all roads to let pedestrians cross. I was with my daughter though and restricted myself to muttering 'Unbelievable' in an Alan Partridge voice when he was almost out of earshot.


----------



## Belushi (Jul 14, 2015)

I watched a cyclist going along the pavement yesterday evening, tbf he wasn't getting in anyone's way and did have a dog in a basket on the front of his bike :thumbs :


----------



## Dogsauce (Jul 14, 2015)

deadringer said:


> We as cyclists need to be normalised in the eyes of motorists.....ditching the Lycra would go someway to help this, and would be a small price to pay, IMO.



Could I ride the hilly 8.5 miles to work in normal clothing in half an hour?  What should I do, get up earlier and go slower?  Crawl along at the side of the road where people can't see me?  Or just drive to work then spend time and money at a gym?


----------



## hegley (Jul 14, 2015)

Cyclists in Paris are to be allowed to ride through red lights after tests showed the move would not lead to accidents.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33446899


----------



## 8ball (Jul 14, 2015)

hegley said:


> Cyclists in Paris are to be allowed to ride through red lights after tests showed the move would not lead to accidents.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33446899


 
Or rather, there will be separate lights for bicycles.

Typical shitty BBC clickbait "journalism".


----------



## sim667 (Jul 14, 2015)

There's a new cycle shop combined with coffee shop near me just opened.... called..... wait for it..... Maison du velo........ MAISON DU FUCKING VELO, what type of pretentious prick thought that was a "concept"....

Cheapest bike on their website is £1500.


----------



## Winot (Jul 14, 2015)

sim667 said:


> There's a new cycle shop combined with coffee shop near me just opened.... called..... wait for it..... Maison du velo........ MAISON DU FUCKING VELO, what type of pretentious prick thought that was a "concept"....
> 
> Cheapest bike on their website is £1500.



Sounds like one for https://twitter.com/getinthesea


----------



## Sea Star (Jul 14, 2015)

KeeperofDragons said:


> I've found most drivers to be polite and overtake at a good distance from me, but then I cycle as a road user & obey the rules. My problem has been with idiot cyclists particularly the 'salmon cyclists'  & pedestrians walking out in front of me concentrating in their bloody mobiles instead of looking where they're going


I tried cycling the way I'd want cyclists to ride when I'm driving and yet the chavs still attacked me and tried to run me off the road. Must be my fault then, I guess.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 14, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> I tried cycling the way I'd want cyclists to ride when I'm driving and yet the chavs still attacked me and tried to run me off the road. Must be my fault then, I guess.



Always room for twats, after all you've got drivers/passengers leaning out the windows and hurling insults at pedestrians on quiet roads as they walk along the pavement.

Which is why I advocate allowing people to carry RPG's.


----------



## Santino (Jul 14, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> I tried cycling the way I'd want cyclists to ride when I'm driving and yet the chavs still attacked me and tried to run me off the road. Must be my fault then, I guess.


How did you know they were chavs?


----------



## hegley (Jul 14, 2015)

8ball said:


> Or rather, there will be separate lights for bicycles.


If something similar was rolled out in the UK I'm sure it would seen as "letting cyclists skip red lights" by the many motorists who seem to think they own the road.


----------



## Santino (Jul 14, 2015)

hegley said:


> If something similar was rolled out in the UK I'm sure it would seen as "letting cyclists skip red lights" by the many motorists who seem to think they own the road.


I only ever get annoyed by cyclists skipping red lights when I'm a pedestrian.


----------



## Sea Star (Jul 14, 2015)

Santino said:


> How did you know they were chavs?


i could see and hear them - cars round my way have windows


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 14, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> i could see and hear them - cars round my way have windows


Chavs? Come on!


----------



## Santino (Jul 14, 2015)

What do chavs look and sound like? What _are_ chavs?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 14, 2015)

Have we had this yet?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 14, 2015)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Have we had this yet?



You're laughing at someone hurting themselves in an accident. Well done you.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 14, 2015)

Orang Utan said:


> You're laughing at someone hurting themselves in an accident. Well done you.


No, I'm laughing at a twat getting (mildly, by the look of it) hurt due to him being a twat.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 14, 2015)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Have we had this yet?




iirc The guy's brake cable snapped as he went to the red light. the Bus driver stopped after the turn to see what had happened and has confirmed that the brakes had failed on the guy's bike, he wasn't just being a twat. Meanwhile the taxi that jumped the light as well doesn't get mentioned ever.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 14, 2015)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> No, I'm laughing at a twat getting (mildly, by the look of it) hurt due to him being a twat.


No, he was hurt because his brakes failed


----------



## Winot (Jul 14, 2015)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> No, I'm laughing at a twat getting (mildly, by the look of it) hurt due to him being a twat.



Wrong example to pick.


----------



## Winot (Jul 14, 2015)

BigTom said:


> iirc The guy's brake cable snapped as he went to the red light. the Bus driver stopped after the turn to see what had happened and has confirmed that the brakes had failed on the guy's bike, he wasn't just being a twat. Meanwhile the taxi that jumped the light as well doesn't get mentioned ever.



"Someone told me about this thing called confirmation bias the other day and now I'm seeing it EVERYWHERE"


----------



## Crispy (Jul 14, 2015)

Winot said:


> "Someone told me about this thing called confirmation bias the other day and now I'm seeing it EVERYWHERE"


 I'm stealing that


----------



## sim667 (Jul 14, 2015)

Winot said:


> Sounds like one for https://twitter.com/getinthesea


I love get in the sea


----------



## Winot (Jul 14, 2015)

Crispy said:


> I'm stealing that



Already stolen


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 14, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> i could see and hear them - cars round my way have windows



You've hit an u75 nerve there Stella.  I'd park that word if I was you.


----------



## Sea Star (Jul 14, 2015)

Teaboy said:


> You've hit an u75 nerve there Stella.  I'd park that word if I was you.


I think as a white working class person who has been attacked and abused by he racist, homophobic, transpbobic shit heads who live in south east london i have a right to use that word. Dont care who i offend!!!

They are forcing me out of my house and im calling them chavs. Oh boo hoo.


----------



## Santino (Jul 14, 2015)

AuntiStella said:


> I think as a white working class person who has been attacked and abused by he racist, homophobic, transpbobic shit heads who live in south east london i have a right to use that word. Dont care who i offend!!!
> 
> They are forcing me out of my house and im calling them chavs. Oh boo hoo.


You don't care who's offended when it's not you being abused.

Ever heard of a thing called solidarity?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jul 14, 2015)

Teaboy said:


> Isn't there something in the highway code about pedestrians having right of way as soon as they step onto the road?  It's a long time since I've read the Highway Code and in practice it'd be a mad pedestrian that wanted to enforce that but still?



If you are crossing the road then a car turning into that road has to give way to you. I exercise that right from time to time; sometimes I have to jump out of the way and sometimes the drivers have to brake hard. But as long as I know I'm in the right, I'm quite happy with the risk.


----------



## T & P (Jul 15, 2015)

Maurice Picarda said:


> If you are crossing the road then a car turning into that road has to give way to you. I exercise that right from time to time; sometimes I have to jump out of the way and sometimes the drivers have to brake hard. But as long as I know I'm in the right, I'm quite happy with the risk.


Up to a point, of course. If a driver breaks hard the very moment you step on the road but still manages to hit you, then you would in most circumstances be in the wrong, for you would have started to cross too late for the car to stop in time.

I doubt you're actually cutting it too fine and getting cars to come to a stop a mere metre from you, but forcing cars to brake hard still sounds like a dangerous game to play. If one day you get hit by a driver who would have stopped in time if they were paying full attention and had braked hard at the first possible opportunity, but ended up hitting you because they had taken their eyes off the road for a mere couple of seconds just at the wrong time- something many drivers are likely to do from time to time- I'm not sure how much comfort knowing you were in the right is going to bring as you nurse a broken leg, or worse.

I marvel at the number of pedestrians who start crossing streets at junctions without ever checking if a car is about to turn onto it. When driving I always check for any approaching cross traffic at junctions even if I have clear right of way, and I do the same as a pedestrian or cyclist. Assuming other road users around you are about to act recklessly might at least give you a far better chance to avoid a collision if they do act illegally.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jul 15, 2015)

I have cycled roughly the same route for the past 28 years and every morning I have to travel a hundred yards or so along a bit of main road.
There used to be a painted cycle lane on the road, but they removed that, used the space to widen the pavement and made it shared ... look at the inviting radius for cars approaching from behind !
My general approach is to ride right on the kerb and switch on my mega bright rear light which I usually only use for fog ...
Being bloody minded I assert my priority almost every time - though I do naturally endeavour to stay alive.



Spoiler: youtube video









If the road is clear I'll  use that instead - even though it's now narrower - especially if some driver has been an arse following me through the housing estate - but look at that blue car caught on Google Earth illegally turning right - I was nearly taken out by a driver doing that a year or so ago - annoyingly I had no camera working at the time and it was a while before I realised that right turns were illegal.


Spoiler: youtube video


----------



## Santino (Aug 9, 2016)

While crossing at a Pelicon crossing this morning a cyclist ignored the lights in order to weave his way around me, a gentlemen using a walking aid and an old woman pulling a shopping trolley. I pointed out to the cyclist the unmistakable fact that there was a red light showing. 'Eh, fuck off,' he wittily retorted, and cycled away.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 9, 2016)

Santino said:


> While crossing at a Pelicon crossing this morning a cyclist ignored the lights in order to weave his way around me, a gentlemen using a walking aid and an old woman pulling a shopping trolley. I pointed out to the cyclist the unmistakable fact that there was a red light showing. 'Eh, fuck off,' he wittily retorted, and cycled away.



Happens all the time in London.  It would have been a thing of note if the cyclist had stopped and been polite.  I think its a London thing primarily.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 9, 2016)

Santino said:


> While crossing at a Pelicon crossing this morning a cyclist ignored the lights in order to weave his way around me, a gentlemen using a walking aid and an old woman pulling a shopping trolley. I pointed out to the cyclist the unmistakable fact that there was a red light showing. 'Eh, fuck off,' he wittily retorted, and cycled away.



I hope you've learned your lesson.


----------



## Santino (Aug 9, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I hope you've learned your lesson.


 On Saturday when I remonstrated with another cyclist, gently pointing out that the red light bore an important message for cyclists as well as car drivers, my daughter said to me 'You like speaking to cyclists.'

'You're right, I do' I replied.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 9, 2016)

Smart kid, she'll go far.


----------



## snadge (Aug 9, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> No, he was hurt because his brakes failed




What BOTH cables snapped, somehow I think not, he is still pedaling when going through the red light.

I nearly wiped a cyclist out yesterday, riding across a dual carraigeway's pelican crossing which was green for me, I was doing 60mph and had to slam my brakes on, I missed him by less than a metre.


----------



## EastEnder (Aug 9, 2016)

Teaboy said:


> Happens all the time in London.  It would have been a thing of note if the cyclist had stopped and been polite.  I think its a London thing primarily.


I have actually found myself feeling the urge to thank cyclists who stop & wait patiently on red lights at crossings - I'm so used to them trying to run me over that it's quite a nice surprise when they don't.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 9, 2016)

Santino said:


> While crossing at a Pelicon crossing this morning a cyclist ignored the lights in order to weave his way around me, a gentlemen using a walking aid and an old woman pulling a shopping trolley. I pointed out to the cyclist the unmistakable fact that there was a red light showing. 'Eh, fuck off,' he wittily retorted, and cycled away.



its a phrase direct from the ridin' dirty handbook. Other delights include 'jog on m8' and 'whatever'. You don't have to use these phrases but they are there if needed


----------



## BigTom (Aug 9, 2016)

snadge said:


> What BOTH cables snapped, somehow I think not, he is still pedaling when going through the red light.
> 
> I nearly wiped a cyclist out yesterday, riding across a dual carraigeway's pelican crossing which was green for me, I was doing 60mph and had to slam my brakes on, I missed him by less than a metre.



Front brake cable broke, this was confirmed by the bus driver at the time, there's newspaper articles which quote the driver but cba to google. Back brake in the wet is not enough on it's own to stop a bike moving quickly. Can't watch videos at work but I remember this one from the time.


----------



## Sea Star (Aug 9, 2016)

some sanctimonious smug middle class twat on an expensive racer told me to wear a helmet when he passed me the other day. I resisted the urge to say anything back. I increasingly find my fellow cyclists to be irritating tossers.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 9, 2016)

<humble brag>To restore your faith in your fellow cyclists, I have used up a whole bottle of lube so far this year, putting it on other riders' squeaky chains while stopped at red lights, and I'll probably get through another one before christmas.</humble brag>


----------



## George & Bill (Aug 14, 2016)

Santino said:


> On Saturday when I remonstrated with another cyclist, gently pointing out that the red light bore an important message for cyclists as well as car drivers, my daughter said to me 'You like speaking to cyclists.'
> 
> 'You're right, I do' I replied.



I trust you also make an effort to remonstrate with all the drivers who routinely disregard the 20mph speed limits that now exist on most urban streets?


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 14, 2016)

I don't mind the lone cyclists, it's the packs of them on the road that get my goat. Sometimes up to 20 of them . 

We were discussing this over a few beers last week and a polish mate thinks a good way to deal with them would be to drive directly ahead of a large group and stick a can of pepper spray out the sunn roof at about distance of 6 to 8 metres. He reckons that level of dispersal should get them all in one go . Plainly put more thought into it than I had with my stupid baseball bat out window suggestion .


----------



## tommers (Aug 14, 2016)

Nice.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 14, 2016)

fucking hell, Casually Red , you're a piece of work, you hate a lot of harmless people - cyclists, vegetarians, gays - why don't you fuck off somewhere else eh?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2016)

Crispy said:


> <humble brag>To restore your faith in your fellow cyclists, I have used up a whole bottle of lube so far this year, putting it on other riders' squeaky chains while stopped at red lights, and I'll probably get through another one before christmas.</humble brag>


Yes its funny how quickly one goes through lube


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 14, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> fucking hell, Casually Red , you're a piece of work, you hate a lot of harmless people - cyclists, vegetarians, gays - why don't you fuck off somewhere else eh?



he's not fond of gypsys or jewish people either. Bit of a brownshirt. Loves the big men. Tito, Trump, Putin. Loves them all.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 14, 2016)

Crispy said:


> <humble brag>To restore your faith in your fellow cyclists, I have used up a whole bottle of lube so far this year, putting it on other riders' squeaky chains while stopped at red lights, and I'll probably get through another one before christmas.</humble brag>


I also did the first part of this sentence.

possibly the last part too....


----------



## Santino (Aug 14, 2016)

George & Bill said:


> I trust you also make an effort to remonstrate with all the drivers who routinely disregard the 20mph speed limits that now exist on most urban streets?


What's that got to do with anything?


----------



## George & Bill (Aug 14, 2016)

Santino said:


> What's that got to do with anything?



Because having a go at shitty cyclists is a good thing, but, given that shitty cyclists are still a relatively fringe issue in terms of threat to life and limb in comparison to shitty drivers, someone who has regular goes at shitty cyclists but turns a blind eye to shitty drivers is, well, a bit of a shit, and, frankly, a coward.


----------



## George & Bill (Aug 15, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> I don't mind the lone cyclists, it's the packs of them on the road that get my goat



Ah yes, the same psychology as held by many racists (of which you're one, as I recall) – the odd lone darky/paki isn't too much of a problem, as long as they don't have the temerity to hang around with any significant number of other people who look the same.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 15, 2016)

As someone who drives around London I also get well pissed with other drivers ignoring the 20mph limits.  As someone who obeys the speed limit in urban areas I spend a lot of time with other cars crawling all over my back.  The 20mph is in my experience widely ignored.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 15, 2016)

Teaboy said:


> As someone who drives around London I also get well pissed with other drivers ignoring the 20mph limits.  As someone who obeys the speed limit in urban areas I spend a lot of time with other cars crawling all over my back.  The 20mph is in my experience widely ignored.


It'd be a nice little earner if they bothered to enforce it.

CR is a cunt and you can quote me


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 15, 2016)

George & Bill said:


> Ah yes, the same psychology as held by many racists (of which you're one, as I recall) – the odd lone darky/paki isn't too much of a problem, as long as they don't have the temerity to hang around with any significant number of other people who look the same.


yeh i see you too have noticed the sheer homogeneity of the london cyclist - not only generally white but all too often inappropriately lycra-clad.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 15, 2016)

George & Bill said:


> Ah yes, the same psychology as held by many racists (of which you're one, as I recall) – the odd lone darky/paki isn't too much of a problem, as long as they don't have the temerity to hang around with any significant number of other people who look the same.


What the_* fuck*_ is this shit??? 

Talk about putting words into someone's mouth. That's well out of order. Some folk might report that post but I'm just going to sit back and watch CR rip you a new arsehole later. Twat.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> What the_* fuck*_ is this shit???
> 
> Talk about putting words into someone's mouth. That's well out of order. Some folk might report that post but I'm just going to sit back and watch CR rip you a new arsehole later. Twat.


Good on you pa


----------



## George & Bill (Aug 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> What the_* fuck*_ is this shit???
> 
> Talk about putting words into someone's mouth. That's well out of order. Some folk might report that post but I'm just going to sit back and watch CR rip you a new arsehole later. Twat.



Haha nice one, I'd wager he has enough trouble finding his own.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 15, 2016)

Crispy said:


> It'd be a nice little earner if they bothered to enforce it.



Its a bit of an odd one really.  There seems to be a trade off with people not getting too upset with the new limits in exchange for them not being enforced.  Signage must have cost a few quid so you'd think they'd want to make some sort of enforcement attempt.


----------



## Winot (Aug 15, 2016)

Teaboy said:


> Its a bit of an odd one really.  There seems to be a trade off with people not getting too upset with the new limits in exchange for them not being enforced.  Signage must have cost a few quid so you'd think they'd want to make some sort of enforcement attempt.



They're only allowed to install enforcement cameras when there's been a significant number of accidents in that location. Politically speed enforcement is not popular since the Tories got back in. And the police see it as low priority. 

It's fucking annoying and can be very intimidating if you try to stick to the limit. I was once overtaken by a bus on York Way whilst doing 20!


----------



## mauvais (Aug 15, 2016)

With a few specific exceptions, 20mph limits are almost never about the possibility of enforcement, nor have they ever been. However, that's not the only reason they exist.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 15, 2016)

Also the ACPO guidelines, rightly IMO, basically say they're not interested in policing speed limits where the limit runs contrary to expectation/the feel of what is appropriate:


> Where limits are not clear (that is they don’t feel like/look like the limit or are on inappropriate roads), they will not be routinely enforced (routinely means regular planned attendance where there isn't intelligence of deliberate offending) only targeted where there is intelligence of obvious deliberate disregard


Which, when applied wholesale to whole counties/areas, is inevitably the case


----------



## George & Bill (Aug 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> What the_* fuck*_ is this shit???  That's well out of order.



Btw, let me just remind you of the tone set by the post I was replying to:



Casually Red said:


> a good way to deal with them would be to drive directly ahead of a large group and stick a can of pepper spray out the sunn roof at about distance of 6 to 8 metres.



So, if that was a calculated fit of histrionics that we just witnessed from you, you need to brush up on your Stanislavsky. If it was genuine outrage - you really need to dust down your critical faculties.

I must say there's something particularly ugly about bullies who place manufactured moral outrage at the centre of their repertoire.

But when it's done with no prospect of success, the ugliness fades to pathos.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 15, 2016)

yeah, but you did just equate being a cyclist, something we choose to do, with being in an ethnic minority, which is something that is not a lifestyle choice, so the comparison is pretty offensive.


----------



## George & Bill (Aug 15, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> yeah, but you did just equate being a cyclist, something we choose to do, with being in an ethnic minority, which is something that is not a lifestyle choice, so the comparison is pretty offensive.



That's a fair point and I would listen very carefully to any person of colour who feels that this comparison was offensive. If CR were a person of colour who also happened to be anti-cyclist, I would certainly not have made such a comparison. However, he is not - he is a white racist who also happens to have it in for cyclists, and my comment hinges upon that whole situation.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 15, 2016)

George & Bill said:


> That's a fair point and I would listen very carefully to any person of colour who feels that this comparison was offensive. If CR were a person of colour who also happened to be anti-cyclist, I would certainly not have made such a comparison. However, he is not - he is a white racist who also happens to have it in for cyclists, and my comment hinges upon that whole situation.


it's not just CR who reads your posts, you twerp.


----------



## George & Bill (Aug 15, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> it's not just CR who reads your posts, you twerp.



I realise that. My point was that CR's MO in attacking cyclists was similar to that of many racists, of which he is one, in attacking their targets. I did not mean to imply that the situation of the two groups is comparable, and, if any person of colour wishes to engage me on this, I will eagerly listen, and withdraw and apologise for my remarks if necessary


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 15, 2016)

George & Bill said:


> Btw, let me just remind you of the tone set by the post I was replying to:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So you've been stewing on this all day and come back for a second bite of the cherry?

CR's not a racist, he's a wind-up merchant who's having you over. I however, am a "person of colour" (a revolting term, imo), or a "paki" (a word you used superfluously, you racist cunt), so forgive my "fit of histrionics", and go fuck yourself.


----------



## George & Bill (Aug 15, 2016)

However, my reading of the current situation is that you have no bone to pick with the central contention that I am making vis CR,


Spymaster said:


> So you've been stewing on this all day and come back for a second bite of the cherry?
> 
> CR's not a racist, he's a wind-up merchant who's having you over. I however, am a "person of colour" (a revolting term, imo), or a "paki" (a word you used superfluously, you racist cunt), so forgive my "fit of histrionics", and go fuck yourself.



Not really, just spontaneously realised that I had another perspective on your emotional and/or intellectual shortcomings.

As someone whose identity is also partially 'of colour', I also feel uncomfortable about the term. My use of it follows from observations of the language my brown and black friends and acquaintances choose - but I totally accept the legitimacy of objections to it. 

My use of the other term was gratuitous, and I apologise to you in relation to this.

However, none of this alters your status as a bully, a bigot, and someone who is thick as shit


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 15, 2016)

Oh dear. 'Some of my friends ....', be sure to get that bit in, eh?  



> My use of the other term was gratuitous ...



It was outright racist, yet you go on to accuse _me_ of bigotry?

As for your last, your own lack of wit is amply demonstrated by your need to return to the thread, having had a few hours to rethink things, and bolster your first response to me which you clearly felt inadequate.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 15, 2016)

George & Bill said:


> if any person of colour wishes to engage me on this, I will eagerly listen, and withdraw and apologise for my remarks if necessary



An Asian man, or Paki as you would call him already had engaged with you. You have then gone on to self identify as 'partially of colour' yourself and back up your racist shit with the all time classic, "some of my friends"

What a fucking berk.


----------



## George & Bill (Aug 15, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> An Asian man, or Paki as you would call him already had engaged with you. You have then gone on to self identify as 'partially of colour' yourself and back up your racist shit with the all time classic, "some of my friends"
> 
> What a fucking berk.



Do you understand where the 'some of my best friends' meme comes from? It refers to a situation where someone has made a racist remark but then seeks to remedy the situation with the reassurance that 'some of my best friends' are of whatever group has been slighted.

You can decide whether 'person of colour' - which was the term in relation to which I drew on the authority of my friends of colour - can be regarded as a racist term in the context of our contemporary discourse.

I would say 'shame on you' for your cynicism - but I guess that stupidity is the larger part of it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 15, 2016)

George & Bill said:


> Do you understand where the 'some of my best friends' meme comes from? It refers to a situation where someone has made a racist remark but then seeks to remedy the situation with the reassurance that 'some of my best friends' are of whatever group has been slighted.


which is exactly what you've done


----------



## George & Bill (Aug 15, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> which is exactly what you've done



So, you consider 'person of colour' to be a racist term?


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 15, 2016)

George & Bill said:


> So, you consider 'person of colour' to be a racist term?


no


----------



## George & Bill (Aug 15, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> no



Well, that was the term in relation to which I referenced my friends of colour, because it is their example I follow in using the term.

Got it yet?


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 15, 2016)

you used another word, mr obstuse


----------



## George & Bill (Aug 15, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> you used another word, mr obstuse



And my remark about friends and acquaintences was unconnected to the other words.


----------



## George & Bill (Aug 15, 2016)

Don't take this the wrong way


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 15, 2016)

George & Bill said:


> Don't take this the wrong way


condescending wally


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 15, 2016)

George & Bill said:


> And my remark about friends and acquaintences was unconnected to the other words.


no they were not. they were both written on this thread. you used the p word and then went on to say 'some of my friends....'


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 15, 2016)

George & Bill said:


> You can decide whether 'person of colour' - which was the term in relation to which I drew on the authority of my friends of colour - can be regarded as a racist term in the context of our contemporary discourse.


Oh do fuck off you bullshitting turd. The draw on authority isn't limited to the one aspect of your post, as you well know. You used it as general appeal and you're fooling nobody with your obfuscation. 

Just shutting up now would be your best course of action. What was that about "thick as shit" btw? 



> And my remark about friends and acquaintences was unconnected to the other words.



Of course not.

<Jimmy Hill chin rub>


----------



## George & Bill (Aug 15, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> no they were not. they were both written on this thread. you used the p word and then went on to say 'some of my friends....'



 nice try - but the written word does have various means of structuring its syntactical relations, and I think you're not quite as totally ignorant of these as you are feigning, my jovial friend.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 15, 2016)

George & Bill said:


> nice try - but the written word does have various means of structuring its syntactical relations, and I think you're not quite as totally ignorant of these as you are feigning, my jovial friend.


nah mate, that's just wriggling


----------



## George & Bill (Aug 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Oh do fuck off you bullshitting turd. The draw on authority isn't limited to the one aspect of your post, as you well know. You used it as general appeal and you're fooling nobody with your obfuscation.
> 
> Just shutting up now would be your best course of action. What was that about "thick as shit" btw?
> 
> ...



You're free to make whatever suppositions you wish, dear chum. Just don't mistake those suppositions for things for which there is evidence.


----------



## George & Bill (Aug 15, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> nah mate, that's just wriggling



Uhuh, sure. 

Let's go on then. 

You once said 'fuck', and you once said 'children'.

Nonce.


----------



## George & Bill (Aug 15, 2016)

Anyone else want a fucking go? Because there's only so long you can play ping pong with the kids.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 15, 2016)

you are a supercilious arsehole, aren't you?


----------



## George & Bill (Aug 15, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> you are a supercilious arsehole, aren't you?



Certainly know how to be when I find a just target, kiddo.

(Don't pretend you've never given it a go yourself. Not my fault if I'm better at it than you)


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 15, 2016)

George & Bill said:


> Uhuh, sure.
> 
> Let's go on then.
> 
> ...


Yes, but you used 'paki' first then introduced your supposed 'black and brown friends' alongside 'poc' after I'd pulled you on it, in an attempt to redirect the _entire_ racial element.

You're really not as smart as you think you are.


----------



## George & Bill (Aug 15, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Yes, but you used 'paki' first then introduced your supposed 'black and brown friends' alongside 'poc' after I'd pulled you on it, in an attempt to redirect the _entire_ racial element.
> 
> You're really not as smart as you think you are.



Actually, I used that term as a fairly cheap illustration of racism – one which I went on to freely admit was quite gratuitous. 

The entire framework of 'some of my best friends' does not fit at all you see, because that is what you say in order to claim that a something is _not _racist. I I used that term _as an example _of racism.

I've apologised before for giving such a graphic example where it wasn't really needed. 

I'm not as smart as I think I am, but I must confess to not feeling terribly disadvantaged in the current exchange.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 15, 2016)

George & Bill said:


> Actually, I used that term as a fairly cheap illustration of racism – one which I went on to freely admit was quite gratuitous.


You had to. You had nowhere else to go from there, other than to introduce an element to dilute it, in this case 'poc' and brown friends.


> The entire framework of 'some of my best friends' does not fit at all you see, because that is what you say in order to claim that a something is _not _racist.


Or as an attempt to shore-up a mealy-mouthed apology by sleight of hand.

You used 'some of my best friends ...' and got found out.


----------



## George & Bill (Aug 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> You had to. You had nowhere else to go from there other than to introduce an element to dilute it, in this case 'poc' and brown friends.
> 
> Or as an attempt to shore-up a mealy-mouthed apology by sleight of hand.
> 
> You used 'some of my best friends ...' and got found out.



As I've said before, my friend – your suppositions are your own sovereign realm. Enjoy your freedom of them


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 16, 2016)

The nice thing about this medium is that supposition is dispensable when there's a trail of evidence in black and white!


----------



## George & Bill (Aug 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> The nice thing about this medium is that supposition is dispensable when there's a trail of evidence in black and white!



Well, I must commend you for the creativity with which you approach the idea of 'evidence'. The wonderful thing about such creativity is that, like a child smearing finger paints across the bathroom wall, is is beyond objective critique. So - smear away, buddy


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 16, 2016)

George & Bill said:


> Well, I must commend you for the creativity with which you approach the idea of 'evidence'. The wonderful thing about such creativity is that, like a child smearing finger paints across the bathroom wall, is is beyond objective critique.


Speaking of creativity , that's an interesting capitulation, but one I trust other readers will find as transparent as your other attempts at beclouding your behaviour on this thread.


----------



## George & Bill (Aug 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Speaking of creativity , that's an interesting capitulation, but one I trust other readers will find as transparent as your other attempts at beclouding your behaviour on this thread.



I don't know if you'd made a mistake here, because it's not clear to my why you'd hope for my capitulation, if I were to make such a thing, to be found transparent.

But as you wish.

Whether I am henceforth found to be transparent, or opaque, or glistening iridescent like Maybelline-encrusted butterfly, my entertainment at the general situation will be much the same.  

Notwithstanding reasonable comments made in good faith, which I will treat with the sobriety they deserve.

Incidentally, I notice there are now some competing brands to Nurofen Plus. Just fyi should you read this when you wake up tomorrow.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 16, 2016)

George & Bill said:


> Incidentally, I notice there are now some competing brands to Nurofen Plus. Just fyi should you read this when you wake up tomorrow.



I fully appreciate why you'd think that reading your pompous guff would give someone a headache, but I was right as rain this morning. Whilst we're dispensing medical advice though, may I recommend Imodium as a product which may stem the flow of what you've been posting these last couple of days?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2016)

George & Bill said:


> I realise that. My point was that CR's MO in attacking cyclists was similar to that of many racists, of which he is one, in attacking their targets. I did not mean to imply that the situation of the two groups is comparable, and, if any person of colour wishes to engage me on this, I will eagerly listen, and withdraw and apologise for my remarks if necessary


You're attacking your target. Makes you akin to CR tbh


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I fully appreciate why you'd think that reading your pompous guff would give someone a headache, but I was right as rain this morning. Whilst we're dispensing medical advice though, may I recommend Imodium as a product which may stem the flow of what you've been posting these last couple of days?


This isn't some trickle of diarrhoea pa. It's like the deluge from the dams destroyed by 617 squadron. Immodium won't halt its headlong rush.


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 16, 2016)

Well, I'm glad we've sorted out what people have against cyclists...


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2016)

joustmaster said:


> Well, I'm glad we've sorted out what people have against cyclists...


and after only 58 weeks and a couple of days too.


----------



## George & Bill (Aug 16, 2016)

joustmaster said:


> Well, I'm glad we've sorted out what people have against cyclists...



To be serious for a moment:

Orang Utan is, of course, absolutely correct that the experience of having people dislike you for being a cyclist is not comparable to the experience of having people dislike you on the basis of some innate characteristic - race, ability, sexuality etc.

But I think part of the psychological motivation people have traditionally had in disliking cyclists is the same - it's about concocting a moral objection to a 'minority' in order to shore up one's sense of belonging to the 'majority'. And this is something one can see towards all kinds of 'elective' groups - members of minority religions, fringe social groups, etc. 

A particularly ugly part of this has traditionally arisen from the fact that, in the past, cycling was associated with people of low economic status - those who couldn't afford cars. So hating cyclists was also partly about hating the poor, and hating the poor is also always about justifying the fact that they are so.

Lately, of course, the demographics of cycling have totally changed and it has become dominated by more affluent people. As someone who has always defended cyclists (and been one), I can see the beginning of a situation where there could be a legitimate criticism of them as a group - that they typically belong to the rich, resource-hungry classes, but still think they have the right to be self-righteous.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2016)

George & Bill said:


> To be serious for a moment:
> 
> Orang Utan is, of course, absolutely correct that the experience of having people dislike you for being a cyclist is not comparable to the experience of having people dislike you on the basis of some innate characteristic - race, ability, sexuality etc.
> 
> ...


tell you what, walk along the canal from limehouse to the angel between say 7:30 and 8:30 in the morning and come back and tell us your view of the cyclists you've encountered.


----------



## fredfelt (Aug 16, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> tell you what, walk along the canal from limehouse to the angel between say 7:30 and 8:30 in the morning and come back and tell us your view of the cyclists you've encountered.



What's your experience?  Would it be so presumptuous to assume that you'll infer that cyclists are somehow morally inferior to the rest of decent society? 

And, perhaps, as they are lacking in moral fortitude you'll defend anyone who casually mentions that pepper spray should be used on them - so long as it's mentioned in a jokey way?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2016)

fredfelt said:


> What's your experience?  Would it be so presumptuous to assume that you'll infer that cyclists are somehow morally inferior to the rest of decent society?
> 
> And, perhaps, as they are lacking in moral fortitude you'll defend anyone who casually mentions that pepper spray should be used on them - so long as it's mentioned in a jokey way?


Why do you equate inferior with weakminded? Morally inferior is different from a lack of moral fortitude


----------



## fredfelt (Aug 17, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Why do you equate inferior with weakminded? Morally inferior is different from a lack of moral fortitude



Either way, what is your opinion of the cyclists you refer to?

Do you think that they are somehow different from other people?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2016)

fredfelt said:


> Either way, what is your opinion of the cyclists you refer to?
> 
> Do you think that they are somehow different from other people?


It's questions questions questions from you: and never the same one twice. My conclusion: you're not actually interested in the answers.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 17, 2016)

fredfelt said:


> Do you think that they are somehow different from other people?


They are enormously different from non-cyclists in at least 1 respect.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 17, 2016)

IM of the opinion that all London canals should be drained and filled into to create a network of cycle and footpaths


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 17, 2016)

ska invita said:


> IM of the opinion that all London canals should be drained and filled into to create a network of cycle and footpaths


I assume you are joking


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 17, 2016)

We could wait until they're full of cyclists then let the water back in!


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> We could wait until they're full of cyclists then let the water back in!


swimming lessons and weil's disease all round 

pa, you're a genius


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 17, 2016)

ska invita said:


> IM of the opinion that all London canals should be drained and filled into to create a network of cycle and footpaths



Maybe just tip some ready mix concrete into them and give them a quick stir.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> I assume you are joking


40% joking, 60% serious.
I actually think its a good idea on balance. Id go as far as do it across the uk and create a bike network that would link the major towns, as the canal system did.
1. It would get rid of the problem of the pedestrian v bikers on canal towpaths. Room for all
2. It would at a stroke create a massive and pervasive bike network, well out of harm of cars
3. Tow boats are a dead technology - they exist solely for (older middle class people mainly) to potter about on the weekend, pumping diesel fumes into the countryside and  making the still dirty water of the canal even dirtier
4. Canals have been filled in before across London to provide many railway line routes - there is a precedent
5. London is a hugely polluted city and this is desperately needed

They would still be green lungs in the city, except they would have plants on them instead of dirty still water with dead bodies and murder weapons floating around in them


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 17, 2016)

You seem to forget that people, animals and plants live in them


----------



## ska invita (Aug 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> You seem to forget that people, animals and plants live in them


REal social change requires upheaval
There'd be a lot more plants as a result of this, and it would be more mammal friendly - great for the near extinct hedgehog for example. Are there fish in the canals? Poor fuckers if there are. They'll be drained into the Thames - they wont die....

People have been pushed onto living on boats mainly because they cant afford anything else. Living in what is effectively no better than a leaky corridor is not the solution to the housing problem - its desperation. There is room to build a few nice eco houses along the dredged canal too, where appropriate. 

It would be a slow process - start with one stretch, people can move their boats elsewhere in the meantime. After 30 years say, London will be filled in. Remaining people can take their boats out to the country. Until I fill that bit in


----------



## CrabbedOne (Aug 17, 2016)

As someone who cycles in European cities that are quite bike friendly I quite understand why people can take a dislike to cyclists. 

I'd describe urban cycling as a liberating experience and that has its downsides. I see lots of terrible behaviour: ignoring lights and other rules of the road, cutting up now often ear budded pedestrians, using smart phones while riding, being dangerously careless of car drivers and trucks, not using the bell correctly. I find myself guilty occasionally as well. I simply don't like to get off and walk the thing through crowds. Braking after getting up speed can irritate me. I'm more impatient than when I'm driving a car. It's the nature of a bike to be able to get through narrow gaps in traffic full of frustrated drivers and bounce up onto pavements but this can create nasty surprises. If you are being naughty there's no plate number to report. Cyclists can be prone to hysterical self righteousness when a mishap occurs and it's often their fault. Perhaps it's mostly adult men enjoying a throwback to the transport of easily enraged boys. It all leads to a bit of a bastard BMW driver effect without the armoured kraut safety cage.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 17, 2016)

ska invita said:


> REal social change requires upheaval
> There'd be a lot more plants as a result of this, and it would be more mammal friendly - great for the near extinct hedgehog for example. Are there fish in the canals? Poor fuckers if there are. They'll be drained into the Thames - they wont die....
> 
> People have been pushed onto living on boats mainly because they cant afford anything else. Living in what is effectively no better than a leaky corridor is not the solution to the housing problem - its desperation. There is room to build a few nice eco houses along the dredged canal too, where appropriate.
> ...


I think it would be a terrible shame to give up canals. They're great examples of how beautiful industrial landscapes can be.
If you want to change things, it's cars that you need to get rid of, not canals.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 17, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Living in what is effectively no better than a leaky corridor is not the solution to the housing problem - its desperation.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> If you want to change things, it's cars that you need to get rid of, not canals.


Noooooooooooooo


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Noooooooooooooo


It would of course involve great social upheaval, but ska invita has said he is not averse to that


----------



## ska invita (Aug 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> I think it would be a terrible shame to give up canals. They're great examples of how beautiful industrial landscapes can be.
> If you want to change things, it's cars that you need to get rid of, not canals.


Yeah it would be a shame...but its a much better use of the space tbh.

Its not going to happen so dont worry too much


----------



## souljacker (Aug 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> If you want to change things, it's cars that you need to get rid of, not canals.



Getting rid of cars is impossible though with the current railway system.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Are there fish in the canals?


yes


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 17, 2016)

CrabbedOne said:


> As someone who cycles in European cities that are quite bike friendly I quite understand why people can take a dislike to cyclists.
> 
> I'd describe urban cycling as a liberating experience and that has its downsides. I see lots of terrible behaviour: ignoring lights and other rules of the road, cutting up now often ear budded pedestrians, using smart phones while riding, being dangerously careless of car drivers and trucks, not using the bell correctly. I find myself guilty occasionally as well. I simply don't like to get off and walk the thing through crowds. Braking after getting up speed can irritate me. I'm more impatient than when I'm driving a car. It's the nature of a bike to be able to get through narrow gaps in traffic full of frustrated drivers and bounce up onto pavements but this can create nasty surprises. If you are being naughty there's no plate number to report. Cyclists can be prone to hysterical self righteousness when a mishap occurs and it's often their fault. Perhaps it's mostly adult men enjoying a throwback to the transport of easily enraged boys. It all leads to a bit of a bastard BMW driver effect without the armoured kraut safety cage.


A cyclist who appreciates that cyclists are twats.

That's what we like.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> It would of course involve great social upheaval, but ska invita has said he is not averse to that


a few hundred people living on house boats having to move is pretty minor tbh
More compulsary purchases took place during the olympics id expect


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2016)

ska invita said:


> a few hundred people living on house boats having to move is pretty minor tbh
> More compulsary purchases took place during the olympics id expect


two wrongs famously don't make a right


----------



## ska invita (Aug 17, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> two wrongs famously don't make a right


True. But only one of these is a wrong decision.
I find your lack of faith....disturbing

Okay will stop derailing now


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 17, 2016)

ska invita, your genius knows no bounds, of course by filling in the canals you will not just create a cycle-path, but a FLAT cycle-path.

I think this should be done without delay.

Apart from the bit of canal near me, that might affect my house price, so I suggest you start outside Diamond's flat.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 17, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> ska invita, your genius knows no bounds, of course by filling in the canals you will not just create a cycle-path, but a FLAT cycle-path.
> 
> I think this should be done without delay.
> 
> Apart from the bit of canal near me, that might affect my house price, so I suggest you start outside Diamond's flat.


One last post on this: imagine if the whole UK canal network was bike roads (think how wide they'd be)... the routes they take into the countryside back on to lots of farmland, well away from roads...theres the occassional pub...

Farmers could open up campsites along the route and other eco attractions... and bike repair spots...a family from Manchester, say, could bike down to london and back for a cheap, super eco holiday, camping and pub crawling as they go. It would be AMAZING!


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2016)

ska invita said:


> One last post on this: imagine if the whole UK canal network was bike roads (think how wide they'd be)... the routes they take into the countryside back on to lots of farmland, well away from roads...theres the occassional pub...
> 
> Farmers could open up campsites along the route and other eco attractions... and bike repair spots...a family from Manchester, say, could bike down to london and back for a cheap, super eco holiday, camping and pub crawling as they go. It would be AMAZING!


i have a better idea. you have given me the idea for a framework you could attach to a bicycle to turn it into a sort of pedalo: keep the water in the canals and have cyclists pedalling along them


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 17, 2016)

souljacker said:


> Getting rid of cars is impossible though with the current railway system.


well we were talking about BIG ambitious projects that will likely never happen. 
ska invita 's idea will actually probably happen eventually but not in a pleasant way.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 17, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i have a better idea. you have given me the idea for a framework you could attach to a bicycle to turn it into a sort of pedalo: keep the water in the canals and have cyclists pedalling along them




Some fucker's just done this, although he's a scout master so whenever I read about it I conflate pedalo with paedo...  Swan pedalo completes 100-mile journey down the Thames - BBC News



> Three Scout leaders have ridden 100 miles along the Thames in a swan shaped pedalo.
> 
> Colin Dippie, Jane-Louise Bassett and Ash Wilson set off from Oxford but were 10 miles shy of getting to the Isle of Dogs in London.
> 
> ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Some fucker's just done this, although he's a scout master so whenever I read about it I conflate pedalo with paedo...  Swan pedalo completes 100-mile journey down the Thames - BBC News


"proof of concept"


----------



## ska invita (Aug 17, 2016)




----------



## Spymaster (Aug 17, 2016)

ska invita said:


> One last post on this: imagine if the whole UK canal network was bike roads (think how wide they'd be)... the routes they take into the countryside back on to lots of farmland, well away from roads...theres the occassional pub...
> 
> Farmers could open up campsites along the route and other eco attractions... and bike repair spots...a family from Manchester, say, could bike down to london and back for a cheap, super eco holiday, camping and pub crawling as they go. It would be AMAZING!


If this happened I would take up cycling. It should be proposed immediately.

It makes perfect sense. The canals will eventually be used by millions instead of a few (hundred?) thousand.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> If this happened I would take up cycling. It should be proposed immediately.


Have the Tories still got their Blue Sky Thinking Czar?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 17, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Have the Tories still got their Blue Sky Thinking Czar?




Don't think they have: Boris Johnson ‘may have accidentally sold Britain to Peruvian drug lord’


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 17, 2016)

Sorry to burst some bubbles here but filling in the canals is going to be pricey.  Very pricey.  I suppose we could put a massive tax on puncture repair kits and lycra to pay for it all.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 17, 2016)

Sequester the canal boats and flog 'em to pay for it. The owners won't need them, there'll be no canals for them to bob about in.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 17, 2016)

ska invita said:


> One last post on this: imagine if the whole UK canal network was bike roads (think how wide they'd be)... the routes they take into the countryside back on to lots of farmland, well away from roads...theres the occassional pub...
> 
> Farmers could open up campsites along the route and other eco attractions... and bike repair spots...a family from Manchester, say, could bike down to london and back for a cheap, super eco holiday, camping and pub crawling as they go. It would be AMAZING!


This is genuinely a fucking amazing idea.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2016)

then you could turn all of londons normal roads into waterways, get Sadiq to buy in a load of Gondolas and become the Venice of Britain


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 17, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Sequester the canal boats and flog 'em to pay for it. The owners won't need them, there'll be no canals for them to bob about in.



Ok.  That's the first 0.35% of funding sorted.  Anyone own a tressel table, we could do a bring and buy sale.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 17, 2016)

Teaboy said:


> Ok.  That's the first 0.35% of funding sorted.  Anyone own a tressel table, we could do a bring and buy sale.



There are 10 million houses in this country, 6 million of which have garages, in 3/4 will be a bag of cement powder of which only a tiny bit was ever used before the householder gave up and got a man in to do the job properly. We gather these 4.5 million almost full bags of cement powder, pour them in to the canals, give it a stir and wait for it to set. Piece of piss.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 17, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> There are 10 million houses in this country, 6 million of which have garages, in 3/4 will be a bag of cement powder of which only a tiny bit was ever used before the householder gave up and got a man in to do the job properly. We gather these 4.5 million almost full bags of cement powder, pour them in to the canals, give it a stir and wait for it to set. Piece of piss.



Cement is really more of a mortar than a structural void former and wouldn't work as a filler in this set-up and anyway the canals were built before cement existed, they would have used lime and cement is much harder than lime so our new cycle canals would lack integrity.  

We could use concrete that but would be extraordinarily expensive and its very heavy so whether the ground below could carry the load would be a mute point.  Traditional fill such as earth and aggregate would be a solution but then the extra thousands of tipper trucks on the road carrying the stuff would probably mean no cyclists left to use the paths.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 17, 2016)

regarding this cost - First off there is already a high cost to maintain the canals in their present state. We'll ahve that cash. Draining them is easy - jsut open the locks.
Isnt there already a probelm with what to do with rubbish? Find suitable rubbish and fill most of it with that, then stick some earth on top. Doesnt need to be concreted.
We are entering the age of helicopter money - printing money for public infastructure projects. So why not this.
Also the cost of climate change / traffic / transport / health related problems is huge - think of the money this will save in other areas of the state.
It could also revatalise certaqin communities that lie along the canals path.
ecotourism also brings money in
Where theres a will theres a way

im amused anyone is taking this seriously


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 17, 2016)

ska invita said:


> ecotourism also brings money in





Come and view the massive destruction to an important ecosystem?  The master plan, as it is, is clearly genius but I think any green points it would earn would be outweighed by the destruction it caused.  Its ok though we could just say it was a green project, no one ever seems to check.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 17, 2016)

Teaboy said:


> Come and view the massive destruction to an important ecosystem?  The master plan, as it is, is clearly genius but I think any green points it would earn would be outweighed by the destruction it caused.  Its ok though we could just say it was a green project, no one ever seems to check.


its not being destroyed - just changed use :thumzz:


----------



## Sea Star (Aug 17, 2016)

ska invita said:


> im amused anyone is taking this seriously



I've been watching this with absolute amazement - utterly speechless.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 17, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> I've been watching this with utter amazement - utterly speechless.


what do you mean?


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 17, 2016)

ska invita said:


> Isnt there already a probelm with what to do with rubbish? Find suitable rubbish and fill most of it with that, then stick some earth on top. Doesnt need to be concreted.



You seem to be advocating land fill here.  Land fill lacks any structural capabilities and is notorious for omitting volatile organic compounds and gases and other nasty stuff.  Without even a concrete capping layer (not possible anyway) you'd expose every user to potentially fatal gases and compounds. Basically the few cyclists that managed to avoid all your rubbish lorries would end up being gassed?

Which brings us back to the point of the thread, _what do you have against cyclists?_


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 17, 2016)

ska invita said:


> im amused anyone is taking this seriously


is anyone?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2016)

Teaboy said:


> end up being gassed?


first they came for the cyclists


----------



## Sea Star (Aug 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> what do you mean?


i mean that the idea is so ridiculous i can't believe people are discussing it. and i certainly won't be joining in.

are people that bored?


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 17, 2016)

ska invita said:


> its not being destroyed - just changed use :thumzz:



Tell that to the newts.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 17, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> i mean that the idea is so ridiculous i can't believe people are discussing it. and i certainly won't be joining in.
> 
> are people this bored?



Big problems require big solutions. Big solutions require big ideas, we're on the cusp of something here.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 17, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> i mean that the idea is so ridiculous i can't believe people are discussing it. and i certainly won't be joining in.
> 
> are people this bored?


just a bit of fun. y u so srs?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 17, 2016)

The problem in this country is just that motorists are not taught to share the road. Cutting people up - even other car drivers is just how they drive.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2016)

ska invita said:


> im amused anyone is taking this seriously


this is urban, this is what we do


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> i mean that the idea is so ridiculous i can't believe people are discussing it. and i certainly won't be joining in.
> 
> are people that bored?


why do you come to urban if not to discuss and debate the most trivial of trivialities?


----------



## ska invita (Aug 17, 2016)

Teaboy said:


> You seem to be advocating land fill here.  Land fill lacks any structural capabilities and is notorious for omitting volatile organic compounds and gases and other nasty stuff.  Without even a concrete capping layer (not possible anyway) you'd expose every user to potentially fatal gases and compounds. Basically the few cyclists that managed to avoid all your rubbish lorries would end up being gassed?
> 
> Which brings us back to the point of the thread, _what do you have against cyclists?_


im jsut the ideas man - let the civil servants work out the details
any other problems anyone needs fixing, pm me


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> The problem in this country is just that motorists are not taught to share the road. Cutting people up - even other car drivers is just how they drive.


we've along way to go before we can compet with the russians in this regard. I've seen the youtube vids


----------



## Sea Star (Aug 17, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> why do you come to urban if not to discuss and debate the most trivial of trivialities?


maybe my take on Urban is slightly different. Still, I've found it amusing to read....


----------



## ska invita (Aug 17, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> i mean that the idea is so ridiculous i can't believe people are discussing it. and i certainly won't be joining in.
> 
> are people that bored?


its your conservative values that mean the green party will never get anywhere


----------



## Sea Star (Aug 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> just a bit of fun. y u so srs?


maybe i come across more serious than i actually am. Would more emojis help?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> maybe my take on Urban is slightly different. Still, I've found it amusing to read....


your posts are always valued. much of urban tho is discussion and debate of tedious and ephemeral trivialities. the better part, i always think.


----------



## Sea Star (Aug 17, 2016)

ska invita said:


> its your conservative values that mean the green party will never get anywhere


i don;t think that anything i say will affect the Green Party since i quit a month ago.


----------



## Sea Star (Aug 17, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> much of urban tho is discussion and debate of tedious and ephemeral trivialities. the better part, i always think.


i get that. Maybe i need to learn to let go more.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 17, 2016)

Teaboy said:


> Big problems require big solutions. Big solutions require big ideas, we're on the cusp of something here.




ska invita is clearly a man of vision so grand the likes of which has not been seen on these Isles since Isambard passed on; piddling concerns about squished or gassed cyclists are mere details that can be ironed out later by those with less vision


----------



## og ogilby (Aug 17, 2016)

Has this been posted yet?


----------



## ska invita (Aug 17, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> i get that. Maybe i need to learn to let go more.


how is solving the tranpsort problem in London tedious or trivial? Dont listen to Pickmans slurs


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 17, 2016)

they used the wrong music


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2016)

ska invita said:


> how is solving the tranpsort problem in London tedious or trivial? Dont listen to Pickmans slurs


it may not be tedious or trivial but your 'amusing' solution is.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 17, 2016)

Teaboy said:


> ... [landfill] is notorious for omitting volatile organic compounds and gases and other nasty stuff.




_Emitting_?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 17, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> The problem in this country is just that motorists are not taught to share the road. Cutting people up - even other car drivers is just how they drive.


This thread is for slagging off_ cyclists_. Not drivers.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 17, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> it may not be tedious or trivial but your 'amusing' solution is.


They laughed at einstein...they laughed at the wright brother....who's laughing now??


----------



## Sea Star (Aug 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> This thread is for slagging off_ cyclists_. Not drivers.


what about drivers who are also cyclists?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 17, 2016)

ska invita said:


> They laughed at einstein...they laughed at the wright brother....who's laughing now??



Not them, they're brown-bread.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> This thread is for slagging off_ cyclists_. Not drivers.


there's room for us all!


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2016)

ska invita said:


> They laughed at einstein...they laughed at the wright brother....who's laughing now??


who is 'they'?


----------



## Sea Star (Aug 17, 2016)

ska invita said:


> They laughed at einstein...they laughed at the wright brother....


I'd like to see evidence of this assertion. 

oh, and which Wright brother in particular did they laugh at?


----------



## souljacker (Aug 17, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> I'd like to see evidence of this assertion.
> 
> oh, and which Wright brother in particular did they laugh at?



Orville. Cos he had Keith Harris' hand up his arse.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 17, 2016)

Why are you all thinking about filling the canals in? Obviously that's going to cost a fuckton and probably make the project unviable.

But they don't need to be filled. Just drain them and surface the beds. The cycle lanes will just be in channels.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Why are you all thinking about filling the canals in? Obviously that's going to cost a fuckton and probably make the project unviable.
> 
> But they don't need to be filled. Just drain them and surface the beds. The cycle lanes will just be in channels.


you'd have to build a lot of ramps


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> you'd have to build a lot of ramps


don't see why: perhaps cyclists might find them desirable but surely they can cycle down steps


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 17, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> don't see why


for people to access the canal bed paths


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> for people to access the canal bed paths


i believe steps would suffice


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Why are you all thinking about filling the canals in? Obviously that's going to cost a fuckton and probably make the project unviable.
> 
> But they don't need to be filled. Just drain them and surface the beds. The cycle lanes will just be in channels.


drainage would also mean you'd solve several hundred murders/missing persons dating back to the 1970s, immediately recover several hundred thousand trolleys and a million rusty bike frames. The money you could make weighing all that metal in might cover the cost of drainage


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 17, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i believe steps would suffice


not for bicycles!


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> you'd have to build a lot of ramps


Nah, they're only about 3ft deep (except for the locks). You could lift the bikes in and out. Even if you had to put a few ramps in it won't break the bank.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> not for bicycles!


yes, for bicycles.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 17, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yes, for bicycles.


that would be uncomfortable, dangerous and damaging to bikes, smooth ramps are needed


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> that would be uncomfortable, dangerous and damaging to bikes, smooth ramps are needed


by no means, a bit of discomfort would allow urban cyclists to defend their decision to choose mountain bikes.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2016)

the lock keepers cottages could be turned into handy waystations selling ice cream, beer and puncture repair kits


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 17, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> by no means, a bit of discomfort would allow urban cyclists to defend their decision to choose mountain bikes.


many of us use road bikes


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> many of us use road bikes


what do you care? it's london, not leeds.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 17, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> what do you care? it's london, not leeds.


it's still home to me


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 17, 2016)

Just in London you could get pretty much anywhere, quickly and safely. Might have to build a few bridges over the river but that's ok. We could do with a few more anyway.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> it's still home to me


please to recollect what we are talking about.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 17, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> please to recollect what we are talking about.


wot


----------



## bimble (Aug 17, 2016)

Will nobody think of the moorhens.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 17, 2016)

bimble said:


> Will nobody think of the moorhens.


and the swans and the ducks. there will be many broken legs as they attempt to land


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> wot


a speculative scheme which will never ever reach even the feasibility study stage.


----------



## bimble (Aug 17, 2016)

Also where will people dump their unwanted shopping trollies old boots corpses . London needs its canals.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Just in London you could get pretty much anywhere, quickly and safely. Might have to build a few bridges over the river but that's ok. We could do with a few more anyway.


have you been to cuckold's haven pa?


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 17, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> a speculative scheme which will never ever reach even the feasibility study stage.



I'm already undertaking a feasibility study myself and I think I've solved the fill problem.  We could use low density construction grade expanded polystyrene.  Its about £30 per m3 so using google and the back of a fag pack I reckon its going to cost us about £265 million in fill. Probably treble that to include labour costs. Thinking about it we could probably get some sort of bulk buy discount.

Plus EPS can be delivered on 7.5t rigid axle vehicle which are rarely involved in cyclist fatalities.

I reckon its a goer.


----------



## spanglechick (Aug 17, 2016)

Teaboy said:


> I'm already undertaking a feasibility study myself and I think I've solved the fill problem.  We could use low density construction grade expanded polystyrene.  Its about £30 per m3 so using google and the back of a fag pack I reckon its going to cost us about £265 million in fill. Probably treble that to include labour costs. Thinking about it we could probably get some sort of bulk buy discount.
> 
> Plus EPS can be delivered on 7.5t rigid axle vehicle which are rarely involved in cyclist fatalities.
> 
> I reckon its a goer.


Softer for when the kiddies fall off, too.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2016)

Teaboy said:


> I'm already undertaking a feasibility study myself and I think I've solved the fill problem.  We could use low density construction grade expanded polystyrene.  Its about £30 per m3 so using google and the back of a fag pack I reckon its going to cost us about £265 million in fill. Probably treble that to include labour costs. Thinking about it we could probably get some sort of bulk buy discount.
> 
> Plus EPS can be delivered on 7.5t rigid axle vehicle which are rarely involved in cyclist fatalities.
> 
> I reckon its a goer.


yes. when you've worked it up into something that looks proper then we can knock it all down again

you can use this to help you arrange it


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 17, 2016)

Teaboy's over-thinking this one, needs to apply some SCIENCE to the matter:

Gas expands to fill the volume, so drain the canals and fill with gas. Turn the gas from a gas in to a solid. Job's a good'un.


----------



## bimble (Aug 17, 2016)

Teaboy said:


> I reckon its going to cost us about £265 million in fill.


The canals are really really shallow in most places, what with all the shopping trolleys and corpses, like about 1m depth (seriously) so it'll be LOADS cheaper than that.
I'm not going to go and inform the boat people about the plan though. They're not all puttering divorcees you know.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 17, 2016)

make it like the olden days but updated. You could, when knackered or needing a pull up a steep incline that has replaced the lock, get a horserider using an uber app. He or she throws you a rope and then pulls you along for as far as you like before swiping contactlessly for payment and riding away to the next fare


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 17, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Gas expands to fill the volume, so drain the canals and fill with gas. Turn the gas from a gas in to a solid. Job's a good'un.


Now you're just being silly.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Now you're just being silly.



They laughed at the Sinclair C5 too. Who's laughing now?


----------



## friedaweed (Aug 17, 2016)

Genius chaps


----------



## T & P (Aug 17, 2016)

There's actually a (Thatcherite right wing of course) think tank in Britain whose main objective is to have all main railway lines tarmaced over and converted to motorways. So we could make improvements all across the board. Roads become motor vehicle-only, canals become cycle routes, pedestrians regain exclusive use of pavements, canal boat users move their vessels to our rivers, main train lines become motorways, with train stations becoming sheltered accommodation for the homeless... Everyone's a winner!


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 17, 2016)

Airports could become Segway centres


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 17, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Airports could become Segway centres


Don't be ridiculous. You're really not taking this seriously at all are you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Don't be ridiculous. You're really not taking this seriously at all are you?


what are you doing pa?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 17, 2016)

It really would be a lot quicker and cheaper to simply ban cycling.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2016)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> It really would be a lot quicker and cheaper to simply ban cycling.


don't bring outlandish ideas onto this most sensible of threads


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 19, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> What the_* fuck*_ is this shit???
> 
> Talk about putting words into someone's mouth. That's well out of order. Some folk might report that post but I'm just going to sit back and watch CR rip you a new arsehole later. Twat.



Currently holidaying, not giving one fuck . Probably the most urban post ever . 

But your right, I shall respond.


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 19, 2016)

George & Bill said:


> I realise that. My point was that CR's MO in attacking cyclists was similar to that of many racists, of which he is one, in attacking their targets. I did not mean to imply that the situation of the two groups is comparable, and, if any person of colour wishes to engage me on this, I will eagerly listen, and withdraw and apologise for my remarks if necessary



Just stop typing you wanker . Your only getting me sympathy .

Fackin hell? Right now words can't do justice to that thing you posted .


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 19, 2016)

George & Bill said:


> Btw, let me just remind you of the tone set by the post I was replying to:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Just shut up, bicycle wanker


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 19, 2016)

George & Bill said:


> I realise that. My point was that CR's MO in attacking cyclists was similar to that of many racists,





No really


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 19, 2016)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> It really would be a lot quicker and cheaper to simply ban cycling.



That's enough of that nonsense out of you ,Enoch .

It'll be "rivers of wd40 "next


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 19, 2016)

Personally I'm appalled that one, innocent, casual, mere bantering , ironic , throwaway remark about cyclists caused such a huge bunfight. Wasn't my intention, honestly . I'll have you all know some  of my best friends own bicycles.


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 19, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> You're attacking your target. Makes you akin to CR tbh



Oi !!

No !!

Just no .


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 19, 2016)

ska invita said:


> regarding this cost - First off there is already a high cost to maintain the canals in their present state. We'll ahve that cash. Draining them is easy - jsut open the locks.
> Isnt there already a probelm with what to do with rubbish? Find suitable rubbish and fill most of it with that, then stick some earth on top. Doesnt need to be concreted.
> We are entering the age of helicopter money - printing money for public infastructure projects. So why not this.
> Also the cost of climate change / traffic / transport / health related problems is huge - think of the money this will save in other areas of the state.
> ...



Keep the water in them and stick a big  fucking shark in it and charge people atenner to come look at it swimming about. Itllbe alive for about a week, maybe more if you throw a few jack Russell's in.  Make a bloody fortune . People will come from miles around to marvel . Better still have competitions were people on bikes ..or even skateboards or rollerblades..  jump from one side to the other avoiding the sharks jaws. with crowds  gasping in awe . A fortune. Just call them "shark alleys "instead of canals.
Take the profits and invest them in a think tank dedicated to finding a way not to make cyclists look like a bunch of annoying fucking twats .

The entire problem of road hostility between the 4 wheeled and the bi - wheeling types will then be solved.nobelpeace prize a surety .


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 19, 2016)

Teaboy said:


> Big problems require big solutions. Big solutions require big ideas, we're on the cusp of something here.



Sorted


----------



## George & Bill (Aug 19, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> Just stop typing you wanker . Your only getting me sympathy .



What makes you think I'd mind about that? You deserve all the sympathy you can get. You certainly have mine.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 19, 2016)

Casually Red said:


> I don't mind the lone cyclists, it's the packs of them on the road that get my goat. Sometimes up to 20 of them .
> 
> We were discussing this over a few beers last week and a polish mate thinks a good way to deal with them would be to drive directly ahead of a large group and stick a can of pepper spray out the sunn roof at about distance of 6 to 8 metres. He reckons that level of dispersal should get them all in one go . Plainly put more thought into it than I had with my stupid baseball bat out window suggestion .





George & Bill said:


> Ah yes, the same psychology as held by many racists (of which you're one, as I recall) – the odd lone darky/paki isn't too much of a problem, as long as they don't have the temerity to hang around with any significant number of other people who look the same.



He did mention his mate is Polish, mind. The violence is consistent, however. It was joggers some time back he wanted to smash.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> He did mention his mate is Polish, mind. The violence is consistent, however. It was joggers some time back he wanted to smash.



Right, so you've been back for a couple of days and you're already needling CR. When he turns around and gives it back to you are you going to start whining again about how he stalks you and picks on you?

You really don't fucking help yourself do you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Right, so you've been back for a couple of days and you're already needling CR. When he turns around and gives it back to you are you going to start whining again about how he stalks you and picks on you?
> 
> You really don't fucking help yourself do you?


i see you've seen kah's game plan pa


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 19, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Right, so you've been back for a couple of days and you're already needling CR. When he turns around and gives it back to you are you going to start whining again about how he stalks you and picks on you?
> 
> You really don't fucking help yourself do you?



Racist, homophobic bullies need highlighting. And you do yourself no favours, either. Guilt by association and all that.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 19, 2016)

Actually, don't know why I'm even responding to you. You're on "ignore" as is the other fella.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Racist, homophobic bullies need highlighting. And you do yourself no favours, either. Guilt by association and all that.


Yes, but you're a fucking idiot who nobody takes seriously, so no real worries there. You are not up to arguing with CR. He makes a monkey out of you every time you try it and you end up getting upset and flouncing. Then you come back and do it all over again.


----------



## George & Bill (Aug 19, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Yes, but you're a fucking idiot who nobody takes seriously, so no real worries there. You are not up to arguing with CR. He makes a monkey out of you every time you try it and you end up getting upset and flouncing. Then you come back and do it all over again.



Wow, you're quite a sycophant as well as being a thick bigot!


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2016)

George & Bill said:


> Wow, you're quite a sycophant as well as being a thick bigot!


Oh, it's you again, dullard!  

How you doing?


----------



## George & Bill (Aug 19, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Oh, it's you again, dullard!
> 
> How you doing?



In good spirits after reading this


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2016)

George & Bill said:


> In good spirits after reading this


Good stuff. I was going to ask you, what's all this "bigot" stuff you keep coming out with?


----------



## Santino (Aug 19, 2016)

This used to be a decent thread.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2016)

Santino said:


> This used to be a decent thread.


Not really, it's always been a bunfight thread. Decent bunfights at times though, I'll give you that.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 19, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Good stuff. I was going to ask you, what's all this "bigot" stuff you keep coming out with?



It's that thing you have against Asians.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2016)

Santino said:


> This used to be a decent thread.


it was all fields round here in the day


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It's that thing you have against Asians.


Ahhhh, yes of course!


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Actually, don't know why I'm even responding to you. You're on "ignore" as is the other fella.


yeh. so how come you keep seeing his posts?


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 19, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Yes, but you're a fucking idiot who nobody takes seriously, so no real worries there. You are not up to arguing with CR. He makes a monkey out of you every time you try it and you end up getting upset and flouncing. Then you come back and do it all over again.



Yes, he's so good at calling me "sissy". The absolute epitome of a serious poster.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Yes, he's so good at calling me "sissy". The absolute epitome of a serious poster.


not sure you've quite the hang of this 'ignore' thing, krtek.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 19, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. so how come you keep seeing his posts?



Because sometimes I look without signing in. You utter fuckit.

I just better reply to you, you pedantic, horrible cunt because you won't stop. Whether I have you on ignore or not. Despite begging you. 

Idiot that I am, I occasionally look at your latest attempts to fuck with my head and drive me to the very edge.

Because that's your ultimate aim. You know your schoolyard shtick works on some of us. You are well aware how much pain & grief you cause. How you are actually making people sick here but you keep on. Sort of like poking a dog repeatedly, seeing what reaction you'll get.

Perhaps you were a bully at school or bullied yourself? Not sure what explains your behaviour. 

There. You've got your response now. Find another victim.


----------



## bimble (Aug 19, 2016)

Welcome back krtek a houby . How was your holiday? I managed to stay away from here for a few weeks recently, it was kind of nice, restful.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 19, 2016)

Perhaps you've come back a little early, krtek.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 19, 2016)

bimble said:


> Welcome back krtek a houby . How was your holiday? I managed to stay away from here for a few weeks recently, it was kind of nice.



Unfortunately, not so good. It's difficult to even leave the flat some days but the lack of social interaction is a drudge. My wife is the only person keeping me together these days. But that kind of burden isn't fair on her.


----------



## bimble (Aug 19, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Unfortunately, not so good. It's difficult to even leave the flat some days but the lack of social interaction is a drudge. My wife is the only person keeping me together these days. But that kind of burden isn't fair on her.


I don't know what to tell you, because you know already - you've probably been here years more than me -  but if you want this place to be a help and not a hellzone you do have to pick and choose how you interact with it, isn't it. May I suggest the Google game? It's very friendly in there.


----------



## bluescreen (Aug 19, 2016)

Santino said:


> This used to be a decent thread.


Except when speeding past when it looks like "what have people got against cystitis?"
What indeed, I used to wonder, and scrolled on down.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Perhaps you were a bully at school or bullied yourself? Not sure what explains your behaviour.


no, indeed you aren't.

yet you think you know what i'm thinking when you don't, you chuck around accusations with gay abandon and you admit you go out of your way to actually see the things you affect to be ignoring  i never look at the boards without signing in, and if i had people on ignore i certainly wouldn't do that. have a tip for free, never look at the boards without signing in. btw making people sick? who's that then?


----------



## George & Bill (Aug 19, 2016)

Santino said:


> This used to be a decent thread.



If you lack the intellectual courage to engage in honest debate, don't compain about the hot air that rushes in the fill the vacuum.


----------



## bimble (Aug 19, 2016)

George & Bill said:


> If you lack the intellectual courage to engage in honest debate, *don't compain about the hot air that rushes in the fill the vacuum*.


Do you mean farts and those who enjoy the smell of their own ones?


----------



## Santino (Aug 19, 2016)

George & Bill said:


> If you lack the intellectual courage to engage in honest debate, don't compain about the hot air that rushes in the fill the vacuum.


fuck off


----------



## bluescreen (Aug 19, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> Unfortunately, not so good. It's difficult to even leave the flat some days but the lack of social interaction is a drudge. My wife is the only person keeping me together these days. But that kind of burden isn't fair on her.


bimble is right. Stay off contentious threads like this. Go and have a punt at the Where on Google Earth Am I thread. People are mostly friendly on there (except me: I've been told off for being snarky). 

I would link to the thread but that one and this have suddenly magically vanished.


----------



## bluescreen (Aug 19, 2016)

Here you go: https://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/where-on-google-earth-am-i.346431/page-110


----------



## bimble (Aug 19, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> bimble is right.


 (Just savouring the moment as this almost never happens)


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2016)

bimble said:


> (Just savouring the moment as this almost never happens)


Maybe if you put some effort in it'll happen more frequently in future


----------



## bluescreen (Aug 19, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Maybe if you put some effort in it'll happen more frequently in future


Pickman's: humido stragulum
or summat like that.


----------



## bimble (Aug 19, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Maybe if you put some effort in it'll happen more frequently in future


I will strive harder for your approval in future i will. But steering clear of saying anything remotely annoying or troublesome in the p&p threads seems to the the way forward.


----------



## pengaleng (Aug 19, 2016)

I just get approval for everything cus I'm a legend 

(raaaa I just scroled up, someone needs to realise they aint that important)


----------



## Sweet FA (Aug 20, 2016)

Teaboy said:


> a tressel table


I can put one of them up in less than 12 parsecs.

Also why is Pickman's calling spy, pa? It's a fucking plot twist and a half if spy turns out to be Pickman's dad.


----------



## bimble (Aug 20, 2016)

Sweet FA said:


> Also why is Pickman's calling spy, pa? It's a fucking plot twist and a half if spy turns out to be Pickman's dad.


It's a deeply moving story of broken families refound.


----------



## eoin_k (Aug 20, 2016)

bluescreen said:


> bimble is right. Stay off contentious threads like this. Go and have a punt at the Where on Google Earth Am I thread. People are mostly friendly on there (except me: I've been told off for being snarky).
> 
> I would link to the thread but that one and this have suddenly magically vanished.


Oi! I've been enjoying that thread without having to wade through someone's petty drama.


----------



## rich! (Aug 20, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> why do you come to urban if not to discuss and debate the most trivial of trivialities?


New jokes thread.


----------



## alfajobrob (Aug 20, 2016)

I don't like some cyclists - the older ones that ignore red lights and just cycle inconsiderately...

I like the fact my mum and dad have both got on the bikes for first time in 40/45 years down a trail. I used to cycle like a loon as a kid\teenager as well as late 20's so all my complaining is massively hypocritical now.

I do enjoy stopping for people at zebras, lights and always think it pays to be nice on the road.


----------



## Winot (Aug 20, 2016)

alfajobrob said:


> I do enjoy stopping for people at zebras, lights and always think it pays to be nice on the road.



Have you noticed the weird 'invisible cyclist' phenomenon?

- Cyclist stops at a zebra crossing for a pedestrian

- 2-3 cars go through crossing

- Eventually a car stops so the pedestrian can cross

- Pedestrian waves to thank driver for stopping

- No acknowledgement of cyclist


----------



## antimata (Aug 20, 2016)

throws bun...

i cycle and behave like a tool.
i drive (pay for the privilege) like a tool.

so whos the tool....


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 20, 2016)

Winot said:


> Have you noticed the weird 'invisible cyclist' phenomenon?
> 
> - Cyclist stops at a zebra crossing for a pedestrian
> 
> ...


This is because the pedestrian believes the stopped cyclist at a crossing to be a figment of his imagination.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 20, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> This is because the pedestrian believes the stopped cyclist at a crossing to be a figment of his imagination.


Saw three cyclists go through a red light at Highbury the other day preventing a Muslim woman crossing with her children before the lights changed. Bully for you, cyclists!


----------



## antimata (Aug 20, 2016)

Winot said:


> Have you noticed the weird 'invisible cyclist' phenomenon?
> 
> - Cyclist stops at a zebra crossing for a pedestrian
> 
> ...



pedestrian v cyclist is a nonevent.  

pedestrian v car is.

car v cyclist is also an event.....


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 20, 2016)

antimata said:


> pedestrian v cyclist is a nonevent.
> 
> pedestrian v car is.
> 
> car v cyclist is also an event.....


Cyclist v cyclist?


----------



## antimata (Aug 20, 2016)

who cares...


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 20, 2016)

antimata said:


> who cares...


If you don't care deeply about the most trivial trivialities perhaps you shouldn't be posting on urban


----------



## antimata (Aug 20, 2016)

oh i do care thats why i post on urban......


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 20, 2016)

antimata said:


> oh i do care thats why i post on urban......


Yeh to ask 


antimata said:


> who cares...


----------



## antimata (Aug 20, 2016)

crossing quotes over makes no never mind....


----------



## Señor Sol (Aug 20, 2016)

I spent 8 years commuting by bike ten miles a day through north london, I was not killed but it was touch and go. The only people that were worse than all the drivers were the majority of cyclists, who can be nasty idiots.


----------



## emanymton (Aug 20, 2016)

Winot said:


> Have you noticed the weird 'invisible cyclist' phenomenon?
> 
> - Cyclist stops at a zebra crossing for a pedestrian
> 
> ...


No, because I have never seen a cyclist stop at a zebra crossing. Unless they really are invisible!


----------



## emanymton (Aug 20, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Cyclist v cyclist?


Popcorn event.


----------



## Winot (Aug 20, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> This is because the pedestrian believes the stopped cyclist at a crossing to be a figment of his imagination.



And after the event can continue asserting on the internet that no cyclists ever stop at zebra crossings.


----------



## T & P (Aug 20, 2016)

Winot said:


> Have you noticed the weird 'invisible cyclist' phenomenon?
> 
> - Cyclist stops at a zebra crossing for a pedestrian
> 
> ...



I'm a cyclist as much as a driver, and IME the opposite is true far more often. A car stops at a zebra crossing to let a pedestrian cross, and a cyclist shoots past while the pedestrian is still crossing. If the pedestrian is lucky the offending cyclist will at least have had the decency of leaving a gap of a metre or so. Often it's much smaller than that. That doesn't mean all cyclists do it, of course.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 20, 2016)

T & P said:


> I'm a cyclist as much as a driver, and IME the opposite is true far more often. A car stops at a zebra crossing to let a pedestrian cross, and a cyclist shoots past while the pedestrian is still crossing. If the pedestrian is lucky the offending cyclist will at least have had the decency of leaving a gap of a metre or so. Often it's much smaller than that. That doesn't mean all cyclists do it, of course.


Absolutely.

In London I'm a pedestrian far more often than a driver and cars invariably stop at crossings. Cyclists invariably do not, more often opting to slow down and swerve behind or speed up and try to go through the crossing in front of the ped. Generally speaking, cars can't do that because someone will get hit. 

Cyclists take the piss more on pedestrian crossings because they perceive the danger to be minimal.


----------



## Purdie (Aug 20, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Cyclist v cyclist?



Lycra wars


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 20, 2016)

Winot said:


> And after the event can continue asserting on the internet that no cyclists ever stop at zebra crossings.


Nonsense. I've seen a cyclist stop at a zebra crossing. 

I think it was in 2004.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 20, 2016)

this may be Recieved Wisdom (ie bollocks) but I'm told knocking someone over at zebras is automatically a dangerous driving conviction. Which makes sense because you have a high chance of murderating them.


I never stop at zebras, just mount the pavement and swerve em. The joys of living in ruralshire is that theres less chance the streets will be crowded with pedestrians so ridin' dirty is easy


----------



## bi0boy (Aug 20, 2016)

Cyclists don't need to stop at zebra crossings. They, like motor vehicle drivers, only need to give way to pedestrians. It's a lot easier to do this without stopping when you're on two wheels.


----------



## Sea Star (Aug 20, 2016)

Winot said:


> Have you noticed the weird 'invisible cyclist' phenomenon?
> 
> - Cyclist stops at a zebra crossing for a pedestrian
> 
> ...


Yes. Happens a lot. In the past I've stopped and nothing has happened. ie, cars keep going, pedestrian stays on the pavement, so I've carried on again.


----------



## Sea Star (Aug 20, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Cyclists don't need to stop at zebra crossings. They, like motor vehicle drivers, only need to give way to pedestrians. It's a lot easier to do this without stopping when you're on two wheels.


Infuriating though when you're on an otherwise empty road, you go slow, you see someone waiting and they have plenty of time to go, but they just stand there watching you getting slowly closer, you may even gesture that they can cross but they don't, then eventually you arrive at the crossing and they step out right in front of you. This too has happened to me.


----------



## Sea Star (Aug 20, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> this may be Recieved Wisdom (ie bollocks) but I'm told knocking someone over at zebras is automatically a dangerous driving conviction. Which makes sense because you have a high chance of murderating them.
> 
> I never stop at zebras, just mount the pavement and swerve em. The joys of living in ruralshire is that theres less chance the streets will be crowded with pedestrians so ridin' dirty is easy



Someone drove at me once when I was crossing on a zebra at new cross. It was seen by the policeman. I actually had to jump out of the way of vehicle. Policeman ignored event though he'd clearly seen it. I walked over to policeman and asked if he could do something. Policeman immediately assaulted me by grabbing my collar and pulling me up by it, told me he was busy and i should "fuck off". This was all seem by an old lady who said, "he's clearly having a bad day" and rolled her eyes which then made me forget how absolutely livid I was. But I never try to report stuff to police on the street any more.


----------



## bi0boy (Aug 20, 2016)

Another thing is that you only have to give way to pedestrians on the crossing. If they're standing on the pavement there is no such requirement. Often when I'm driving I will give way to people standing on the pavement if they're looking at me or clearly intend to cross - as a courtesy and because I don't want them jumping in front me. As a cyclist though, if they're just standing there I will just go straight through because I can move towards the centre and give them a wide enough berth.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 20, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> Another thing is that you only have to give way to pedestrians on the crossing. If they're standing on the pavement there is no such requirement. Often when I'm driving I will give way to people standing on the pavement if they're looking at me or clearly intend to cross - as a courtesy and because I don't want them jumping in front me. As a cyclist though, if they're just standing there I will just go straight through because I can move towards the centre and give them a wide enough berth.


Giving way to someone on a crossing at least as often honoured in the breach as the observance in some parts of town.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 20, 2016)

Winot said:


> Have you noticed the weird 'invisible cyclist' phenomenon?
> 
> - Cyclist stops at a zebra crossing for a pedestrian
> 
> ...


No.


----------



## bi0boy (Aug 20, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> Someone drove at me once when I was crossing on a zebra at new cross. It was seen by the policeman. I actually had to jump out of the way of vehicle. Policeman ignored event though he'd clearly seen it. I walked over to policeman and asked if he could do something. Policeman immediately assaulted me by grabbing my collar and pulling me up by it, told me he was busy and i should "fuck off". This was all seem by an old lady who said, "he's clearly having a bad day" and rolled her eyes which then made me forget how absolutely livid I was. But I never try to report stuff to police on the street any more.



That mirrors my own experience of reporting something to a random plod on the street (an ongoing fight behind a nearby bus). I'm also frequently driven at on zebras. I sometimes I daydream about them having a window wound down and me accidentally and in shock letting go of an upsized too-hot-to-drink coffee in their direction.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 20, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> But I never try to report stuff to police on the street any more.


best to avoid the buggers unless you need a crime number for insurance purposes. Nieghbour came home drunk one night and started kicking her own door in. While screaming bad words. We got her in (to ours) and sat with a cup of tea, got her to the crying of shame stage. Old Bill turn up cos some un neighbourly dickhead had called them. Immediatly when they're in the gaff with us the WPC starts eyeing up my roached rizla packet, doing that scan of the room that only theives and coppers do. Acting like they wanted a nicking out of this visit but we had taken care of a community issue without their intervention and whover called them is a no mark wanker. I suspect I know which cunt it was as well. OB: Hinderance rather than help most of the time


----------



## Sea Star (Aug 20, 2016)

Something else that happens though not for a while - the one im going to recount happened by Brockwell Park about ten years ago... But it's a fairly common occurrence. Cycling along minding my own business on a completely empty road, drunk couple decide to lurch out into the road just in front of me, I don't stop but I go round them and avoid them completely. They proceed to shout abuse at me all the way down the road. Generally if a third party heard such abuse against a cyclist they join in. Sometimes they decide to attack you.
Other times I've had abuse hurled at me for cycling on the pavement. Sometimes this feels genuinely threatening. The pavement in my case is always a shared use cycle path as I don't cycle on pavements. I've been sworn at for cycling the wrong way down one way roads that haven't been one way roads at all. And again this sort of abuse is quite often genuinely threatening. If you meet a vehicle going the wrong way they quite often just try to run you off the road. Or even go chasing after you because you've pissed them off by being in the right. And yet people are quite happy to tar all cyclists as the same. I've been beaten up more than four times just for being on a bike at the wrong time in the wrong place. Time to stop demonising cyclists I think.


----------



## Buckaroo (Aug 20, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> doing that scan of the room that only theives and coppers do.


Ain't that the truth


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 20, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> Time to stop demonising cyclists I think.


No chance. The vast majority of them are utter dicks!


----------



## Sea Star (Aug 20, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> No chance. The vast majority of them are utter dicks!


You need to think about consequences then.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 20, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> You need to think about consequences then.


Or other parlour games


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 20, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> You need to think about consequences then.


Of calling cyclists twats?


----------



## Sea Star (Aug 20, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Of calling cyclists twats?


Of societal demonization of people just because of their chosen method of transportation. I'm a cyclist too don't forget. Happy calling me a twat? How does that translate out into the real world? I've been beaten up and attacked numerous times while doing nothing wrong but presumably because the person who attacked me thought I was fair game.

Cyclists are the most vulnerable of all and lots of us do not consider ourselves to be twats. And the ones that are twats, it's probably not their riding a bike that makes them a twat.

Think of the many, especially women, who use cycling as a way of empowering themselves; and those who cycle because it's the only form of transport they can afford.


----------



## irf520 (Aug 20, 2016)

This is how they deal with cyclists in the US boondocks:


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 20, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> Of societal demonization of people just because of their transportation system. I'm a cyclist too don't forget. Happy calling me a twat? How does that translate out into the real world? I've been beaten up and attacked numerous times while doing nothing wrong but presumably because the person who attacked me thought I was fair game.


Well I didn't say _all_, did I? I said the vast majority, which I'm happy to exclude you from Stells, along with BigTom, he's ok too, as are the other cyclists on here who think most cyclists are fuckwits. Most though, are obviously bad cyclists and a menace on the roads, as you can tell by reading the posts of cyclists like Winot, and that George & Bill bellend, who's also an awful racist and ignoramus, though that probably has little to do with his cycling.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 20, 2016)

Buckaroo said:


> Ain't that the truth


its especially insulting when they have been invited in and offered a cup of tea. Not me, ma did the invite. If it was my threshold you don't darken the door without warrant


----------



## Winot (Aug 20, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well I didn't say _all_, did I? I said the vast majority, which I'm happy to exclude you from Stells, along with BigTom, he's ok too, as are the other cyclists on here who think most cyclists are fuckwits. Most though, are obviously bad cyclists and a menace on the roads, as you can tell by reading the posts of cyclists like Winot, and that George & Bill bellend, who's also an awful racist and ignoramus, though that probably has little to do with his cycling.



0/10


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 20, 2016)

Your cycling proficiency test score?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 20, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well I didn't say _all_, did I? I said the vast majority, which I'm happy to exclude you from Stells, along with BigTom, he's ok too, as are the other cyclists on here who think most cyclists are fuckwits. Most though, are obviously bad cyclists and a menace on the roads, as you can tell by reading the posts of cyclists like Winot, and that George & Bill bellend, who's also an awful racist and ignoramus, though that probably has little to do with his cycling.


Don't forget Boycey, pa, he's grand.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 20, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Don't forget Boycey, pa, he's grand.


Yep, forgot about him.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 20, 2016)

apropos of nothing I want to talk about what a swizz electric foldng bikes are. First of all they never get folded cos its a mini mission and fuck it, I'm using it tomorrow anyway right. Then they have these god awful heavy frames reminiscent of the dark ages before carbon fibre frames. And why do they have them? Why it is to support a £300 quid battery that sits right under your center of balance and throws you completely off. If I have a steed under me I want it to be lighter than me, responsive as fuck and feel like a natural extension of myself. I want to be able to lean left with a slight change of balance. Hualing on the fucker like a recalcitrant mule is not my sort of cycling. No amount of power assist can make up for it imo. Its fun to try but at the end of the day you are riding a big heavy POS that is useless without a battery.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 20, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Don't forget Boycey, pa, he's grand.


And me. My cycling is exquisite, I'll have you know


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 20, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> And me. My cycling is exquisite, I'll have you know


 Have you anyone to confirm this?


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 20, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Have you anyone to confirm this?


I have a certificate


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 20, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> I have a certificate


Yeh. I have a cycling certificate. We all have cycling certificates. Have you no one to vouch for your cycling?


----------



## BigTom (Aug 20, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well I didn't say _all_, did I? I said the vast majority, which I'm happy to exclude you from Stells, along with BigTom, he's ok too, as are the other cyclists on here who think most cyclists are fuckwits. Most though, are obviously bad cyclists and a menace on the roads, as you can tell by reading the posts of cyclists like Winot, and that George & Bill bellend, who's also an awful racist and ignoramus, though that probably has little to do with his cycling.



tbf I think most road users, regardless of their means of transport, are fuckwits. Dangerous, selfish fucking cunts lots of them too (I'm still annoyed by all the drivers on my way home who think it's fine to park illegally even though they push me out into traffic flows or push traffic flows into my lane, increasing my risks or block the pavements so wheelchair users and mothers with buggies have to push their way up a hill in the road). The smaller, lighter and slower your means of transport though, the less it matters if you are a dangerous selfish fucking cunt. Therefore level of cuntitude runs like this... taxi drivers (special case) > van drivers > Bus/HGV drivers > car drivers > motorcyclists > cyclists > pedestrians > flying carpets. And yes, bus/hgv bigger than van but drivers generally better. Fuck taxi drivers though, they are the worst.


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 20, 2016)

krtek a houby said:


> He did mention his mate is Polish, mind. The violence is consistent, however. It was joggers some time back he wanted to smash.




Don't reply to any more of my posts you prick. Onto ignore with you. Should have done it long ago .


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 20, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> no, indeed you aren't.
> 
> yet you think you know what i'm thinking when you don't, you chuck around accusations with gay abandon and you admit you go out of your way to actually see the things you affect to be ignoring  i never look at the boards without signing in, and if i had people on ignore i certainly wouldn't do that. have a tip for free, never look at the boards without signing in. btw making people sick? who's that then?



Back a mere 5 seconds and now you're  bullying him. 

A waste of space and organs .


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 20, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> No chance. The vast majority of them are utter dicks!















A vegan anti smoker , for the record .


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 20, 2016)

irf520 said:


> This is how they deal with cyclists in the US boondocks:


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 20, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Perhaps you've come back a little early, krtek.



483 years early , to be precise


----------



## Sea Star (Aug 20, 2016)

Almost any group of people I can think of are mostly pricks. Cyclists probably marginally less so than most others. Motorists are top of the list and rail commuters have a herd like instinct that leads them to behave as dickishly as the most dickish among them.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 20, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> Almost any group of people I can think of are mostly pricks. Cyclists probably marginally less so than most others. Motorists are top of the list and rail commuters have a herd like instinct that leads them to behave as dickishly as the most dickish among them.


This is wrong on at least 3 levels.


----------



## Casually Red (Aug 20, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> This is wrong on at least 3 levels.



Where I live people in the fields still wave at the people on the train as they pass by .

Mind you some of them blow the railway line up from time to time. But still. There's a lot of friendly waving for the most part . So train people can't all be dicks.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 20, 2016)

irf520 said:


> This is how they deal with cyclists in the US boondocks:


This is called 'rolling coal' and it's the preserve of total redneck dickheads, with or without cyclists.


----------



## alan_ (Aug 20, 2016)

mauvais said:


> This is called 'rolling coal' and it's the preserve of total redneck dickheads, with or without cyclists.


If you have an old deisel you probably get this to an extent when changing gear. It can be excarebated by not engaging clutch and giving loads of revs. (not to that extent obviously)


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 20, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> Almost any group of people I can think of are mostly pricks. Cyclists probably marginally less so than most others. Motorists are top of the list and rail commuters have a herd like instinct that leads them to behave as dickishly as the most dickish among them.



I have been commuting by rail for 15 years, have a cycle-cross bike and and stupidly fast Audi. 

How big is my dick?






Tiny, probly.


----------



## Purdie (Aug 20, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Your cycling proficiency test score?



4 years as pushbike courier in central London back in the eighties
Used to race the 73 home in the evening from base on Kings X rd to N16.  I lived on Osbaldeston.  Some I won, others I lost.  Or I got side-tracked.


----------



## irf520 (Aug 20, 2016)

I don't have anything against cyclists per se. It's the sanctimony that gets my goat. Plus, a significant number of cyclists seem to have something against me, e.g.



AuntiStella said:


> Almost any group of people I can think of are mostly pricks. <snip> Motorists are top of the list <snip>


----------



## Purdie (Aug 20, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> Almost any group of people I can think of are mostly pricks. Cyclists probably marginally less so than most others. Motorists are top of the list and rail commuters have a herd like instinct that leads them to behave as dickishly as the most dickish among them.


You forgot pedestrians.  They are road users too you know.  Unlike commuters...

Here in Belgium there are 3 types of cyclists.
1 cycles out of necessity or lifestyle choice
2 is the recreational that cycles mainly on weekends for relaxation
3 are the ones for whom it's a way to acquire status and this is reflected in their bikes and/or kit they wear.

1 on the whole are sweet.  some idiots.  some ignorant.  some self righteous
2 is a mix from considerate and competent to clueless that should stick to their car
3 on the whole are pricks who might or might not care too much about the size of their dick but to all of them their bike will be their pride and joy.  It will spend spring and summer being parked by the right roadside establishments so passing cyclist can ogle at them.  They disappear around October when the weather stats taking a turn for the worse proper.


----------



## George & Bill (Aug 21, 2016)

Santino said:


> fuck off



(ed: no photos of shit please)


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 21, 2016)

That's a vast improvement on what you normally post on these boards, George & Bill.

Congratulations


----------



## BigTom (Aug 21, 2016)

irf520 said:


> I don't have anything against cyclists per se. It's the sanctimony that gets my goat. Plus, a significant number of cyclists seem to have something against me, e.g.



because anyone who cycles have their lives put at risk more or less daily by drivers. You'd have something against drivers as a group if one or more of them were apparently trying to kill you most days. I don't think anyone should identify themselves by their form of transport so much that they take such comments personally.


----------



## bi0boy (Aug 21, 2016)




----------



## roryer (Aug 22, 2016)

Did a survey today. Most common complaint of pedestrians was not narrow crowded pavements or poor air quality, both high scorers, but inconsiderate cyclists. Most common complaint for cyclists inattentive pedestrians.

I think both are correct. We need to share the road and understand the pressures on each type of road user. The big issue is that there will always be bad drivers, inconsiderate cyclists and inattentive pedestrians. There's no need to copy them or get angry. Calm down and slow down?


----------



## bimble (Aug 22, 2016)

roryer said:


> Calm down and slow down?



A good plan, though the one mooted earlier about turning all the canals into a sort of magic solidified gas was probably more viable.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 24, 2016)

Or just, you know, ban all motorists.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2016)




----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2016)

Spymaster said:


>



you've a mean streak a mile wide, pa


----------



## mauvais (Aug 24, 2016)

Spymaster said:


>


This one came up somewhere else, possibly on this thread. His brakes failed.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2016)

mauvais said:


> This one came up somewhere else, possibly on this thread. His brakes failed.


Of course they did! 

Nothing to do with him pedalling furiously straight towards a red light.


----------



## irf520 (Aug 24, 2016)

I saw one come a cropper yesterday at the Elephant & Castle. Turning left off the 'bend' that replaced the roundabout onto Newington Causeway, instead of using the segregated cycle lane this guy thought he'd be clever and use the motor vehicle lane to overtake some other cyclists. Unfortunately for him there was a bus going the same way and the bus shut the door on him and forced him into the kerb and down he went.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 24, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Of course they did!
> 
> Nothing to do with him pedalling furiously straight towards a red light.



The bus driver stopped to check he was alright. It was the bus driver that told a newspaper his front brake cable snapped, the video has been on this thread at least once, twice I think, I cba to find the newspaper report with the bus driver interview in it. I dunno why you think you can tell if he's pedalling as I can't on a good sized screen, the footage is way too blurry/rainy/low res and even if he is still pedalling he might well be on a fixed gear bike where you wouldn't stop pedalling until you stopped.
No need to mention the taxi that ran the red light either.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 24, 2016)

irf520 said:


> I saw one come a cropper yesterday at the Elephant & Castle. Turning left off the 'bend' that replaced the roundabout onto Newington Causeway, instead of using the segregated cycle lane this guy thought he'd be clever and use the motor vehicle lane to overtake some other cyclists. Unfortunately for him there was a bus going the same way and the bus shut the door on him and forced him into the kerb and down he went.



No such thing as a motor vehicle lane, except the motorways I suppose though I've never heard them described like that. Cyclists are no required to use cycle lanes and are perfectly entitled to use the carriageway. If you start thinking about the carriageway as a motor vehicle lane you'll start thinking about how they should be used wrongly.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2016)

BigTom said:


> No need to mention the taxi that ran the red light either.


Taxi drivers are almost the same size dickheads as cyclists though, tbf.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 24, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Taxi drivers are almost the same size dickheads as cyclists though, tbf.



taxi drivers are the worst drivers and have the worst attitudes on the road ime / imo.


----------



## irf520 (Aug 24, 2016)

BigTom said:


> No such thing as a motor vehicle lane, except the motorways I suppose though I've never heard them described like that. Cyclists are no required to use cycle lanes and are perfectly entitled to use the carriageway. If you start thinking about the carriageway as a motor vehicle lane you'll start thinking about how they should be used wrongly.



Pedantry. Maybe I should have said "the lane which is still available for motor vehicles" but that was too long winded.
Can you not see why motorists might get slightly pissed off when, even when a substantial part of the road has been cordoned off for their exclusive use, cyclists still insist on using that part of the road still open to motor vehicles?
Actually, don't bother replying. I can't be arsed with this conversation again. We are never going to see eye to eye. Bollocks to it.


----------



## fredfelt (Aug 24, 2016)

BigTom said:


> The bus driver stopped to check he was alright. It was the bus driver that told a newspaper his front brake cable snapped, the video has been on this thread at least once, twice I think, I cba to find the newspaper report with the bus driver interview in it. I dunno why you think you can tell if he's pedalling as I can't on a good sized screen, the footage is way too blurry/rainy/low res and even if he is still pedalling he might well be on a fixed gear bike where you wouldn't stop pedalling until you stopped.
> No need to mention the taxi that ran the red light either.



I don't think the cause of the crash matters. I think the point of the post was to be able to relish in the misfortune of others.

It's okay to do that in this case as the victim is a cyclist, and cyclists are fair game, because they choose to ride bikes.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 24, 2016)

irf520 said:


> Pedantry. Maybe I should have said "the lane which is still available for motor vehicles" but that was too long winded.
> Can you not see why motorists might get slightly pissed off when, even when a substantial part of the road has been cordoned off for their exclusive use, cyclists still insist on using that part of the road still open to motor vehicles?
> Actually, don't bother replying. I can't be arsed with this conversation again. We are never going to see eye to eye. Bollocks to it.



 If you don't want to have a conversation, don't reply yourself. If you think the rules should be different, work to get the rules changed, don't get annoyed by people following them and don't set things up in your own mind to think the rules are different to what they are. It's called a carriageway btw, and I can't imagine using it with a decent segregated cycle lane available but if someone does choose to do so, they probably have a good reason for it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2016)

BigTom said:


> If you don't want to have a conversation, don't reply yourself. If you think the rules should be different, work to get the rules changed, don't get annoyed by people following them and don't set things up in your own mind to think the rules are different to what they are. It's called a carriageway btw, and I can't imagine using it with a decent segregated cycle lane available but if someone does choose to do so, they probably have a good reason for it.


"that part of a road intended for vehicles rather than pedestrians"


----------



## fredfelt (Aug 24, 2016)

irf520 said:


> Pedantry. Maybe I should have said "the lane which is still available for motor vehicles" but that was too long winded.
> Can you not see why motorists might get slightly pissed off when, even when a substantial part of the road has been cordoned off for their exclusive use, cyclists still insist on using that part of the road still open to motor vehicles?
> Actually, don't bother replying. I can't be arsed with this conversation again. We are never going to see eye to eye. Bollocks to it.



Some motorists may get pissed off, but certainly not all.

When I drive im more than happy to share the roads with cyclists.

A nearby cycle path makes no difference to me as I know from experience that most are less than helpful. That, and there's no compulsion for them to be used.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2016)

fredfelt said:


> I don't think the cause of the crash matters. I think the point of the post was to be able to relish in the misfortune of others.


Pretty much. I mean Bioboy's video was apropos of nothing but highlighting a penis driver, I just thought we should post one of a penis cyclist for balance.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Pretty much. I mean Bioboy's video was apropos of nothing but highlighting a penis driver, I just thought we should post one of a penis cyclist for balance.


...or coxcomb cyclist


----------



## Sea Star (Aug 24, 2016)

BigTom said:


> taxi drivers are the worst drivers and have the worst attitudes on the road ime / imo.


I used to have to cycle past an Addison Lee depot/ service garage or whatever it was - with loads of the twats parked along the main road, double parked etc. One used to ALWAYS pull out in front of me at some point without looking, without signalling... whenever i tried to cycle along that road and there wasn't an obvious alternative route to use as anmy detour would have involved a steep hill and narrow over crowded streets so I put up with it and just cycled passed as carefully as possible - but it was always stressful. 

Even now I see addison lee as a byword for dangerous dickhead on the road. I'm rarely disapointed. 

Oh, and i once had my head kicked in by a 'black taxi' driver for trying to help a fellow cyclist that he was harrassing 
another 'black taxi' driver ran over and destroyed my rear wheel when he thought i wasn;t going fast enough as a red light turned to green, and then fled the scene by doing a U turn and driving back in the opposite direction. 
and another time when i was signalling to go right on a mini roundabout a black cab nearly took my arm off after he ignored my signal and overtook me on the roundabout. I shouted a rude word and then spent the next half an hour in someone's garden hiding from him while he hunted me down. Finally made my escape into Hyde Park through pedestrian entrance that was too narrow for him to follow. 

But its ok - they probably just thought all cyclists are twats and we deserved it.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> Oh, and i once had my head kicked in by a 'black taxi' driver for trying to help a fellow cyclist that he was harrassing
> another 'black taxi' driver ran over and destroyed my rear wheel when he thought i wasn;t going fast enough as a red light turned to green, and then fled the scene by doing a U turn and driving back in the opposite direction.
> and another time when i was signalling to go right on a mini roundabout a black cab nearly took my arm off after he ignored my signal and overtook me on the roundabout. I shouted a rude word and then spent the next half an hour in someone's garden hiding from him while he hunted me down. Finally made my escape into Hyde Park through pedestrian entrance that was too narrow for him to follow.


You seem to be the worlds most unfortunate cyclist


----------



## Sea Star (Aug 24, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> You seem to be the worlds most unfortunate cyclist


yeah i've heard that before. Just fuck off!

once you start actually listening to cyclists you find this is not unusual and i have friends who have had to give up cycling because they couldn't deal with the constant threat of violence on our roads. 

so. not. funny.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> yeah i've heard that before. Just fuck off!
> 
> once you start actually listening to cyclists you find this is not unusual and i have friends who have had to give up cycling because they couldn't deal with the constant threat of violence on our roads.
> 
> so. not. funny.


Met a number of cyclists unprepared to brave the roads, very happy to cycle on the pavement and very willing to act all entitled when it's the footpath is for feet not wheels. Same on the canal where cyclists seem to think it's their birthright to speed down there with no regard for walkers. The violence and threat of violence isn't just from motorists.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> yeah i've heard that before. Just fuck off!
> 
> once you start actually listening to cyclists you find this is not unusual and i have friends who have had to give up cycling because they couldn't deal with the constant threat of violence on our roads.
> 
> so. not. funny.


Most of my experience on the roads (particularly in London) suggests that more often than not it's the cyclists that are the most aggressive and least able users of the roads. Of course there are exceptions but the average London cyclist is a useless, untrained, uninsured, menace.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 24, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> I used to have to cycle past an Addison Lee depot/ service garage or whatever it was - with loads of the twats parked along the main road, double parked etc. One used to ALWAYS pull out in front of me at some point without looking, without signalling... whenever i tried to cycle along that road and there wasn't an obvious alternative route to use as anmy detour would have involved a steep hill and narrow over crowded streets so I put up with it and just cycled passed as carefully as possible - but it was always stressful.
> 
> Even now I see addison lee as a byword for dangerous dickhead on the road. I'm rarely disapointed.
> 
> ...


Can't like this post, my sympathy / solidarity, I've never had worse than verbals but as you say these kind of stories are all too common. Thankfully the two collisions I've been involved in have been very minor and totally amicable.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 24, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Most of my experience on the roads (particularly in London) suggests that more often than not it's the cyclists that are the most aggressive and least able users of the roads. Of course there are exceptions but the average London cyclist is a useless, untrained, uninsured, menace.


This should change as better infrastructure is built. As it is, to share with drivers you have to be assertive or aggressive or it feels far too dangerous (not sure how much more dangerous it actually is but you get more close passes and similar if you don't).

Assertive cycling can be combined with defensive cycling, I'm nut sure aggressive cycling can.

Add in that the faster you can go the more comfortable it is to share with drivers, so you get proportionally more young men in the group, and the exercise creating adrenaline etc and things get aggressive more often / easily

Get segregation and you'll get a broader mix of people cycling slower and not needing to assert themselves any more than pedestrians do.


----------



## gentlegreen (Aug 24, 2016)

My local traffic-free shared path is plagued by aggressive idiot cyclists - especially in the "Tour des Morons" season.


----------



## T & P (Aug 27, 2016)

I was thinking of this thread last night as I unexpectedly came face to face with a massive Critical Mass ride going through Chelsea.

I fear whatever honourable aims the event might have initially been based on were completely lost on the crowd last night. Apart from apparently seeking to disrupt other road users as much as possible, there was a vibe of intimidation and unpleasantness in the air as they went past. A great deal of them chose to ride on the pavement, causing peds to stand against the wall, and I saw three of them kicking bags of recycling awaiting collection as they rode past, plus two others who missed their kick.

I don't think the event did much on the whole to advance the cause of cycling in the eyes of those who saw it, tbh.


----------



## Sea Star (Aug 30, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Most of my experience on the roads (particularly in London) suggests that more often than not it's the cyclists that are the most aggressive and least able users of the roads. Of course there are exceptions but the average London cyclist is a useless, untrained, uninsured, menace.


Get fucked.


----------



## Santino (Aug 30, 2016)

While crossing Oxford Street this morning at a pedestrian crossing two cyclists chose to ignore the lights, so they simultaneously passed me, one in front and one behind.


----------



## emanymton (Aug 30, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> Get fucked.


I'm happy to see you trying so hard to prove him wrong.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 30, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> Get fucked.


Of course, the worst cyclists in London also have potty mouths. I hope you don't cycle on the roads.


----------



## fredfelt (Aug 31, 2016)

For those posting here who object to (certain) people who happen to ride bikes, do you also object to providing decent cycle and person friendly infrastructure?

For example, how do you feel about the new embankment cycle path?


----------



## longkesh (Aug 31, 2016)

bikes !!!


----------



## stdP (Aug 31, 2016)

Witnessed a classic fuckwitted smegmabucket of a cyclist last night; pelican crossing across to Farringdon from Hatton Garden at rush hour - if you know it, you know it gets exceptionally busy. Some utter prick of a cyclist not only had the temerity to jump the red light, cycled headlong into the crowd of people in the middle of the road, kept ringing his bell in a "get out of the way, fuckers!" fashion and then collided with someone (glancing blow - he wasn't unseated and the chap in question [headphones on, think he thought because he was surrounded by people that he was safe] was just strongly nudged thankfully, was more surprised than owt else) and called them a prick as he spun off. The idiot in question wasn't even the stereotypical lycra'd-to-the-nines carbon fibre pillock, nor the blinkered hyper-aggressive courier stereotype (and you get a lot of both around there), just an average-looking bloke on an average-looking bike.

What I think was telling though was that in order to jump the red light, he'd actually cycled _around_ the half-dozen or so cyclists who'd dutifully stopped at the red light who were perfectly content to let the pedestrians cross - it's a busy road and the lights stay red a long time for the vast numbers of pedestrians. But there's a strong degree of confirmation bias here, the people around me crossing the road certainly weren't thinking of the well-behaved cyclists a few yards away when they were muttering "fucking cyclists!".

I ride a bike, but do so for pleasure in the evenings and at weekends, don't do the commute because I like having functioning limbs and spinal column. Most of the cyclists I see as a commuter and pedestrian seem well-behaved... but the ones that aren't frequently act like such utter pissnozzles that I can certainly see cyclists being seen as wholly bad on average. I don't think it takes much to make group-you're-not-part-of seem like a shower of bastards even when the majority of them are perfectly innocuous. Sadly I think it's just human nature.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2016)

tbh i walked part of the way home along the canal the other evening and i was pleasantly surprised by the absence of fucknugget cyclists. might have picked a bad day of course.


----------



## Winot (Aug 31, 2016)

stdP said:


> Witnessed a classic fuckwitted smegmabucket of a cyclist last night; pelican crossing across to Farringdon from Hatton Garden at rush hour - if you know it, you know it gets exceptionally busy. Some utter prick of a cyclist not only had the temerity to jump the red light, cycled headlong into the crowd of people in the middle of the road, kept ringing his bell in a "get out of the way, fuckers!" fashion and then collided with someone (glancing blow - he wasn't unseated and the chap in question [headphones on, think he thought because he was surrounded by people that he was safe] was just strongly nudged thankfully, was more surprised than owt else) and called them a prick as he spun off. The idiot in question wasn't even the stereotypical lycra'd-to-the-nines carbon fibre pillock, nor the blinkered hyper-aggressive courier stereotype (and you get a lot of both around there), just an average-looking bloke on an average-looking bike.
> 
> What I think was telling though was that in order to jump the red light, he'd actually cycled _around_ the half-dozen or so cyclists who'd dutifully stopped at the red light who were perfectly content to let the pedestrians cross - it's a busy road and the lights stay red a long time for the vast numbers of pedestrians. But there's a strong degree of confirmation bias here, the people around me crossing the road certainly weren't thinking of the well-behaved cyclists a few yards away when they were muttering "fucking cyclists!".
> 
> I ride a bike, but do so for pleasure in the evenings and at weekends, don't do the commute because I like having functioning limbs and spinal column. Most of the cyclists I see as a commuter and pedestrian seem well-behaved... but the ones that aren't frequently act like such utter pissnozzles that I can certainly see cyclists being seen as wholly bad on average. I don't think it takes much to make group-you're-not-part-of seem like a shower of bastards even when the majority of them are perfectly innocuous. Sadly I think it's just human nature.



Good post.

Cyclists like that piss me off no end - partly because it gives anti-cyclist pricks an excuse to lump us all in the same category.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 31, 2016)

stdP said:


> Witnessed a classic fuckwitted smegmabucket of a cyclist last night; pelican crossing across to Farringdon from Hatton Garden at rush hour - if you know it, you know it gets exceptionally busy. Some utter prick of a cyclist not only had the temerity to jump the red light, cycled headlong into the crowd of people in the middle of the road, kept ringing his bell in a "get out of the way, fuckers!" fashion and then collided with someone (glancing blow - he wasn't unseated and the chap in question [headphones on, think he thought because he was surrounded by people that he was safe] was just strongly nudged thankfully, was more surprised than owt else) and called them a prick as he spun off. The idiot in question wasn't even the stereotypical lycra'd-to-the-nines carbon fibre pillock, nor the blinkered hyper-aggressive courier stereotype (and you get a lot of both around there), just an average-looking bloke on an average-looking bike.
> 
> What I think was telling though was that in order to jump the red light, he'd actually cycled _around_ the half-dozen or so cyclists who'd dutifully stopped at the red light who were perfectly content to let the pedestrians cross - it's a busy road and the lights stay red a long time for the vast numbers of pedestrians. But there's a strong degree of confirmation bias here, the people around me crossing the road certainly weren't thinking of the well-behaved cyclists a few yards away when they were muttering "fucking cyclists!".
> 
> I ride a bike, but do so for pleasure in the evenings and at weekends, don't do the commute because I like having functioning limbs and spinal column. Most of the cyclists I see as a commuter and pedestrian seem well-behaved... but the ones that aren't frequently act like such utter pissnozzles that I can certainly see cyclists being seen as wholly bad on average. I don't think it takes much to make group-you're-not-part-of seem like a shower of bastards even when the majority of them are perfectly innocuous. Sadly I think it's just human nature.



Yes, that kind of behaviour is kind of rare fortunately, although I've witnessed many examples of equal fuckwittery. That said, lesser examples, e.g. pissnozzles (an excellent term for most cylcists, btw) trying to squeeze in front or behind pedestrians on crossings happens far more frequently. Also, pissnozzles jumping lights and shouting (or blowing whistles) at crossing peds. Happens every day.

By the way, I'm taking AuntiStella out of the "decent cyclists" group and putting her back with the pissnozzles.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 31, 2016)

a classic example of ridin' dirty 

loses points for the ringing of bells, thats naff. Its all about the well honed swearing. I imagine ridin dirty is quite difficult during a london rush hour. But Its nice to see that someones trying


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> a classic example of ridin' dirty
> 
> loses points for the ringing of bells, thats naff. Its all about the well honed swearing. I imagine ridin dirty is quite difficult during a london rush hour. But Its nice to see that someones trying


cyclists are always welcome to descend from their saddles and roll around on the ground.


----------



## irf520 (Aug 31, 2016)

T & P said:


> I was thinking of this thread last night as I unexpectedly came face to face with a massive Critical Mass ride going through Chelsea.
> 
> I fear whatever honourable aims the event might have initially been based on were completely lost on the crowd last night. Apart from apparently seeking to disrupt other road users as much as possible, there was a vibe of intimidation and unpleasantness in the air as they went past. A great deal of them chose to ride on the pavement, causing peds to stand against the wall, and I saw three of them kicking bags of recycling awaiting collection as they rode past, plus two others who missed their kick.
> 
> I don't think the event did much on the whole to advance the cause of cycling in the eyes of those who saw it, tbh.



I'm guessing some of these have a similar mentality to football hooligans. They don't really care about football, cycling or whatever - they're just looking for a barney.


----------



## fredfelt (Aug 31, 2016)

Must say that I find reports of commutes not exactly gripping, so in the hope of moving on from anecdotes I'll post of link of a piece I just read, and then a bit of selective quoting...

Jeremy Vine’s near-miss was no surprise. All cyclists fear bad drivers | Peter Walker


"The thing to grasp is that it’s about the person, not the mode of transport they happen to be using at that particular time." 

"Next time you’re in a car and you think a cyclist in front is holding you up, I’d urge you to hold two very clear thoughts in your mind... The first is this: despite the apparent belief of many drivers, cyclists are not obliged or even advised to ride in the gutter.... 
Also bear this in mind: even if you’re absolutely convinced the cyclist is in the wrong, hold back and be cautious anyway. In the majority of urban traffic situations, your overtake will be a very brief victory – they’ll pedal past again in the queue for the next red light or junction.

But most of all, remember that these are human beings, unprotected flesh and bone seeking to get to work, to see their friends, return to their loved ones. However much of a rush you think you’re in, it never, ever justifies putting them at risk."


----------



## mauvais (Aug 31, 2016)

And if you're going to pick a fight with a media celebrity, get your car taxed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2016)

mauvais said:


> And if you're going to pick a fight with a media celebrity, get your car taxed.


And carry a big stick


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 31, 2016)

fredfelt said:


> Must say that I find reports of commutes not exactly gripping, so in the hope of moving on from anecdotes I'll post of link of a piece I just read, and then a bit of selective quoting...
> 
> Jeremy Vine’s near-miss was no surprise. All cyclists fear bad drivers | Peter Walker
> 
> ...


Yaaaawn. 

I'm pretty sure I've never put a cyclist at risk whilst driving. I've definitely saved one from killing or seriously injuring himself though, by predicting his fuckwittery and avoiding the collision. He never knew how close he came to serious hurt.

Your preaching would be put to better use if it encouraged cyclists to get some training and learn some basic road sense.


----------



## emanymton (Aug 31, 2016)

fredfelt said:


> For those posting here who object to (certain) people who happen to ride bikes, do you also object to providing decent cycle and person friendly infrastructure?
> 
> For example, how do you feel about the new embankment cycle path?


I have no problem with cycle friendly infrastructure, as long as cycles actually use it properly, instead of cycling on the pavement alongside it.

What do you mean by person friendly? Do you mean pedestrian friendly? If so as someone who neither cycles nor drives I slightly resent being grouped in with cyclists, as if pedestrians and cyclists have some anti-car bond. As a pedestrian I get pissed of with cyclists far more than car drivers, which is quite a statement considering the relative number of cars to bikes.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 31, 2016)

emanymton said:


> I have no problem with cycle friendly infrastructure, as long as cycles actually use it properly,



Yeah, that's something I've noticed.  I live in part of London where we are fortunate to have some wide pavements, in a lot of places they have now become joint pedestrian and joint cycle use, separated with clear markings. A lot of cyclists don't use this option and stay on the road, I don't understand it myself.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 31, 2016)

Teaboy said:


> Yeah, that's something I've noticed.  I live in part of London where we are fortunate to have some wide pavements, in a lot of places they have now become joint pedestrian and joint cycle use, separated with clear markings. A lot of cyclists don't use this option and stay on the road, I don't understand it myself.




It is generally much slower to use these paths and you must stop (and therefore accelerate away again) much more frequently.


----------



## klang (Aug 31, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It is generally much slower to use these paths and you must stop (and therefore accelerate away again) much more frequently.


and a lot of them are not safe with car doors opening and people crossing to get to their cars. and then there's this:


----------



## longkesh (Aug 31, 2016)

either ya go on the road or straight into that bin


----------



## klang (Aug 31, 2016)

longkesh said:


> either ya go on the road or straight into that bin


in fairness, they removed that post after a few months....


----------



## longkesh (Aug 31, 2016)

must a been a dead post


----------



## ffsear (Aug 31, 2016)

Santino said:


> While crossing Oxford Street this morning at a pedestrian crossing two cyclists chose to ignore the lights, so they simultaneously passed me, one in front and one behind.





kick their fucking back wheel out next time!


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 31, 2016)

ffsear said:


> kick their fucking back wheel out next time!


Followed shortly by a thread on here: "Cyclist brutally attacked and injured whilst minding his own business"


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 31, 2016)

Saul Goodman said:


> Followed shortly by a thread on here: "Cyclist brutally attacked and injured whilst minding his own business: all caught on GoPro"



CFY


----------



## Sea Star (Aug 31, 2016)

irf520 said:


> I'm guessing some of these have a similar mentality to football hooligans. They don't really care about football, cycling or whatever - they're just looking for a barney.


When I used to do critical mass some of the biggest trouble makers weren't cyclists but had borrowed a bike for the night and clearly were clueless about riding a bike.


----------



## Sea Star (Aug 31, 2016)

emanymton said:


> I'm happy to see you trying so hard to prove him wrong.


I'd already tried arguing reasonably with him and he still thought I was a "twat" (his words) so fuck him.

Why, does bad language offend you?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 31, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> I'd already tried arguing reasonably with him and he still thought I was a "twat" (his words) so fuck him.
> 
> Why, does bad language offend you?


I don't know if you're a twat, although you're behaving like one.

I just think it seems odd that you've been beaten up so many times by motorists yet would have us believe that you're a reasonable cyclist. There are loads of extremely experienced cyclists on here, none of whom have posted about being beaten up by car drivers, certainly not as frequently as you say you have.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 31, 2016)

emanymton said:


> I have no problem with cycle friendly infrastructure, as long as cycles actually use it properly, instead of cycling on the pavement alongside it.
> 
> What do you mean by person friendly? Do you mean pedestrian friendly? If so as someone who neither cycles nor drives I slightly resent being grouped in with cyclists, as if pedestrians and cyclists have some anti-car bond. As a pedestrian I get pissed of with cyclists far more than car drivers, which is quite a statement considering the relative number of cars to bikes.



If it's properly cycle friendly then you won't get pavement cyclists because there'd be no reason to use the pavement over the cycle infrastructure (other than being a tosser of course). You don't see pavement cycling in the netherlands or denmark and if it still happens at the moment in london where there are segregated cycle lanes I'd suggest it's a cultural thing that will change over time. Pavements are slow and imo annoying to cycle on, I think they are really bad for pedestrians and cyclists alike. I use them over the road only because the road is not safe. Decent infrastructure is safe and will be faster and easier to use than pavements so there's no advantage to using the pavement, only disadvantage.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 31, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I don't know if you're a twat, although you're behaving like one.
> 
> I just think it seems odd that you've been beaten up so many times by motorists yet would have us believe that you're a reasonable cyclist. There are loads of extremely experienced cyclists on here, none of whom have posted about being beaten up by car drivers, certainly not as frequently as you say you have.



I've had a few verbals and if I wasn't a heavily built bloke (although soft as shite but they don't know that  ) I could certainly imagine more than one of them turning nastier or physical, and I've had enough stories from enough cycling instructors to know how common this kind of thing is no matter what your standard of cycling is. Road rage happens all the time and cyclists are a target for a particular type of entitled person that drives a car and thinks they know the rules but don't. Being a reasonable cyclist antagonises drivers who think of the road as their space - it's why I pulled up irf (?) earlier in the thread for describing the carriageway as a motor vehicle lane. In the Jeremy Vine video he was being totally reasonable but still got physical because the driver thought of that as her space. There are twats on bikes looking for trouble of course (and as I said earlier in the thread, the infrastructure creates an environment where it's advantageous to be aggressive as a cyclist so of course the aggressive people are more likely to stay on bikes, and more young men always means more aggression) but you get a load of shit just for cycling in the way you are meant to, it's shocking at times tbh and if I wasn't such a stubborn wanker I'd have stopped cycling long ago because of the shitty driving and the abuse you get just for being on the road.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 31, 2016)

BigTom said:


> I've had a few verbals and if I wasn't a heavily built bloke (although soft as shite but they don't know that  ) I could certainly imagine more than one of them turning nastier or physical, and I've had enough stories from enough cycling instructors to know how common this kind of thing is no matter what your standard of cycling is. Road rage happens all the time and cyclists are a target for a particular type of entitled person that drives a car and thinks they know the rules but don't. Being a reasonable cyclist antagonises drivers who think of the road as their space - it's why I pulled up irf (?) earlier in the thread for describing the carriageway as a motor vehicle lane. In the Jeremy Vine video he was being totally reasonable but still got physical because the driver thought of that as her space. There are twats on bikes looking for trouble of course (and as I said earlier in the thread, the infrastructure creates an environment where it's advantageous to be aggressive as a cyclist so of course the aggressive people are more likely to stay on bikes, and more young men always means more aggression) but you get a load of shit just for cycling in the way you are meant to, it's shocking at times tbh and if I wasn't such a stubborn wanker I'd have stopped cycling long ago because of the shitty driving and the abuse you get just for being on the road.


Of course physical confrontations happen, I've seen them happen, but not with the frequency that they seem to happen to AS, unless the person that they are happening to is either unbelievably unfortunate or doing something to create them.

AS used to post as Major Tom. He was a twat of an entitled cyclist. Hmmm ...


----------



## BigTom (Aug 31, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Of course physical confrontations happen, I've seen them happen, but not with the frequency that they seem to happen to AS, unless the person that they are happening to is either unbelievably unfortunate or doing something to create them.
> 
> AS used to post as Major Tom. He was a twat of an entitled cyclist. Hmmm ...



3 times in however many years? Unless it's a short time frame I don't think that's unbelievably unfortunate, one of them is just someone crashing into her and driving off as well. I don't remember Major Tom though, obviously it's possible to create problems for yourself but I don't think it's that unlikely that you could encounter two or three utter cunts in a few thousand miles of cycling in a city in a reasonable way that follows the rules.


----------



## Athos (Aug 31, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> ...  I've seen them happen, but not with the frequency that they seem to happen to AS, unless the person that they are happening to is either *unbelievably* unfortunate or doing something to create them.


----------



## a_chap (Aug 31, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Yaaaawn.
> 
> I'm pretty sure I've never put a cyclist at risk whilst driving. I've definitely saved one from killing or seriously injuring himself though, by predicting his fuckwittery and avoiding the collision. He never knew how close he came to serious hurt.
> 
> Your preaching would be put to better use if it encouraged cyclists to get some training and learn some basic road sense.



And I'm pretty sure that most of the drivers who pulled out in front of me without looking or who pulled alongside and "left hooked" me or who overtake *stupidly* close, etc, etc. they were all "pretty sure they never put a cyclist at risk" either. And they'll blame cyclist's "fuckwittery" and demand they "get some training and learn some basic road sense".

The most dangerous drivers are the ones who are convinced their driving is safe and beyond reproach and that it's always someone else's fault.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 31, 2016)

BigTom said:


> 3 times in however many years?


The other incarnation was knocked off his bike multiple times (7 or 8) by motorists, and punched/hospitalised by pedestrians too.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 31, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> Why, does bad language offend you?



That's the fucking point of bad language you silly cunt.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 1, 2016)

Teaboy said:


> Yeah, that's something I've noticed.  I live in part of London where we are fortunate to have some wide pavements, in a lot of places they have now become joint pedestrian and joint cycle use, separated with clear markings. A lot of cyclists don't use this option and stay on the road, I don't understand it myself.


Speed. Fun.


----------



## Purdie (Sep 1, 2016)

a_chap said:


> The most dangerous drivers are the ones who are convinced their driving is safe and beyond reproach and that it's always someone else's fault.



Same can be said for cyclists innit?


----------



## fredfelt (Sep 1, 2016)

ffsear said:


> kick their fucking back wheel out next time!



Probably best not to go around assaulting strangers, regardless of what transport that they are using, any yes, even if they happen to be breaking traffic laws.


----------



## fredfelt (Sep 1, 2016)

BigTom said:


> If it's properly cycle friendly then you won't get pavement cyclists because there'd be no reason to use the pavement over the cycle infrastructure (other than being a tosser of course). You don't see pavement cycling in the netherlands or denmark and if it still happens at the moment in london where there are segregated cycle lanes I'd suggest it's a cultural thing that will change over time. Pavements are slow and imo annoying to cycle on, I think they are really bad for pedestrians and cyclists alike. I use them over the road only because the road is not safe. Decent infrastructure is safe and will be faster and easier to use than pavements so there's no advantage to using the pavement, only disadvantage.



You got it! People behave according to their environment, in this case the built environment. A city gets the type of road users that they deserve.

For instance put loads of traffic, going both ways in the same space. Mix in leisure and commuter travellers, give no other options and you are building conflict in. Be it a canal tow path or a really bad a road (in the case of the road it wouldn't be designed to take one unseparated lane though, it's just cyclists and pedestrians planned to muddle through in that way)


----------



## fredfelt (Sep 1, 2016)

]


----------



## fredfelt (Sep 1, 2016)

emanymton said:


> I have no problem with cycle friendly infrastructure, as long as cycles actually use it properly, instead of cycling on the pavement alongside it.
> 
> What do you mean by person friendly? Do you mean pedestrian friendly? If so as someone who neither cycles nor drives I slightly resent being grouped in with cyclists, as if pedestrians and cyclists have some anti-car bond. As a pedestrian I get pissed of with cyclists far more than car drivers, which is quite a statement considering the relative number of cars to bikes.



Person friendly... You probably have to travel overseas to see this.

Have you been to Holland, Denmark, Germany...? Take Holland. Through design  their urban spaces priorised pedestrians first, then wheel chair users and cyclists, public transport, then where theres space allowed cars. Cars have dedicated main routes (always with a foot path and cycle lane) or home zones. 

Dutch towns are, on the whole, person friendly. You can walk, cycle or use public transport safely and relatively stress free, and in clean air.

It's taken 30 years of planning to achieve that.

Here in the UK it's more a neo liberal approach. 'mini Holland's are proposed but the likes of Janet street porter complain about Lycra louts, and without a vision plans get dropped or watered down and the private car continues to rule the road.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 1, 2016)

The quote there has reminded me of the other thing I meant to say. Pedestrian infrastructure is designed to minimise interaction with drivers, hence less annoyance and danger (although you're actually as likely to die as a pedestrian as you are a cyclist, but way fewer slight or serious injuries, pavement takes out the smaller collisions and all the near misses)


----------



## Sue (Sep 1, 2016)

BigTom said:


> Pavements are slow and imo annoying to cycle on, I think they are really bad for pedestrians and cyclists alike. *I use them over the road only because the road is not safe. *Decent infrastructure is safe and will be faster and easier to use than pavements so there's no advantage to using them.



So by cycling on the pavement, you then make the pavement unsafe for pedestrians.

I'm a pedestrian and seems no-one gIves a fuck about us. Sure there are bad drivers but I don't generally have to avoid getting run over by them when I'm walking on the pavement as i do every day with cyclists. 

(I don't drive or cycle but walk a couple of hours a day.)


----------



## fredfelt (Sep 1, 2016)

emanymton said:


> I have no problem with cycle friendly infrastructure, as long as cycles actually use it properly, instead of cycling on the pavement alongside it.



Streets designed properly are used properly. Build useful cycle paths and they will be used.

Urban design is a far better way to predict and influence behaviour than the transport someone, or a pedestrian happens to use it with.

Ie, it's ridiculous that cyclists are somehow different to pedestrians or any other users of other forms of transport. People respond predictability to their (built) environment.


----------



## Sue (Sep 1, 2016)

And I'm not completely convinced by the 'build better infrastructure and people won't cycle on the pavement' thing either.

Near me, what was a two-lane road was closed to traffic a few years ago and became a cycle path instead. A lovely two-lane cycle path. There's a completely separate pavement as there was when it was a road. This all runs down the side of a park so lots of people wandering along, including lots of people with small kids and prams and stuff.

And despite the lovely separate cycle path, there are still a lot of cyclists who cycle on that pavement, often at top speed, weaving in and out of the pedestrians.

I have no idea why but lovely infrastructure in this case seems to make little difference. (It was just near there that I was hit by a bike from behind while walking on the pavement. The last time I should add, certainly not the first.)


----------



## BigTom (Sep 1, 2016)

Sue said:


> So by cycling on the pavement, you then make the pavement unsafe for pedestrians.
> 
> I'm a pedestrian and seems no-one gIves a fuck about us. Sure there are bad drivers but I don't generally have to avoid getting run over by them when I'm walking on the pavement as i do every day with cyclists.
> 
> (I don't drive or cycle but walk a couple of hours a day.)



Nonsense. I cycle at 5 to 10 mph on shared pavements (or at walking speed if I can't overtake), and I'm fully in control of my bike at those speeds. it's not unsafe, just annoying for everyone concerned.

In the very post you've replied to I've said it's shit for pedestrians as well so quite why you say I'm not thinking about pedestrians I don't know and tbh find insulting.
I've argued for segregated cycle infrastructure so pedestrians aren't sharing space with cyclists ffs.

As a pedestrian you don't have to avoid being run over by drivers several times a day because you have a network of segregated infrastructure. Try walking in the road and see how often you are threatened by drivers. 

Even with pavements the rate of pedestrians killed or injured by drivers is way higher than by cyclists, drivers are a much bigger danger because they are moving 1 to 1.5t rather than 7-15kg, and usually faster as well. 

If you want to end pavement cycling, join the campaigns for proper segregated cycle networks to be built.


----------



## Sue (Sep 1, 2016)

BigTom said:


> Nonsense. I cycle at 5 to 10 mph on shared pavements (or at walking speed if I can't overtake), and I'm fully in control of my bike at those speeds. it's not unsafe, just annoying for everyone concerned.
> 
> In the very post you've replied to I've said it's shit for pedestrians as well so quite why you say I'm not thinking about pedestrians I don't know and tbh find insulting.
> I've argued for segregated cycle infrastructure so pedestrians aren't sharing space with cyclists ffs.
> ...


You think it's not unsafe cycling on the pavement. Having been hit a number of times by bikes while walking on the pavement, I beg to differ.

You may think you're being responsible while cycling on the pavement. The point is you shouldn't be cycling on the pavement in the first fucking place. It's as simple as that.

You say it's shit for pedestrians too. Yes, it is and you're adding to the problem. We obviously don't have a segregated infrastructure for pedestrians while people (like you) are cycling on the pavements.


----------



## fredfelt (Sep 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Yaaaawn.
> 
> I'm pretty sure I've never put a cyclist at risk whilst driving. I've definitely saved one from killing or seriously injuring himself though, by predicting his fuckwittery and avoiding the collision. He never knew how close he came to serious hurt.
> 
> Your preaching would be put to better use if it encouraged cyclists to get some training and learn some basic road sense.



Sorry if you found my post dull.  Would this help 'On my commute yesterday someone else did something annoying - twat' - is that better?

Well done for behaving responsibly on the road.  You'd probably make a considerate cyclist as well.  Do you regularly ride?  On a similar note please forgive me and I'll insert another quote from that piece I linked to:

"Driving is, however, different in one way. It is the sole event in most people’s everyday lives where there is a plausible, if remote, chance they could kill another human being. It’s not about morals, it’s simple physics. If I hit someone at 12mph even on my solid, heavy everyday bike it would impart something like 1,200 joules of kinetic energy. If I were in the last car I owned, a relatively tiny Nissan Micra, doing 30mph, you’re suddenly at 100,000 joules. It’s a very different impact.

It’s why police should take incidents like the one experienced by Vine more seriously than they generally do. It’s why the driving tuition and testing system should be revamped to place far more stress on drivers’ vast, overriding responsibility to look out for and protect vulnerable road users, those not cocooned within a tonne of metal. It’s why the judicial system should take deaths and maiming caused by drivers a whole lot more seriously than it does."​
I didn't think I was preaching.  I'd like to think I tend to avoid that as I don't think preaching directed towards inconsiderate road users helps anyone.


----------



## fredfelt (Sep 1, 2016)

Here's a cycle path that's just been painted in Nottingham.

It's very considerate of the council to think of motorists in this way.  Who knows, without this line and sign a cyclist might just turn right at the junction and a car might have to wait behind for a moment.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 1, 2016)

Sue said:


> You think it's not unsafe cycling on the pavement. Having been hit a number of times by bikes while walking on the pavement, I beg to differ.
> 
> You may think you're being responsible while cycling on the pavement. The point is you shouldn't be cycling on the pavement in the first fucking place. It's as simple as that.
> 
> You say it's shit for pedestrians too. Yes, it is and you're adding to the problem. We obviously don't have a segregated infrastructure for pedestrians while people (like you) are cycling on the pavements.



You've seen those blue signs with cycle and people symbols indicating shared pavements? They mean I'm allowed to cycle there so yes I should be there in the first fucking place (if I want to rather than using the carriageway). Learn the rules before you start abusing people for following them. Don't like the rules? work to get them changed instead of abusing people for following them. 

Done properly pedestrians and cyclists can share space safely. All too often it's not done properly (by pedestrians as well as cyclists but cyclists present the bigger risk/danger), hence me arguing for a segregated space for cyclists.

Pavements are segregated from drivers which is what I was clearly talking about, in response to your facile comparison of risk from drivers compared to cyclists. You going to walk in the road tomorrow? Of course not. Despite the cyclists, drivers are a bigger danger and you know it.


----------



## Sue (Sep 1, 2016)

BigTom said:


> You've seen those blue signs with cycle and people symbols indicating shared pavements? They mean I'm allowed to cycle there so yes I should be there in the first fucking place (if I want to rather than using the carriageway). Learn the rules before you start abusing people for following them. Don't like the rules? work to get them changed instead of abusing people for following them.
> 
> Done properly pedestrians and cyclists can share space safely. All too often it's not done properly (by pedestrians as well as cyclists but cyclists present the bigger risk/danger), hence me arguing for a segregated space for cyclists.
> 
> Pavements are segregated from drivers which is what I was clearly talking about, in response to your facile comparison of risk from drivers compared to cyclists. You going to walk in the road tomorrow? Of course not. Despite the cyclists, drivers are a bigger danger and you know it.


In your post, you talked about cycling on the pavement, not on shared pedestrian/cycle paths so i thought you were talking about, you know, pavements. 

You may see drivers as a bigger danger. I'm about to walk to work. Pavements cyclists will be a much bigger danger to me as I walk in than drivers will be.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 1, 2016)

Sue said:


> In your post, you talked about cycling on the pavement, not on shared pedestrian/cycle paths so i thought you were taking about, you know, pavements.
> 
> You may see drivers as a bigger danger. I'm about to walk to work. Pavements cyclists will be a much bigger danger to me as I walk in than drivers will be.



Shared pavements are pavements! Given (a) my history of posting about cycling and (b) the context of the discussion being about cyclists using or not using designated infrastructure I didn't think it was necessary to state they were shared pavements. In my first reply to you I specified this in case it was unclear. I am talking about pavements. Shared pavements.

Cyclists are a bigger danger to you because you have segregated infra from drivers. Stop abusing cyclists and start arguing for segregated infra for cyclists (or at least recognise the problem isn't the people, it's the structures). Or walk in the road if you genuinely think drivers are less of a danger than cyclists.


----------



## fredfelt (Sep 1, 2016)

BigTom said:


> ...
> 
> Pavements are segregated from drivers which is what I was clearly talking about, in response to your facile comparison of risk from drivers compared to cyclists. You going to walk in the road tomorrow? Of course not. Despite the cyclists, drivers are a bigger danger and you know it.



That's a good point.  Turl Street in Oxford has pavements and also a barrier which allows certain vehicles.  It's not formally a 'shared space' but, rightly so, pedestrians walk all over the road.  It's also a main through route for cyclists.  

When a car comes pedestrians scatter - the pavements are big enough for everyone to walk along but people choose to enjoy all the space when it's available and only cyclists are coming through.  Incidentally I've had drivers aggressively using their horns as I'm walking in 'their space', and also I've been binged by cyclists but walking or cycling I've never felt at risk using the road.

To me this is a good sign of how well pedestrians and cyclists can mix.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 1, 2016)

BigTom said:


> You've seen those blue signs with cycle and people symbols indicating shared pavements? They mean I'm allowed to cycle there so yes I should be there in the first fucking place (if I want to rather than using the carriageway). Learn the rules before you start abusing people for following them. Don't like the rules? work to get them changed instead of abusing people for following them.
> 
> Done properly pedestrians and cyclists can share space safely. All too often it's not done properly (by pedestrians as well as cyclists but cyclists present the bigger risk/danger), hence me arguing for a segregated space for cyclists.
> 
> Pavements are segregated from drivers which is what I was clearly talking about, in response to your facile comparison of risk from drivers compared to cyclists. You going to walk in the road tomorrow? Of course not. Despite the cyclists, drivers are a bigger danger and you know it.


Cars are clearly a big danger than bikes. I'm not convinced that means drivers are a bigger danger than cyclists. 

What you said about pedestrians not encountering bad driving is probably true, I was thinking the same. But I think that is because even bad drives respect the two main rules that I care about, they don't drive on the pavement (and I mean pavements, not some shared space suddenly introduced into the argument about something else to try and make out someone doesn't know what they are talking about about) and they stop at red  lights.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 1, 2016)

BigTom said:


> You've seen those blue signs with cycle and people symbols indicating shared pavements? They mean I'm allowed to cycle there so yes I should be there in the first fucking place (if I want to rather than using the carriageway). Learn the rules before you start abusing people for following them. Don't like the rules? work to get them changed instead of abusing people for following them.
> 
> Done properly pedestrians and cyclists can share space safely. All too often it's not done properly (by pedestrians as well as cyclists but cyclists present the bigger risk/danger), hence me arguing for a segregated space for cyclists.
> 
> Pavements are segregated from drivers which is what I was clearly talking about, in response to your facile comparison of risk from drivers compared to cyclists. You going to walk in the road tomorrow? Of course not. Despite the cyclists, drivers are a bigger danger and you know it.


The thing is, whilst cars may present the bigger danger of serious injury in the case of a collision, the chances of a collision between a car and a pedestrian, particularly in London rush hour traffic, is relatively small. As a pedestrian one may go for years or a lifetime without incident with cars, while being annoyed or abused by cyclists is practically a daily occurrence.

It's not the severity of the interactions that most anger people, it's the frequency of them. That's why so many people hate cyclists.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 1, 2016)

emanymton said:


> Cars are clearly a big danger than bikes. I'm not convinced that means drivers are a bigger danger than cyclists.
> 
> What you said about pedestrians not encountering bad driving is probably true, I was thinking the same. But I think that is because even bad drives respect the two main rules that I care about, they don't drive on the pavement (and I mean pavements, not some shared space *suddenly introduced* into the argument about something else to try and make out someone doesn't know what they are talking about about) and they stop at red  lights.



If that's a dig at me, fuck off. My first reply to sue specified shared pavements in case it was unclear. My history of posting about road use/cycling, the fact that I'm a cycling instructor, should have been clear that I was talking about using pavements where they are specified as shared pavements in the first post I mentioned using pavements.

Drivers stopping at red lights, lol. Watch every traffic lit junction and see the drivers going over reds at the end of their phase. 

Drivers are a bigger danger because cars are a bigger danger. They are a bigger danger because they are driving. No better or worse as a group than cyclists (especially as most cyclists also drive). I am more dangerous when I am driving than when I am cycling. I appear as a smaller risk to pedestrians because the infrastructure takes out all the near misses and most of the small collisions and reduces many of the big collisions to small collisions. Nonetheless, look at the stats and you'll see cars/drivers are a bigger risk (in terms of injury/death rates) than cyclists.


----------



## fredfelt (Sep 1, 2016)

emanymton said:


> ...I'm not convinced that means drivers are a bigger danger than cyclists...



Statistically, using probably just about any measure you can find, except perhaps anecdotally, I pose more of a risk to others when I drive as opposed to when I cycle.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> The thing is, whilst cars may present the bigger danger of serious injury in the case of a collision, the chances of a collision between a car and a pedestrian, particularly in London rush hour traffic, is relatively small. As a pedestrian one may go for years without incident with cars, while being annoyed or abused by cyclists is practically a daily occurrence.
> 
> It's not the severity of the interactions that most anger people, it's the frequency of them. That's why so many people hate cyclists.



Yes. *Because there is segregated infrastructure. *hate the structure, argue for it to be changed. Don't hate the people.
Cycling on the road = daily annoyance or abuse by drivers. Especially when there is a shared pavement.

edit: sharing between any of the 3 forms of transport just doesn't work (cyclists and pedestrians in a massively wide space is ok). Segregate them all.


----------



## fredfelt (Sep 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> ...
> It's not the severity of the interactions that most anger people, it's the frequency of them. That's why so many people hate cyclists.



And that why London needs a huge and continued investment in cycle, and person friendly infrastructure.

I'll edit my post to say, one of the many reasons why London, and nationally, a huge and continued investment in cycle, and person friendly infrastructure is needed.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 1, 2016)

fredfelt said:


> Statistically, using probably just about any measure you can find, except perhaps anecdotally, I pose more of a risk to others when I drive as opposed to when I cycle.



Certainly not risk of annoyance, or feelings of ill will because of your behaviour. 

Your statistics are worthless in such cases.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 1, 2016)

BigTom said:


> Yes. *Because there is segregated infrastructure. *hate the structure, argue for it to be changed. Don't hate the people.
> Cycling on the road = daily annoyance or abuse by drivers. Especially when there is a shared pavement.
> 
> edit: sharing between any of the 3 forms of transport just doesn't work (cyclists and pedestrians in a massively wide space is ok). Segregate them all.


I agree, but the subject under discussion is why people dislike cyclists. That's why.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 1, 2016)

fredfelt said:


> And that why London needs a huge and continued investment in cycle, and person friendly infrastructure.
> 
> I'll edit my post to say, one of the many reasons why London, and nationally, a huge and continued investment in cycle, and person friendly infrastructure is needed.


Well this is a no brainer.  Get cyclists away from everyone else and they'll be less annoying.


----------



## fredfelt (Sep 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Certainly not risk of annoyance, or feelings of ill will because of your behaviour.
> 
> Your statistics are worthless in such cases.




I'm trying not to get drawn in on anecdotes, but when I'm travelling and a car puts my life in danger I try not to blame every driver.  More curse the lack of infrastructure, and try to ignore the person who nearly run me off the road.  

Life's to short to get stressed about every incident, I certainly can't be arsed to write about them here.


----------



## fredfelt (Sep 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well this is a no brainer.  Get cyclists away from everyone else and they'll be less annoying.



So is that an agreement?  It's generally poor urban design that leads to certain people to have an axe to grind against cyclists?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2016)

fredfelt said:


> So is that an agreement?  It's generally poor urban design that leads to certain people to have an axe to grind against cyclists?


So it's nothing to do with cyclists' behaviour


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 1, 2016)

fredfelt said:


> So is that an agreement?  It's generally poor urban design that leads to certain people to have an axe to grind against cyclists?


No. Until there is better urban design for cyclists, it is incumbent on YOU not to annoy pedestrians, and behave reasonably.

"Sorry mate. Lack of segregated infrastructure", is not a reasonable response to the people you piss-off on a daily basis.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> No. Until there is better urban design for you guys, it is incumbent on YOU not to annoy pedestrians, and behave reasonably.
> 
> "Sorry mate. Lack of segregated infrastructure", is not a reasonable response to the people you piss off on a daily basis.


Specially when the sorry is patently insincere, pa


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 1, 2016)

You tell 'em son.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I agree, but the subject under discussion is why people dislike cyclists. That's why.


And every year more and more people are cycling.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> No. Until there is better urban design for cyclists, it is incumbent on YOU not to annoy pedestrians, and behave reasonably.
> 
> "Sorry mate. Lack of segregated infrastructure", is not a reasonable response to the people you piss-off on a daily basis.



Yes, but behaving reasonably will still get you abuse, even from pedestrians. I've been shouted at for ringing my bell twice ffs. (Somehow I should have known he'd heard the first time I rang it even though he didn't look around or move or give any indication whatsoever). And people will still get personal with you no matter what you do and not give any recognition to how the structures - not define but something similar but a lot less strong that that, I can't think of the right word - the way people behave and the dangers they present.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 1, 2016)

BigTom said:


> Yes, but behaving reasonably will still get you abuse, even from pedestrians. I've been shouted at for ringing my bell twice ffs. (Somehow I should have known he'd heard the first time I rang it even though he didn't look around or move or give any indication whatsoever). And people will still get personal with you no matter what you do and not give any recognition to how the structures - not define but something similar but a lot less strong that that, I can't think of the right word - the way people behave and the dangers they present.


That, Tom, is because people have become so used to cyclists behaving like total arseholes, that they no longer care to make a distinction between the decent ones like yourself, and the pissnozzles who form the vast majority.


----------



## irf520 (Sep 1, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> So it's nothing to do with cyclists' behaviour



Of course not. Cyclists are beyond reproach. They're "saving the planet" after all, so we must allow them their little foibles. What are a few skittled pedestrians? Collateral damage.

All we need to do is close half the roads and convert them to cycle paths. Then add loads of extra traffic lights to the other half of the roads to allow cyclists to cross them without having to "interact with drivers". Then we'll wonder why there's a traffic jam 24/7 and why the air quality gets even worse because stationary traffic produces more pollution.


----------



## irf520 (Sep 1, 2016)

Regarding the new Embankment cycle route, for those of us who aren't cyclists it seems like a disaster. Westminster Bridge westbound is always solid traffic now because you're down to 1 lane on approach to Parliament Square. Lower Thames Street eastbound is also solid traffic all the time. I walked across London Bridge around midnight recently and the traffic was backed up all the way from the Tower back under London Bridge. I don't know how far back the queue went. It's been like that every time I've been round there. Also there was a report on the radio a while back about what happens when a black taxi travelling eastbound on Lower Thames St stops to pick up a wheelchair user. The entire eastbound flow was stopped for 6 minutes, and in that time the queue stretched all the way back past Blackfriars underpass. Also, the dividers between the cycle lane and normal lanes cause problems for wheelchair users.
Almost forgot St George's Circus. What a fucking nightmare that is now. Approach from either Borough Rd or Westminster Bridge Rd and you're guaranteed a long wait.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2016)

irf520 said:


> Of course not. Cyclists are beyond reproach. They're "saving the planet" after all, so we must allow them their little foibles. What are a few skittled pedestrians? Collateral damage.
> 
> All we need to do is close half the roads and convert them to cycle paths. Then add loads of extra traffic lights to the other half of the roads to allow cyclists to cross them without having to "interact with drivers". Then we'll wonder why there's a traffic jam 24/7 and why the air quality gets even worse because stationary traffic produces more pollution.


make them commute on pogo sticks in new pogo lanes.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 1, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> make them commute on pogo sticks in new pogo lanes.



This has been suggested many times before.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> This has been suggested many times before.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2016)

irf520 said:


> Regarding the new Embankment cycle route, for those of us who aren't cyclists it seems like a disaster. Westminster Bridge westbound is always solid traffic now because you're down to 1 lane on approach to Parliament Square. Lower Thames Street eastbound is also solid traffic all the time. I walked across London Bridge around midnight recently and the traffic was backed up all the way from the Tower back under London Bridge. I don't know how far back the queue went. It's been like that every time I've been round there. Also there was a report on the radio a while back about what happens when a black taxi travelling eastbound on Lower Thames St stops to pick up a wheelchair user. The entire eastbound flow was stopped for 6 minutes, and in that time the queue stretched all the way back past Blackfriars underpass. Also, the dividers between the cycle lane and normal lanes cause problems for wheelchair users.
> Almost forgot St George's Circus. What a fucking nightmare that is now. Approach from either Borough Rd or Westminster Bridge Rd and you're guaranteed a long wait.


boris johnson fucking us all from beyond the grave


----------



## irf520 (Sep 1, 2016)

Approaching St George's Circus from Borough Road, they've made the corner you turn to get into London Road really tight. Now if there's a lorry or bus trying to get round, they have to crawl round the corner. If there's a lorry or bus in front of you, basically you're fucked - you're not getting through on that cycle of the lights. They've paved over a huge area on that corner and put a bench there for people to sit on. Why? Who the fuck wants to sit on a bench right next to a main road with a 24 hour traffic jam? It's just insane. They should have just made the corner wider to reduce the traffic jams. Or maybe that's the whole point - I have a feeling they do these changes to deliberately make the traffic jams worse, which can then be used to justify increased congestion charges/road tolls/whatever.


----------



## Crispy (Sep 1, 2016)

That corner has no cycle facilities on it, so while your complaint might be valid, it's not the fault of any cycle infrastructure.

Why do you drive in central london btw? (genuine Q - there are plenty of legitimate reasons)


----------



## irf520 (Sep 1, 2016)

Crispy said:


> That corner has no cycle facilities on it, so while your complaint might be valid, it's not the fault of any cycle infrastructure.
> 
> Why do you drive in central london btw? (genuine Q - there are plenty of legitimate reasons)



There is a (short) segregated cycle lane on Borough Rd as you approach St George's Circus, with a separate set of traffic lights. You used to be able to get two lanes of traffic round that corner, now only one.
Why do I drive in central London? The last time I drove that particular route was taking my elderly mother to St Thomas' Hospital. I do walk round there quite often though, and there is pretty much always a traffic jam. That wasn't the case before the junction "improvements".
I used to drive to work, but my office has moved so I don't need to now.
Sometimes I drive because I don't want to carry lots of heavy shopping bags on public transport. Sometimes just for convenience. I try to drive at less busy times. However the effect of a lot of these road changes is that the traffic is bad all the time, even at times which used to be less busy.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 1, 2016)

irf520 said:


> Approaching St George's Circus from Borough Road, they've made the corner you turn to get into London Road really tight. Now if there's a lorry or bus trying to get round, they have to crawl round the corner. If there's a lorry or bus in front of you, basically you're fucked - you're not getting through on that cycle of the lights. They've paved over a huge area on that corner and put a bench there for people to sit on. Why? Who the fuck wants to sit on a bench right next to a main road with a 24 hour traffic jam? It's just insane. They should have just made the corner wider to reduce the traffic jams. Or maybe that's the whole point - I have a feeling they do these changes to deliberately make the traffic jams worse, which can then be used to justify increased congestion charges/road tolls/whatever.


No, because if you give more space to traffic, it will just fill up. Cars are polluting so get them off the road.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 1, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> No, because if you give more space to traffic, it will just fill up. Cars are polluting so get them off the road.


The opposite is happening though. People want their cars and all of the campaigning against them has come to nowt. There are more private cars on the roads now than ever before and sales are increasing every year. There are 600,000 more cars on UK roads today than there were this time last year, and the taxes raised from motorists makes them one of the most powerful lobbies in the country, so the infrastructure is going to go where the demand and money is.

Nobody is seriously looking to "get them off the road". They're going to be increasingly accommodated.


----------



## irf520 (Sep 1, 2016)

Walking around central London on weekdays most of the vehicles I see on the roads are either buses, lorries, vans, minicabs or black cabs. These vehicles aren't there because someone fancied a jolly or because the driver couldn't be arsed to walk half a mile. They're there because it's someone's job. Reducing road space is just making these people's jobs difficult to impossible.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> The opposite is happening though. People want their cars and all of the campaigning against them has come to nowt. There are more private cars on the roads now than ever before and sales are increasing every year. There are 600,000 more cars on UK roads today than there were this time last year, and the taxes raised from motorists makes them one of the most powerful lobbies in the country, so the infrastructure is going to go where the demand and money is.
> 
> Nobody is seriously looking to "get them off the road". They're going to be increasingly accommodated.


plus when cars travel on the pavement far more people are injured and killed, pa.


----------



## klang (Sep 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> The opposite is happening though. People want their cars and all of the campaigning against them has come to nowt. There are more private cars on the roads now than ever before and sales are increasing every year. There are 600,000 more cars on UK roads today than there were this time last year, and the taxes raised from motorists makes them one of the most powerful lobbies in the country, so the infrastructure is going to go where the demand and money is.
> 
> Nobody is seriously looking to "get them off the road". They're going to be increasingly accommodated.





irf520 said:


> Of course not. Cyclists are beyond reproach. They're "saving the planet" after all, so we must allow them their little foibles. What are a few skittled pedestrians? Collateral damage.
> 
> All we need to do is close half the roads and convert them to cycle paths. Then add loads of extra traffic lights to the other half of the roads to allow cyclists to cross them without having to "interact with drivers". Then we'll wonder why there's a traffic jam 24/7 and why the air quality gets even worse because stationary traffic produces more pollution.


we _are_ gonna have to get them off the road by introducing a more attractive infra for cyclists, pedestrians and public transport.
pretty obvious that things can't go on as they are for much longer........


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> The opposite is happening though. People want their cars and all of the campaigning against them has come to nowt. There are more private cars on the roads now than ever before and sales are increasing every year. There are 600,000 more cars on UK roads today than there were this time last year, and the taxes raised from motorists makes them one of the most powerful lobbies in the country, so the infrastructure is going to go where the demand and money is.
> 
> Nobody is seriously looking to "get them off the road". They're going to be increasingly accommodated.



They should be, it's a polluting and wasteful way of making a journey, and despite the taxes they pay it's massively subsidised by everyone else. 
Cycling is growing in london year on year and judging by my daily commute will expand even more this year. We don't have the lobbying of motorists and that's something that needs to be improved so we can get a share of the infrastructure that we already pay for.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 1, 2016)

littleseb said:


> we _are_ gonna have to get them off the road by introducing a more attractive infra for cyclists, pedestrians and public transport.


But people have been saying that for years and it never happens.


----------



## klang (Sep 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> But people have been saying that for years and it never happens.


I know. I guess there is a lot more money in the car industry than in the cycling industry.
It's gonna have to change though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2016)

littleseb said:


> I know. I guess there is a lot more money in the car industry than in the cycling industry.
> It's gonna have to change though.


i don't imagine there'll ever be that much money in the cycling industry as there is in the car industry.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> They should be, it's a polluting and wasteful way of making a journey, and despite the taxes they pay it's massively subsidised by everyone else.
> Cycling is growing in london year on year and judging by my daily commute will expand even more this year. We don't have the lobbying of motorists and that's something that needs to be improved so we can get a share of the infrastructure that we already pay for.


tbh you already have a share of the infrastructure that we already pay for.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 1, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> They should be, it's a polluting and wasteful way of making a journey, and despite the taxes they pay it's massively subsidised by everyone else.


Who is the everyone else? There's one car for every two people in the country now, so most people are driving, at least sometimes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Who is the everyone else? There's one car for every two people in the country now, so most people are driving, at least sometimes.


can i borrow your car, pa, to go for a jaunt for a few days?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Who is the everyone else? There's one car for every two people in the country now, so most people are driving, at least sometimes.


That's half the people in the country and not all of them will use the car regularly, so it is most people.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 1, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> That's half the people in the country and not all of them will use the car regularly, so it is most people.


It's half the number of _cars_ as people in the country. Take out the under 17s and consider that many people share one car, and _way more_ *adults* drive than do not.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> But people have been saying that for years and it never happens.


It will have to stop eventually as it is unsustainable.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 1, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> can i borrow your car, pa, to go for a jaunt for a few days?


The insurance will cost a few quid, son, but save your pocket money and we'll see.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> The insurance will cost a few quid, son, but save your pocket money and we'll see.


thank you pa


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> It's half the number of _cars_ as people in the country. Take out the under 17s and consider that many people share one car, and _way more_ *adults* drive than do not.


They do, but they shouldn't because of pollution, so we should be working to change that, not to make it worse.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 1, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> They do, but they shouldn't because of pollution, so we should be working to change that, not to make it worse.


That's as maybe, but I'm looking to find out who the "everyone else" is who is subsidising motorists? Given that most of the taxpayers in the country _are_ motorists, and that motorists pay more in indirect taxation (fuel duty) than non-motorists, who's doing the subsidising?


----------



## irf520 (Sep 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> That's as maybe, but I'm looking to find out who the "everyone else" is who is subsidising motorists? Given that most of the taxpayers in the country _are_ motorists, and that motorists pay more in indirect taxation (fuel duty) than non-motorists, who's doing the subsidising?



He's referring to the amount of general taxation, paid by motorists and non-motorists, which goes to building and maintaining roads, while forgetting that without those roads he might have trouble finding anything in the shops or getting his rubbish collected or ...


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> That's as maybe,


What's the maybe, you don't think they are polluting?



Spymaster said:


> but I'm looking to find out who the "everyone else" is who is subsidising motorists? Given that most of the taxpayers in the country _are_ motorists, and that motorists pay more in indirect taxation (fuel duty) than non-motorists, who's doing the subsidising?


Most of the taxpayers are motorists?. No, you're just imagining a link between the numbers of cars registered and the number of people, it's not one to one.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 1, 2016)

irf520 said:


> He's referring to the amount of general taxation, paid by motorists and non-motorists, which goes to building and maintaining roads, while forgetting that without those roads he might have trouble finding anything in the shops or getting his rubbish collected or ...


Well yes, but if private cars were to disappear off city streets, that would be a start


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 1, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Well yes, but if private cars were to disappear off city streets, that would be a start



One day private car use in cities will be thought of in the same way as we think about people throwing the contents of chambers pots out of upstairs windows.


----------



## irf520 (Sep 1, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> What's the maybe, you don't think they are polluting?
> 
> Most of the taxpayers are motorists?. No, you're just imagining a link between the numbers of cars registered and the number of people, it's not one to one.



Depends what you mean by taxpayer. Only the top 40% of people by income are net taxpayers. I'd hazard a guess that most tax is paid by motorists.

ED MONK: Are you a contributor to (or a burden on) the nation's finances?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 1, 2016)

.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 1, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> What's the maybe, you don't think they are polluting?
> 
> Most of the taxpayers are motorists?. No, you're just imagining a link between the numbers of cars registered and the number of people, it's not one to one.


Ok. So you don't believe that there are more motorists than income tax payers in England and Wales, is that the case?
And once again, how is everyone else subsidising motorists?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 1, 2016)

irf520 said:


> Depends what you mean by taxpayer. Only the top 40% of people by income are net taxpayers. I'd hazard a guess that most tax is paid by motorists.
> 
> ED MONK: Are you a contributor to (or a burden on) the nation's finances?


There are 30 million motorists in the country and 30.6 million tax payers.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Yes, some more than others, but so are a lot of things.This is an argument for developing less polluting cars and fuel technology, not one for getting rid of cars, which will never happen.


Calm down, No one is suggesting getting rid of cars. Just reducing their use.


Spymaster said:


> Ok. So you don't believe that there are more motorists than income tax payers in England and Wales, is that the case?


 Income tax in just england and wales, have you found a little statistic?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> There are 30 million motorists in the country and 30.6 million tax payers.


I could be wrong, got a link for that 30 million motorists?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 1, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> I could be wrong, got a link for that 30 million motorists?


Page 3 of this from the RAC.


> There are 30 million drivers in the UK, many of whom use their car each day for commuting to work, transporting their families and carrying out social activities.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Page 3 of this from the RAC.


Have you read how they got to that figure?. Page 62. An internet survey of 1000 drivers.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 1, 2016)

Do you really think there are only 600,000 taxpayers in the uk who aren't motorists?.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 1, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> Have you read how they got to that figure?. Page 62. An internet survey of 1000 drivers.


Ok, so you dispute that there are 30 million motorists in the UK, is that correct?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 1, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> Do you really think there are only 600,000 taxpayers in the uk who aren't motorists?.


 
A lot of the motorists won't be taxpayers and vice versa. 

It's your claim that motorists are subsidised by "everyone else" that we're examining here.

Where did you get this nonsense from?


----------



## irf520 (Sep 1, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> Do you really think there are only 600,000 taxpayers in the uk who aren't motorists?.



There are some motorists who aren't taxpayers. Depending on how you define taxpayer.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> A lot of the motorists won't be taxpayers and vice versa.
> 
> It's your claim that motorists are subsidised by "everyone else" that we're examining here.
> 
> Where did you get this nonsense from?


Our collective health is a big cost


----------



## BigTom (Sep 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Ok, so you dispute that there are 30 million motorists in the UK, is that correct?



FoI to the DVLA in Jan 2015 says 45.5m driving licences in GB (think that excludes NI).. though that doesn't equate into motorists as some people will have a licence but not drive (althouh there are also people who drive without licences). But then you get the tricky question of when does a driving licence holder become a motorist? I don't own a car but I drive works vans on average I reckon once or twice a week, and hire a car two or three times a year. So I wouldn't be included in any car ownership stat, but I would be included in licence holder stat. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...1_How_many_people_hold_licences_in_the_UK.pdf


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2016)

irf520 said:


> There are some motorists who aren't taxpayers. Depending on how you define taxpayer.


let's just keep it at the simple 'people who pay tax'. which motorists will.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2016)

BigTom said:


> FoI to the DVLA in Jan 2015 says 45.5m driving licences in GB (think that excludes NI).. though that doesn't equate into motorists as some people will have a licence but not drive (althouh there are also people who drive without licences). But then you get the tricky question of when does a driving licence holder become a motorist? I don't own a car but I drive works vans on average I reckon once or twice a week, and hire a car two or three times a year. So I wouldn't be included in any car ownership stat, but I would be included in licence holder stat.
> 
> https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...1_How_many_people_hold_licences_in_the_UK.pdf


oh! such palpable pedantry deserves a special 'pedant of the month' award: very rare it is awarded the first day of the month.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Our collective health is a big cost


yes. and this is something where motorists are subsidised?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 1, 2016)

BigTom said:


> FoI to the DVLA in Jan 2015 says 45.5m driving licences in GB (think that excludes NI).. though that doesn't equate into motorists as some people will have a licence but not drive (althouh there are also people who drive without licences). But then you get the tricky question of when does a driving licence holder become a motorist? I don't own a car but I drive works vans on average I reckon once or twice a week, and hire a car two or three times a year. So I wouldn't be included in any car ownership stat, but I would be included in licence holder stat.
> 
> https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...1_How_many_people_hold_licences_in_the_UK.pdf


Of course. But on those numbers the 30 million motorists figure doesn't seem unrealistic and it's the number that's often cited by motoring organisations. The main point is that motorists more than pay their way for infrastructure and they are not being subsidised by "everyone else". 

Also, as has been pointed out, non-motorists also benefit from motoring infrastructure if they use busses, cabs, supermarkets, etc, etc, so the point is a nonsense.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 1, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yes. and this is something where motorists are subsidised?


No, but the impact they have on public health is at everyone else's expense


----------



## irf520 (Sep 1, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> let's just keep it at the simple 'people who pay tax'. which motorists will.



By that definition, everyone is a taxpayer, since you pay VAT on almost everything you buy.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> A lot of the motorists won't be taxpayers and vice versa.
> 
> It's your claim that motorists are subsidised by "everyone else" that we're examining here.
> 
> Where did you get this nonsense from?



My guess (and it is a guess) is that if you add up the income from VED and fuel duty it comes to less than the budget for road building which means that the motor vehicle specific taxes do not cover the costs of roads and taxes relating to other activities cover the gap. This could be seen as a subsidy to drivers from non-drivers but of course the roads are used for much more than just driving so it's not a good argument, except when you are being told by a wanker driver that you don't pay for the roads and they've paid for them all out of their car taxes where it sort of makes sense.

Might be something else of course.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Our collective health is a big cost


what relevance has this to Spymaster's post?


Spymaster said:


> A lot of the motorists won't be taxpayers and vice versa.
> 
> It's your claim that motorists are subsidised by "everyone else" that we're examining here.
> 
> Where did you get this nonsense from?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2016)

irf520 said:


> By that definition, everyone is a taxpayer, since you pay VAT on almost everything you buy.


duh  obviously  they are paying tax .'. they are taxpayers


----------



## BigTom (Sep 1, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> oh! such palpable pedantry deserves a special 'pedant of the month' award: very rare it is awarded the first day of the month.



I'd just like to thank everyone for this award, it means so much to me. I shall endeavour to serve the cause of pedantry in multiple fashions for the rest of this month, no doubt providing opportunity for pedantry as well as being pedantic myself.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2016)

BigTom said:


> My guess (and it is a guess) is that if you add up the income from VED and fuel duty it comes to less than the budget for road building which means that the motor vehicle specific taxes do not cover the costs of roads and taxes relating to other activities cover the gap. This could be seen as a subsidy to drivers from non-drivers but of course the roads are used for much more than just driving so it's not a good argument, except when you are being told by a wanker driver that you don't pay for the roads and they've paid for them all out of their car taxes where it sort of makes sense.
> 
> Might be something else of course.


it must be said that drivers have made a contribution to the cost of the roads which cyclists haven't: take two people doing the same job for the same pay at the same place of work who both live in the same street (let's call it hypothetic alley): mr bosun who drives to work has paid more in tax (ved etc) than mr petty-officer who cycles. more of mr bosun's tax money will go on roads


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2016)

BigTom said:


> I'd just like to thank everyone for this award, it means so much to me. I shall endeavour to serve the cause of pedantry in multiple fashions for the rest of this month, no doubt providing opportunity for pedantry as well as being pedantic myself.


yes. we try to dissuade winners from giving speeches from the rage their smug pedantry inspires in others less, er, gifted.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 1, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> what relevance has this to Spymaster's post?


Because the impact cars have on public health is at everyone else's expense.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 1, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> it must be said that drivers have made a contribution to the cost of the roads which cyclists haven't: take two people doing the same job for the same pay at the same place of work who both live in the same street (let's call it hypothetic alley): mr bosun who drives to work has paid more in tax (ved etc) than mr petty-officer who cycles. more of mr bosun's tax money will go on roads



And if they smoke whilst driving to work, (something elese cyclists can't easily do), they'll be chipping in even more to the collective pot.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Because the impact cars have on public health is at everyone else's expense.


so nothing in other words.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> And if they smoke whilst driving to work, (something elese cyclists can't easily do), they'll be chipping in even more to the collective pot.


not to mention drinking


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 1, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> not to mention drinking



Yes, the taxes on a refreshing can of driving lager pretty much underpin the NHS.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 1, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> so nothing in other words.


I just said how it was relevant. The health impact on all by the actions of motorists is another kind of subsidy


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> I just said how it was relevant. The health impact on all by the actions of motorists is another kind of subsidy


let's take this small step by small step.

who is in this case being subsidised and what is the extent of this 'subsidy'?

_when answering bear in mind that the majority of the country's adults are motorists to varying degrees of activity_


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 1, 2016)

I've just explained it


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> I've just explained it


no, you haven't. you've made a claim without any attempt to explain it:


Orang Utan said:


> Our collective health is a big cost


claim



Orang Utan said:


> No, but the impact they have on public health is at everyone else's expense


claim



Orang Utan said:


> Because the impact cars have on public health is at everyone else's expense.


claim



Orang Utan said:


> I just said how it was relevant. The health impact on all by the actions of motorists is another kind of subsidy


claim

you ignore, well, the real world: but to put it into a proper context for you, your claim does not to my mind stand up to examination.

firstly, you haven't actually given any notion of the extent of any health impacts caused by cars, whether to their drivers or to other people. you haven't demonstrated there is a cost.
secondly, you haven't examined the benefits which car use offers the economy. it may be that car use is beneficial for the economy: and of course some people use their cars for work, taxi drivers and other cab drivers, for example. do cars benefit the economy to a greater extent than any health impact they have costs the economy to resolve?
thirdly: well, let's see how you do on one and two before we get onto three.

yes, it might be preferable if cars were more sensibly used: i remember seeing signs on the golden gate bridge for a special car club lane in 1985, which we haven't entirely caught up with here yet. but i don't think it is as simple as 'cars are only costs' since there will be a number of benefits to the economy from their use.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 1, 2016)

I'm not even reading that


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> I'm not even reading that


yeh. no fucking surprise, you'll trot out any auld guff but the moment someone challenges you on it, it's hissy fit time.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 1, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> it must be said that drivers have made a contribution to the cost of the roads which cyclists haven't: take two people doing the same job for the same pay at the same place of work who both live in the same street (let's call it hypothetic alley): mr bosun who drives to work has paid more in tax (ved etc) than mr petty-officer who cycles. more of mr bosun's tax money will go on roads



Also costs more though, cars do way more damage to roads (and surroundings due to collisions) than bikes, and the health cost benefits of cycling probably far outweigh the small amount of extra VED/fuel duty paid, iirc every £1 invested in cycle infrastructure saves the NHS £4 so it's not insignificant if you want to start getting into that kind of level of detail.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2016)

BigTom said:


> Also costs more though, cars do way more damage to roads (and surroundings due to collisions) than bikes, and the health cost benefits of cycling probably far outweigh the small amount of extra VED/fuel duty paid, iirc every £1 invested in cycle infrastructure saves the NHS £4 so it's not insignificant if you want to start getting into that kind of level of detail.


tbh i would prefer it if you and i let orang utan substantiate his claims first. why do the heavy lifting when there's someone else who might?


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 1, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. no fucking surprise, you'll trot out any auld guff but the moment someone challenges you on it, it's hissy fit time.


Not really.  You're just doing your usual extreme literalism. The point I was making is evident


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Not really.  You're just doing your usual extreme literalism. The point I was making is evident


no. it isn't. your claims may be right: but then again perhaps they're not. if you can't produce an iota of evidence for them maybe you ought to retract them now.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 1, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> no. it isn't. your claims may be right: but then again perhaps they're not. if you can't produce an iota of evidence for them maybe you ought to retract them now.


I can make any claim, inference, implications,  presumption and assumption I want. And you can continue to be a tedious pointscorer all you want. But I'm not interested in satisfying your demands.


----------



## mauvais (Sep 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Of course. But on those numbers the 30 million motorists figure doesn't seem unrealistic and it's the number that's often cited by motoring organisations. The main point is that motorists more than pay their way for infrastructure and they are not being subsidised by "everyone else".
> 
> Also, as has been pointed out, non-motorists also benefit from motoring infrastructure if they use busses, cabs, supermarkets, etc, etc, so the point is a nonsense.


If we assessed financial infrastructural contribution vs. cost, on a usage basis (be it time or per mile or whatever), private motorists wouldn't do very well.

From best to worst, it would go something like:

Pedestrians
Cyclists
Motorcyclists
Taxis
Private motorists - petrol
Private motorists - diesel
Van drivers
HGV hauliers

Not sure about bus companies.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 1, 2016)

'I've never endangered a cyclist' 

bollocks and bullshit. We've all had the 'sorry mate I didn't see you' line. You've not seen loads of times it just came to nothing other than shitting the cyclist up at what a close one that was as you roar down the road, totally oblivious cos you didn't see. While listening to coldplay and chucking your maccy d wreckage out of the window into a childrens park


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 1, 2016)

mauvais said:


> If we assessed financial infrastructural contribution vs. cost, on a usage basis (be it time or per mile or whatever), private motorists wouldn't do very well.
> 
> From best to worst, it would go something like:
> 
> ...




Coaches would do very badly, OU's gonna have to walk in future.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 1, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Coaches would do very badly, OU's gonna have to walk in future.


They're not private cars.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> I can make any claim, inference, implications,  presumption and assumption I want. And you can continue to be a tedious pointscorer all you want. But I'm not interested in satisfying your demands.


yes, you can make any claim you want. but you never seem to want to flesh them out or to demonstrate that you're right and should be listened to. the slightest sign of disagreement - and it's something which occurs on other threads with other people, it's not just specific to me - and it's hissy fit time. i'd like to think there's some knowledge or nous behind the posts you submit, but tbh it appears there's an empty vessel beneath that fine drumskin.


----------



## Winot (Sep 1, 2016)

irf520 said:


> Depends what you mean by taxpayer. Only the top 40% of people by income are net taxpayers. I'd hazard a guess that most tax is paid by motorists.



Funny - I could have sworn one of the accusations thrown at the London cycle-Nazi movement during the superhighway consultation was that we were all well-off middle class.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 1, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> They're not private cars.



Doesn't make their filthy emmissions any less toxic.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> They're not private cars.


well spotted.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 1, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yes, you can make any claim you want. but you never seem to want to flesh them out or to demonstrate that you're right and should be listened to. the slightest sign of disagreement - and it's something which occurs on other threads with other people, it's not just specific to me - and it's hissy fit time. i'd like to think there's some knowledge or nous behind the posts you submit, but tbh it appears there's an empty vessel beneath that fine drumskin.


This is a bulletin board, not an academic journal. You seem to expect all posts to have some academic rigour. There's room for all kinds of comments, not just the nerdy ones.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2016)

irf520 said:


> Depends what you mean by taxpayer. Only the top 40% of people by income are net taxpayers. I'd hazard a guess that most tax is paid by motorists.
> 
> ED MONK: Are you a contributor to (or a burden on) the nation's finances?


oh right. maybe it should only net contributors who have the right to vote eh? i have your number.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> This is a bulletin board, not an academic journal. You seem to expect all posts to have some academic rigour. There's room for all kinds of comments, not just the nerdy ones.


i'm not asking for "academic rigour", just for some demonstration that you're posting fucking guff.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 1, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm not asking for "academic rigour", just for some demonstration that you're posting fucking guff.


I was posting what I thought. You already said it might be true, so you only seem to be arguing for the sake of it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> I was posting what I thought. You already said it might be true, so you only seem to be arguing for the sake of it.


yeh. it might be true. but then again - as i went on to say - it might not. very big on claims as ever, very short on supporting them. let's accept you won't be showing us whether i was wrong and move on.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 1, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. it might be true. but then again - as i went on to say - it might not. very big on claims as ever, very short on supporting them. let's accept you won't be showing us how wrong i was and move on.


But I'm not interested in satisfying your demands. It's rather boring for other people to witness and for us too. So please stop.


----------



## Winot (Sep 1, 2016)

irf520 said:


> Regarding the new Embankment cycle route, for those of us who aren't cyclists it seems like a disaster. Westminster Bridge westbound is always solid traffic now because you're down to 1 lane on approach to Parliament Square. Lower Thames Street eastbound is also solid traffic all the time. I walked across London Bridge around midnight recently and the traffic was backed up all the way from the Tower back under London Bridge. I don't know how far back the queue went. It's been like that every time I've been round there. Also there was a report on the radio a while back about what happens when a black taxi travelling eastbound on Lower Thames St stops to pick up a wheelchair user. The entire eastbound flow was stopped for 6 minutes, and in that time the queue stretched all the way back past Blackfriars underpass. Also, the dividers between the cycle lane and normal lanes cause problems for wheelchair users.
> Almost forgot St George's Circus. What a fucking nightmare that is now. Approach from either Borough Rd or Westminster Bridge Rd and you're guaranteed a long wait.



You might be interested in some stats (link is to a pdf):

"According to TfL, motorists entering central London during the morning peak in 2000 outnumbered cyclists by more than 11 to 1. By 2014, the ratio was 1.7 to 1. "If these trends continue, the number of people commuting to central London by bike will overtake the number commuting by car in three years," believes TfL."


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> But I'm not interested in satisfying your demands. It's rather boring for other people to witness and for us too. So please stop.


1) i haven't made any demands; 2) if you read my post you'll observe my readiness to move on - please don't tell me to do what i've already suggested.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 1, 2016)

Oh lordy. No more!


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Oh lordy. No more!


just move on.

or if you have nothing more to contribute to the topic then shut up.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 1, 2016)

Likewise


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Likewise



seems germane to the topic
'Why do cyclists make car drivers boil with rage?'


----------



## fredfelt (Sep 1, 2016)

The argument that paying more tax should give on more rights, privileged, or priority on the road seems massively Tory to me.

People in the top 1% of income pay around 25% of total income tax to the treasury.

Policy really shouldn't be guided by, or services shouldn't be prioritised to those who pay most tax.


----------



## fredfelt (Sep 1, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> No. Until there is better urban design for cyclists, it is incumbent on YOU not to annoy pedestrians, and behave reasonably.
> 
> "Sorry mate. Lack of segregated infrastructure", is not a reasonable response to the people you piss-off on a daily basis.



I'd expand it and say it's incumbent on everyone, regardless of what transport you use.


----------



## braindancer (Sep 1, 2016)

I was complimented by a black cab driver for my cycling this evening....

He thanked me for being such a considerate cyclist!


----------



## tommers (Sep 2, 2016)

I got a letter from the Queen to thank me for being so brilliant.


----------



## tommers (Sep 2, 2016)

Which was nice of her I thought.


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 2, 2016)

braindancer said:


> I was complimented by a black cab driver for my cycling this evening....
> 
> He thanked me for being such a considerate cyclist!


Nice one, that is indeed a rare occurrence, well done.

I have purposefully avoided this thread as being an avid road using cyclist since 1969 I have experienced, shall we say a few encounters.
Surprisingly though these encounters have increased dramatically within the last twenty years and have been, sadly with other people on bikes, I will here make the distinction between 'cyclist' and 'bike owning twat'.

I received my cycling proficiency badge before my dad, also an avid cyclist, would allow me out on the road with him and since 69 I was allowed to venture off on my own. Under his tutelage learned basic road etiquette and have whenever possible maintained this to as high a standard as possible.
Always thinking that as a road user I show courtesy and good manners, always indicate my intentions, and maintain a safe position.

Sadly there appears to have been a dramatic increase in bike riders who are oblivious and sometimes downright careless, the effect on my position as a cyclist has caused a rise in incidents of deliberate intimidation towards me from motorists.

I was always taught that approaching any junction to make eye contact with other road users including pedestrians to make sure they are aware of your presence, these days some take this to be some kind of threat and pull out in front of me, whilst glaring and making hand gestures not in the Highway Code!

But my biggest danger is from, dare I say, budget bike owners, usually full suspension bikes, that are not fit for purpose and wrong sized that lack lights or seemingly any thought in the rider's head other than reaching their destination with no regard for others. The amount of times I have had such riders leap off the pavement they are riding along to avoid pedestrians or obstacles in front of me, causing me to swerve into a line of traffic or brake suddenly is getting ridiculous. The number of times I have to stop at pedestrian crossings to allow one of these pavement hoggers to cross is also maddening.

We have two cars between us and pay the Vehicle license Duty as required, and when not in the car I am using the road as a cyclist, so should I pay extra duty for the bikes?
I am fully insured for third party claims and also ensure when needed my bike is carrying more than adequate lighting.
So please have a thought that many cyclists do try to be decent, concerned and diligent road users, it's the maverick bike owning twats that need sorting, for all our sakes.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 2, 2016)

Every time I drive, people throw roses at my car. It's great when I stop at traffic lights because cyclist tap on the window to shake my hand for being such a considerate driver.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 2, 2016)

Sprocket. said:


> We have two cars between us and pay the Vehicle license Duty as required, and when not in the car I am using the road as a cyclist, so should I pay extra duty for the bikes?


Absolutely.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2016)

braindancer said:


> I was complimented by a black cab driver for my cycling this evening....
> 
> He thanked me for being such a considerate cyclist!


millions of pms of support


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 2, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Absolutely.



You Sir, are a wrong un'.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 3, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> By the way, I'm taking AuntiStella out of the "decent cyclists" group and putting her back with the pissnozzles.



Childish. I have you back on ignore now.


----------



## fredfelt (Sep 3, 2016)

Here's Janet Street Porter presenting the case for cyclists to be mandated to use cycle paths and to wear cycle helmets.  We hear how of the 1,500 miles of road how much of a disaster it's been putting in dedicated cycle lanes along 12 miles of them.

Jacob Rees-Moog also champions the 3% of people who drive every day in London - over the 71% who never drive in London.  

Cycling debate: Gilligan v Street-Porter, 09/05/2016, Daily Politics - BBC Two


----------



## fredfelt (Sep 3, 2016)

Nigel Lawson also has a thing against cyclists, or at least what's likely to happen if any more road space is taken away from the 3% of people who drive every day in London



> cycling is “doing more damage to London than almost anything since the Blitz.”


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 3, 2016)

fredfelt said:


> Nigel Lawson also has a thing against cyclists, or at least what's likely to happen if any more road space is taken away from the 3% of people who drive every day in London


If one of the 3% of people who drive everyday in London could run down one n. lawson they would be doing all of us a favour esp if they then reverse over him


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 3, 2016)

AuntiStella said:


> Childish. I have you back on ignore now.


Good, bugger off


----------



## gentlegreen (Sep 3, 2016)

The helmet thing is bizarre coming from JSP - especially since pedestrians need them more than cyclists.

Key facts about injury when cycling in perspective

I'm now deliberately not wearing my cycle helmet while I'm still commuting in daylight partly to see if I am treated differently ...
The result are inconclusive - I suspect it's difficult for bad drivers to willfully make the claim that I am _*"getting in their way"*_ because I have no road experience when it's clear I'm twice their age ...
They do, however still queue up to act like dangerous twats in my vicinity.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 4, 2016)

fredfelt said:


> Here's Janet Street Porter presenting the case for cyclists to be mandated to use cycle paths and to wear cycle helmets.  We hear how of the 1,500 miles of road how much of a disaster it's been putting in dedicated cycle lanes along 12 miles of them.
> 
> Jacob Rees-Moog also champions the 3% of people who drive every day in London - over the 71% who never drive in London.
> 
> Cycling debate: Gilligan v Street-Porter, 09/05/2016, Daily Politics - BBC Two


Id love being forced to use cycle lanes. It's give me a chance to ride over the roofs of the cars all parked on top of them.


----------



## T & P (Sep 4, 2016)

gentlegreen said:


> The helmet thing is bizarre coming from JSP - especially since pedestrians need them more than cyclists.
> 
> Key facts about injury when cycling in perspective
> 
> ...


Helmets should never be compulsory for adults- and the same goes for motorcyclists. People should have the freedom to choose to take such risk. Unlike seat belts in cars, which can prevent other occupants from being injured by a flying body, only the biker themselves would ever be harmed by not wearing a helmet.

And I don't buy the 'but what about the poor emergency services clearing up the mess' argument some people put forward either. That way madness lies.


----------



## Sea Star (Sep 4, 2016)

T & P said:


> Helmets should never be compulsory for adults...
> And I don't buy the 'but what about the poor emergency services clearing up the mess' argument some people put forward either. That way madness lies.


If not wearing helmets led to an increase in head injuries that argument might hold water but it doesn't. The evidence I've seen says compulsory helmets increase head injuries.


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 5, 2016)

BigTom said:


> taxi drivers are the worst drivers and have the worst attitudes on the road ime / imo.


 
Private Hire >>> Taxis.


----------



## rubbershoes (Sep 5, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Doesn't make their filthy emmissions any less toxic.




How's the A6 going these days?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 5, 2016)

rubbershoes said:


> How's the A6 going these days?



Faster than OU's bus!


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 6, 2016)

BigTom said:


> Also costs more though, cars do way more damage to roads (and surroundings due to collisions) than bikes, and the health cost benefits of cycling probably far outweigh the small amount of extra VED/fuel duty paid, iirc every £1 invested in cycle infrastructure saves the NHS £4 so it's not insignificant if you want to start getting into that kind of level of detail.



I pay £180 a year VED for a car I use about twice a month, everything else done by bike including commuting. If road tax pays for the road (it doesn't) and cars cause significantly more road wear (several orders of magnitude) than bikes then surely as regular cyclist I'm subsidising frequent drivers? A lot of other cyclists will be the same.


----------



## mauvais (Sep 6, 2016)

T & P said:


> Helmets should never be compulsory for adults- and the same goes for motorcyclists. People should have the freedom to choose to take such risk. Unlike seat belts in cars, which can prevent other occupants from being injured by a flying body, only the biker themselves would ever be harmed by not wearing a helmet.
> 
> And I don't buy the 'but what about the poor emergency services clearing up the mess' argument some people put forward either. That way madness lies.


All of these things are about reducing the public cost of death or injury - which can be millions - not primarily about preventing harm to others. Motorcycling on a public road or whilst under the provision of public services should require the use of a helmet and your argument is daft.

Cycling is the odd one out as it's not entirely clear whether helmets are effective safety devices, especially across all contexts.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2016)

was walking to work this morning when a shitty cyclist nearly knocked me down by jumping on the pavement. didn't take kindly to being called a cunt either, the cunt.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 6, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Faster than OU's bus!


what bus?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> what bus?



The one you've been taking up and down the M1 for years.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 6, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The one you've been taking up and down the M1 for years.


what's that to do with owt?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> what's that to do with owt?



Read the thread.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 6, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Read the thread.


i have read it. I like taking the coach, it's cheap and cheerful, nowt to do with cycling though.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> i have read it. I like taking the coach, it's cheap and cheerful, nowt to do with cycling though.



Polluting though. Nasty, nasty diesel engine spewing out carcinogens as it coughs its way from Victoria to Swiss Cottage and beyond, you may like it and it may be cheap, but it's anything but cheerful.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 6, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Polluting though. Nasty, nasty diesel engine spewing out carcinogens as it coughs its way from Victoria to Swiss Cottage and beyond, you may like it and it may be cheap, but it's anything but cheerful.


better than lots of cars innit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Polluting though. Nasty, nasty diesel engine spewing out carcinogens as it coughs its way from Victoria to Swiss Cottage and beyond, you may like it and it may be cheap, but it's anything but cheerful.


not sure i have been on any coach you could really describe as cheerful.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> better than lots of cars innit.


keep telling yourself that


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> better than lots of cars innit.



Better than riding the shock waves of an exploding nuclear power station, but not as good as a Tesla.

What ya gonna do, huh?


----------



## fredfelt (Sep 6, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> was walking to work this morning when a shitty cyclist nearly knocked me down by jumping on the pavement. didn't take kindly to being called a cunt either, the cunt.



I often wear a high viz in the belief that if reduces the risk of other road users running into me. Similarly a helmet to reduce risk of injury in the event of accident.

With the amount of near misses you report sounds like you should consider doing the same. It's a simple precaution that might just save you one of these days.

A life jacket for your canal side journies might also help.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2016)

fredfelt said:


> I often wear a high viz in the belief that if reduces the risk of other road users running into me. Similarly a helmet to reduce risk of injury in the event of accident.
> 
> With the amount of near misses you report sounds like you should consider doing the same. It's a simple precaution that might just save you one of these days.
> 
> A life jacket for your canal side journies might also help.


don't think i report a particularly high level of 'near misses'.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> was walking to work this morning when a shitty cyclist nearly knocked me down by jumping on the pavement. didn't take kindly to being called a cunt either, the cunt.



Heh, on Sunday was walking on a remote bit of MOD land and a cyclist came towards me and he said good morning, I replied in kind. As I was walking back about 30 minutes later he came up behind me, must have done a complete circuit, and he sat behind me until I noticed his presence and allowed him to pass, at which he thanked me. The words, "Get a bell you cunt!" formed in my mouth, but thankfully failed to emerge...


----------



## fredfelt (Sep 6, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> don't think i report a particularly high level of 'near misses'.



Could you please pick me up on any spelling / grammatical mistakes I make? I rarely see them as I'm massively dsylexic, but if highlighted often enough it may help me.

Most people I deal with seem to understand and engage on substance, but I've learned that pendants can also be useful.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Heh, on Sunday was walking on a remote bit of MOD land and a cyclist came towards me and he said good morning, I replied in kind. As I was walking back about 30 minutes later he came up behind me, must have done a complete circuit, and he sat behind me until I noticed his presence and allowed him to pass, at which he thanked me. The words, "Get a bell you cunt!" formed in my mouth, but thankfully failed to emerge...


how fortunate for the cyclist on a remote bit of mod land that you proved not to be the ravening cyclist-killer he might have anticipated bumping into.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2016)

fredfelt said:


> Could you please pick me up on any spelling / grammatical mistakes I make? I rarely see them as I'm massively dsylexic, but if highlighted often enough it may help me.
> 
> Most people I deal with seem to understand and engage on substance, but I've learned that pendants can also be useful.


i put inverted commas round it as it was the term you used. there was no spelling mistake. there was no grammar error. there was, i regret, no pedantry. you seemed to base your suggestion of ppe on the level of 'near misses' i report, i don't think i report a peculiarly high number. but there you go, let accusations of pedantry be the level of debate to which you aspire.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2016)

fredfelt said:


> Could you please pick me up on any spelling / grammatical mistakes I make? I rarely see them as I'm massively dsylexic, but if highlighted often enough it may help me.
> 
> Most people I deal with seem to understand and engage on substance, but I've learned that pendants can also be useful.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> how fortunate for the cyclist on a remote bit of mod land that you proved not to be the ravening cyclist-killer he might have anticipated bumping into.



I have left my murderous, London-centric cyclist-killer instincts in the past.

Until they start riding 2 abreast down the narrow lanes round 'ere , the fucking wankers


----------



## fredfelt (Sep 6, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i put inverted commas round it as it was the term you used. there was no spelling mistake. there was no grammar error. there was, i regret, no pedantry. you seemed to base your suggestion of ppe on the level of 'near misses' i report, i don't think i report a peculiarly high number. but there you go, let accusations of pedantry be the level of debate to which you aspire.



Oops. Yup. That's how dsylexic I am. Thought you were picking me up for confusing near partners / crashes. They are the same word it seems. Apologies


----------



## T & P (Sep 6, 2016)

mauvais said:


> All of these things are about reducing the public cost of death or injury - which can be millions - not primarily about preventing harm to others. Motorcycling on a public road or whilst under the provision of public services should require the use of a helmet and your argument is daft.


 Can we have all moderate and high risks sports and activities banned immediately, please? I don't see why the country should spend a penny in rescuying people having fun in the sea, or climbing mountains.

The increased cost of treating head injuries for those motorcyclists who chose not to wear a helmet would likely be about 0.0000000023% of the national budget. Bankruptcy level stuff.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 6, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I have left my murderous, London-centric cyclist-killer instincts in the past.
> 
> Until they start riding 2 abreast down the narrow lanes round 'ere , the fucking wankers



allowed in the highway code, makes no difference to you if it is really narrow lanes (is there enough space for you to leave a 4ft gap with one cyclist there? Probably not so makes no difference if there is two) and easier to overtake if it's not really narrow lanes (shorter length to pass with two abreast than two riding one in front of the other). Really you should be grateful they ride two abreast, you'd have less opportunity to overtake if they weren't.
(Slow cyclists, like any slow vehicle, should be pulling aside on country roads to let faster vehicles pass when there's not enough space.)


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2016)

BigTom said:


> allowed in the highway code, makes no difference to you if it is really narrow lanes (is there enough space for you to leave a 4ft gap with one cyclist there? Probably not so makes no difference if there is two) and easier to overtake if it's not really narrow lanes (shorter length to pass with two abreast than two riding one in front of the other). Really you should be grateful they ride two abreast, you'd have less opportunity to overtake if they weren't.
> (Slow cyclists, like any slow vehicle, should be pulling aside on country roads to let faster vehicles pass when there's not enough space.)



it is also in the highway code that cyclists must stop for red lights...

The lanes are not that narrow round here, but when I cycle 2 abreast as is my right, if a car comes up behind I always go straight to single file, it's just common courtesy. The bigger problem is the large bunches you get, 3 or 4 across. Since 2012 this area has become a magnet for budding Bradleys and when they get in to large packs they do seem to forget their manners. And like our learned friend Francis Begbie said, "Manners never cost any cunt anything, not having them though, they've cost quite a few cunts plenty."


----------



## BigTom (Sep 6, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> it is also in the highway code that cyclists must stop for red lights...
> 
> The lanes are not that narrow round here, but when I cycle 2 abreast as is my right, if a car comes up behind I always go straight to single file, it's just common courtesy. The bigger problem is the large bunches you get, 3 or 4 across. Since 2012 this area has become a magnet for budding Bradleys and when they get in to large packs they do seem to forget their manners. And like our learned friend Francis Begbie said, "Manners never cost any cunt anything, not having them though, they've cost quite a few cunts plenty."



And for drivers to stop at red lights too, no group obeys this rule consistently, let alone the rule about stopping for amber lights. Get annoyed with people doing things that aren't allowed in the highway code, not things that are quite explicitly allowed.

When you say 3 or 4 across, do you mean 3 or 4 abreast or do you mean 3 or 4 sets of 2 abreast? If the former they shouldn't be doing this. If the latter, well it's much easier for you to pass if they are two abreast than single file, as it's a shorter distance to pass.

When you move to single file, does it actually make any difference to the driver? If the road is wide enough to pass safely with one cyclist there, it's generally wide enough with two abreast so makes no difference. If it's in that rare state of a road that is wide enough when there is one cyclist there but not two then obviously the cyclists should move to single file, but ime of country roads this isn't the case any more than it is in towns.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2016)

BigTom said:


> And for drivers to stop at red lights too, no group obeys this rule consistently, let alone the rule about stopping for amber lights. Get annoyed with people doing things that aren't allowed in the highway code, not things that are quite explicitly allowed.
> 
> When you say 3 or 4 across, do you mean 3 or 4 abreast or do you mean 3 or 4 sets of 2 abreast? If the former they shouldn't be doing this. If the latter, well it's much easier for you to pass if they are two abreast than single file, as it's a shorter distance to pass.
> 
> When you move to single file, does it actually make any difference to the driver? If the road is wide enough to pass safely with one cyclist there, it's generally wide enough with two abreast so makes no difference. If it's in that rare state of a road that is wide enough when there is one cyclist there but not two then obviously the cyclists should move to single file, but ime of country roads this isn't the case any more than it is in towns.




They ride like the peloton in the tdf.

If you leave 4' when passing a cyclist, two abreast still needs 4' from the outer-most one, so you need to go further over and I like to leave a decent gap, this is made much harder when they are two abreast. As the roads are generally quiet if they are in single file you can overtake as you rarely have oncoming traffic, when two abreast they take up so much of the road that it is hard to pass and leave a decent gap. I do find in places like Holland and Denmark cars tend to leave less of a gap than in the UK though, when they share the same space that is.

But as said, it's the great bunches that cause the real issues around here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


>


i missed that


----------



## BigTom (Sep 6, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> They ride like the peloton in the tdf.
> 
> If you leave 4' when passing a cyclist, *two abreast still needs 4' from the outer-most one, so you need to go further over and I like to leave a decent gap, this is made much harder when they are two abreas*t. As the roads are generally quiet if they are in single file you can overtake as you rarely have oncoming traffic, when two abreast they take up so much of the road that it is hard to pass and leave a decent gap. I do find in places like Holland and Denmark cars tend to leave less of a gap than in the UK though, when they share the same space that is.
> 
> But as said, it's the great bunches that cause the real issues around here.



yeah you do, but if there is are two cyclists in single file, riding say 2ft from the side of the road, the road is 12ft wide, you have the 6ft-12ft space to overtake in, car is 4ft wide so needs 6ft-10ft space, ie where there would be oncoming traffic if there was any. With two cyclists they are maybe 4ft from the side, leaving you with the 8ft-12ft space where there would be oncoming traffic if there was any. If there's oncoming traffic you cannot safely pass single file cyclist, or two abreast. If there isn't oncoming traffic you can safely pass either. If there's a gap in the oncoming traffic, the distance you need to overtake is shorter when passing two abreast than two single file.

I don't really know what the widths are of roads but that's why it makes no difference that you have to go further over. ime of country roads near me, the kind of widths I'm describing above is true on all of them in terms of my experience of cycling on them. Either you can overtake a single file line or two abreast, or you can't. Except when there is a short gap in oncoming traffic, in which case you can overtake two abreast but not single file.

Big groups is kind of different, especially if they are riding more than two abreast but the same principle applies really. 

I think in Holland there are lots of segregated cycle lanes running alongside rural roads and this is what the sports cyclists tend to use so you don't get the same problems.


----------



## mauvais (Sep 6, 2016)

T & P said:


> Can we have all moderate and high risks sports and activities banned immediately, please? I don't see why the country should spend a penny in rescuying people having fun in the sea, or climbing mountains.
> 
> The increased cost of treating head injuries for those motorcyclists who chose not to wear a helmet would likely be about 0.0000000023% of the national budget. Bankruptcy level stuff.


The country doesn't provide the coastline or the sea for you to kill yourself in, but it does provide a road network for you to use on its terms. The state barely pays for rescuing people from the sea either, FWIW - a charity does that.

The public cost of even a single vehicle accident with an immediate death is significant. And I'm not talking about closing a road or anything, although that's incredibly expensive too. Small splash, big ripples.


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 6, 2016)

T & P said:


> The increased cost of treating head injuries for those motorcyclists who chose not to wear a helmet would likely be about 0.0000000023% of the national budget. Bankruptcy level stuff.



It'd shorten the queue for organ transplants.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2016)

Teenage cyclist charged over death of woman in Old Street


----------



## Purdie (Sep 15, 2016)

BigTom said:


> I think in Holland there are lots of segregated cycle lanes running alongside rural roads and this is what the sports cyclists tend to use so you don't get the same problems.



You assume so...

Read something in the paper this week (PZC) and now there are calls for these fast sport cyclists to be allowed on the road.

rural separate cycle and car lane


rural shared, the red is the cycle lane


A rural rat run used for the school run. Road is used by all, including agricultural vehicles
We share this road on weekdays with secondary school cyclists which rarely bother me
Sports cyclist are a different story. Twats with horde mentality clad in lycra advertising.
Very few use this road as it can get quite busy
 

Rural, barely 2 cars wide, I avoid these outside office hours and at weekends


----------



## Santino (Sep 16, 2016)

Cyclist near the British Museum repeatedly ringing her bell so that pedestrians crossing at a green man signal would get out of her way while she ignored a red light.


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 17, 2016)

Pair of Lycra louts riding two abreast on a single lane part of the A30 just after it came down from two. Neither in the pretty damn spotless and pot hole free cycle lane.


----------



## joustmaster (Sep 17, 2016)

CNT36 said:


> Pair of Lycra louts riding two abreast on a single lane part of the A30 just after it came down from two. Neither in the pretty damn spotless and pot hole free cycle lane.


Do you know why they ride two abreast?


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 17, 2016)

joustmaster said:


> Do you know why they ride two abreast?


Coz they're gits?


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 17, 2016)

CNT36 said:


> Coz they're gits?


or cos they want to stay alive and stop flash cunts trying to pass too close


----------



## fredfelt (Sep 17, 2016)

It always strikes me as being a bit rich when someone in a  car, who has no option but to take up loads of space, complains about someone riding a bike holding up traffic.

The reason you get stuck in traffic, and the reason why you can't overtake is because you chose to travel in a car, or someone taking loads of space is coming in the other direction.  Don't go around blaming others for you choices.


----------



## gentlegreen (Sep 17, 2016)

A youtuber disgusted with cyclists riding two abreast :-



Spoiler: youtube video (swearing)


----------



## BigTom (Sep 17, 2016)

CNT36 said:


> Pair of Lycra louts riding two abreast on a single lane part of the A30 just after it came down from two. Neither in the pretty damn spotless and pot hole free cycle lane.


Not knowing the a30 or where that section would be I can't comment specifically but

Cycle lanes often have glass or other debris, it's not just about potholes.
Smaller potholes you wouldn't hardly notice in a car can be dangerous on a road bike
Cycle lanes are often so narrow as to be dangerous to use as they legitimise, even direct, drivers to pass too close so cyclists stop using them.
(I'm assuming the cycle lane is on the road not a pavement based lane as shared pavements have their own set of issues)

Assuming single lane means one standard width lane each side (and we're not talking about a single lane country road type thing), you need to be using the oncoming traffic lane to overtake cyclists in single file or riding two abreast, so either way you have the same opportunities to overtake.
Unless the cycle lane is over 2m wide you'll need to use the oncoming traffic lane if there are cyclists there too, lots of people think they are fine too stay in lane, like the line of paint provides some kind of protection to the cyclist, rather than giving a proper gap, cyclists tend to stop using cycle lanes if this is frequent on certain stretches of road (I know for me there are lanes I never use for this reason)


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 17, 2016)

No swearing?


----------



## BigTom (Sep 17, 2016)

gentlegreen said:


> A youtuber disgusted with cyclists riding two abreast :-
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: youtube video (no swearing)




Perfect example of when riding two abreast makes no difference. Depressing to think they would have overtaken a single file cyclist with that red car oncoming.


----------



## gentlegreen (Sep 17, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> No swearing?



oops !

I was transfixed by the Peter Cook impression.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 17, 2016)

wrong thread


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 17, 2016)

BigTom said:


> Not knowing the a30 or where that section would be I can't comment specifically but
> 
> Cycle lanes often have glass or other debris, it's not just about potholes.
> Smaller potholes you wouldn't hardly notice in a car can be dangerous on a road bike
> ...


There is considerably less shite in it than when I used to use it regularly. Spotless in my previous post refered to this. The road is wider here than the bit a mile or so away I ride quite often at the moment. I have never had a problem with the width and if drivers maintain a normal road position there is plenty of space to pass safely. If anything most drivers at this point are further toward the middle due to the changes in lanes and road layout.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 17, 2016)

BigTom said:


> Not knowing the a30 or where that section would be I can't comment specifically but
> 
> Cycle lanes often have glass or other debris, it's not just about potholes.
> Smaller potholes you wouldn't hardly notice in a car can be dangerous on a road bike
> ...


Sometimes this is the case. Often they're just being bellends, trying to make a point or "assert their rights".


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 17, 2016)

BigTom said:


> Not knowing the a30 or where that section would be I can't comment specifically but
> 
> Cycle lanes often have glass or other debris, it's not just about potholes.
> Smaller potholes you wouldn't hardly notice in a car can be dangerous on a road bike
> ...


This is a cycle lane in Bromley for example:


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 17, 2016)

I hope they put a policeman there to feel your collars if you try to pass it on the wrong side.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> wrong thread


Well said, pa


----------



## emanymton (Sep 17, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> This is a cycle lane in Bromley for example:
> 
> View attachment 92652


What's your problem,  plenty of a room for a single bike to get past.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 17, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I hope they put a policeman there to feel your collars if you try to pass it on the wrong side.


A job for the fashion police


----------



## Purdie (Sep 17, 2016)

gentlegreen said:


> A youtuber disgusted with cyclists riding two abreast :-
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: youtube video (swearing)




Those cyclist are not doing anything wrong imo  The real dick is the car driver for not slowing his speed as he approaches the first 2 cyclists.
He should never have attempted to overtake the second lot as there is a left bend in the road coming up and only real dickheads try to overtake cyclist in that situation.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 17, 2016)

Junction Malfunction and a New Dawn


----------



## T & P (Sep 30, 2016)

Saw this video this morning and thought of this thread. What a twat! Kudos to the pedestrian...


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 30, 2016)

if, like the muscley Alpha males on £3K bikes, I jumped red lights, rode on paths and got all snugly alongside the left of lorries on my commute, I could get into work 4.5 minutes earlier.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 30, 2016)

T & P said:


> Saw this video this morning and thought of this thread. What a twat! Kudos to the pedestrian...



Someone will be along on a minute to explain why the cyclists was actually in the right.


----------



## gentlegreen (Sep 30, 2016)

I especially like the additional hassle he has because he has those silly pedals that his shoes clip onto. I reckon that's a lot of reason idiots like that won't stop for anything.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Sep 30, 2016)

gentlegreen said:


> I especially like the additional hassle he has because he has those silly pedals that his shoes clip onto. I reckon that's a lot of reason idiots like that won't stop for anything.



I think that's near Parliament Sq. There are loads of police, politicians and civil servants around. It's not the place for bad behaviour.

The cyclist is a Grade 1 twat. Looks like they'd stop for no one.

While mentioning Parliament Sq. I rode south/north the other day with the new E/W cycle way. I can see why traffic is up in arms. I don't think it works.


----------



## gentlegreen (Sep 30, 2016)

Just had some twat cyclist go into the back of me on the local shared path on the way home.
I'd been waiting patiently behind a pedestrian for a cyclist coming the other way and wham.
Thankfully I was hardly affected - being 15 stone and riding a bike built like a tank.

I suspect either he or his bike or both were substantially damaged. I didn't hang around to find out - there were plenty of people around.

Sadly I don't currently have a rear camera.

Does this look like a good situation to belt along and try to beat another cyclist to the overtake ?

Hopefully he won't try that again.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 30, 2016)

emanymton said:


> Someone will be along on a minute to explain why the cyclists was actually in the right.



I wonder why he didn't jump in front of the taxi that passed behind him on the previous half of the crossing.


----------



## bi0boy (Sep 30, 2016)

gentlegreen said:


> I suspect either he or his bike or both were substantially damaged. I didn't hang around to find out - there were plenty of people around.



Maybe he had a medical episode or catastrophic brake failure due to faulty components.


----------



## gentlegreen (Sep 30, 2016)

I suppose my reaction was based on relief that unlike last time I wasn't heading to casualty myself and in pain for months...


----------



## keybored (Oct 1, 2016)

gentlegreen said:


> I especially like the additional hassle he has because he has those silly pedals that his shoes clip onto. I reckon that's a lot of reason idiots like that won't stop for anything.


Clipless pedals are great when you get used to them. Clipping back in on-the-fly takes practice though, that's the only reason I can think of why some people don't like to clip out and do those "track stand" things instead.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 1, 2016)

keybored said:


> Clipless pedals are great when you get used to them. Clipping back in on-the-fly takes practice though, that's the only reason I can think of why some people don't like to clip out and do those "track stand" things instead.



The other and main reason is that they are gigantic bellends.


----------



## bemused (Oct 2, 2016)

keybored said:


> [°°°] do those "track stand" things instead.



Track standing failures have provided me minutes of entertainment.


----------



## sim667 (Oct 6, 2016)

keybored said:


> Clipless pedals are great when you get used to them. Clipping back in on-the-fly takes practice though, that's the only reason I can think of why some people don't like to clip out and do those "track stand" things instead.



I would love to be able to track stand. Its so fucking difficult though.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 6, 2016)

bemused said:


> Track standing failures have provided me minutes of entertainment.


I sometimes whistle circus music when I see people do it.


----------



## fredfelt (Oct 6, 2016)

It seems that your typical Daily Mail reader, devoid of any ability of critical analysis, despises cyclists due to 'cycle lane lunacy'.  It's the cyclists that cause congestion and pollution, obviously!

More cycle lanes are being built across Britain | Daily Mail Online


----------



## a_chap (Oct 6, 2016)




----------



## weltweit (Oct 6, 2016)

I have nothing against cyclists and am on occasion one myself, but I have noticed that bike lights have become much more powerful recently, last week I was dazzled by an oncoming white light, I was sure it was a car with one light out on high beam, but it didn't seem to be moving very fast. I slowed right down and looked carefully until I could make out a cyclists with his/her headlight pointed skywards.


----------



## BigTom (Oct 6, 2016)

weltweit said:


> I have nothing against cyclists and am on occasion one myself, but I have noticed that bike lights have become much more powerful recently, last week I was dazzled by an oncoming white light, I was sure it was a car with one light out on high beam, but it didn't seem to be moving very fast. I slowed right down and looked carefully until I could make out a cyclists with his/her headlight pointed skywards.




CREE LEDs became cheap 3 or 4 years ago and bike lights became a lot brighter as a result. There are some safety kitemark type standards for bike lights but no regulation around brightness/angles of dispersion which leads to a problem for cyclists - how do you know if your light is bright enough?
In Germany I think they have regulations and regulated spaces for lights on bikes so that brightness and angles can be controlled and cyclists can have confidence that their lights are bright enough.
In the UK we don't, so someone gets some lights and puts them on and sooner or later will get a driver pull out on them at a junction or roundabout (happens all the time, no matter how bright you are). Cyclist questions whether it was their fault (not helped by all the "be bright, be seen" type winter campaigns that say that if you are bright enough, you will be seen, which is not true - you are more likely to be seen, but people will still not look or not look properly or look and think you are moving at 10mph when you are moving at 25mph) and wonder if their light is bright enough and decide to get a brighter one just in case. Then when they get pulled out on again, they'll get another one, or put it on their helmet, or change the angle on the handlebars so it's shining more in driver's faces in case that was the problem.
Driving, you'd never question it - the MOT says that your lights are enough that you should expect another road user to see you. But cycling, there's nothing to give you that confidence and campaigns to make you question it.

e2a: a lot of these lights aren't produced/marketed for commuters but for night time mountain bike cyclists who obviously need a lot more light than commuters do.


----------



## Santino (Oct 10, 2016)

At a T-junction a cyclist illegally turned right and cycled the wrong way up a one-way road, veering across both lanes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2016)

Santino said:


> At a T-junction a cyclist illegally turned right and cycled the wrong way up a one-way road, veering across both lanes.


i hope you congratulated them on their cycling


----------



## Sprocket. (Oct 10, 2016)

Santino said:


> At a T-junction a twat on a bike illegally turned right and rode the wrong way up a one-way road, veering across both lanes.


FIFY.


----------



## a_chap (Oct 10, 2016)

And today I witnessed three drivers doing something illegal whilst driving.

Oh, sorry, I meant "twat drivers".

Maybe I should have congratulated them on their driving Pickman's model.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2016)

a_chap said:


> And today I witnessed three drivers doing something illegal whilst driving.
> 
> Oh, sorry, I meant "twat drivers".


Together or separately?


----------



## a_chap (Oct 10, 2016)

What?


----------



## rubbershoes (Oct 10, 2016)

a_chap said:


> What?




Just put him on ignore.  It's so much better


----------



## a_chap (Oct 11, 2016)

I won't put him on ignore because, in other threads Pickman's often says very interesting and/or witty things.

It's just in this thread he acts like a bellend, which is a pity.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 13, 2016)




----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 13, 2016)

a_chap said:


> Maybe I should have congratulated them on their driving Pickman's model.


maybe you should have. maybe you shouldn't edit your posts after they've been replied to, which has long been seen as a faux pas here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 13, 2016)

a_chap said:


> I won't put him on ignore because, in other threads Pickman's often says very interesting and/or witty things.
> 
> It's just in this thread he acts like a bellend, which is a pity.


i don't think you're really in a position to have a pop at people for acting like bellends on this thread.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Oct 13, 2016)

I told a white van off for not indicating and nearly mashing me yesterday. they got rather irate and tried to come after me to finish me off but were unable to get down the narrow street and follow me. they used some rather choice words as well. naughty.


----------



## Idaho (Oct 13, 2016)

Really stupid cyclist yesterday evening at the roundabout carried on as I entered the junction to his right. I braked in time fortunately and didn't hit him - then he stopped right in front of me grumbled something I couldn't hear before cycling off. Presumably he was either berating me on my foolish adherence to traffic rules or on my failure to run him over.


----------



## Idaho (Oct 13, 2016)

From the other side... I was cycling down a narrow single lane winding road out in the county and as is my habit, I moved to the right side of the road when the road curved left so I could get advance warning of oncoming traffic. A white van which was bombing along had to slam its brakes to avoid hitting me... Once again leading to a berating. If I had stuck to the left, there is no doubt it would have clipped me or forced me into the hedge before he even saw me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 13, 2016)

Idaho said:


> From the other side... I was cycling down a narrow single lane winding road out in the county and as is my habit, I moved to the right side of the road when the road curved left so I could get advance warning of oncoming traffic. A white which was bombing along had to slam its brakes to avoid hitting me... Once again leading to a berating. If I had stuck to the left, there is no doubt it would have clipped me or forced me into the hedge before he even saw me.


white van? white car? white lorry?


----------



## gentlegreen (Oct 13, 2016)

I encounter blind bend idiocy every day on the way home.
I can only suppose people have a strong desire to test their crumple zones and airbags.
Thankfully in my case the threat comes mostly from possible shrapnel.


----------



## Idaho (Oct 13, 2016)

Weird! Word disappeared. It was a flat bed van/truck.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 13, 2016)

gentlegreen said:


> Thankfully in my case the threat comes mostly from possible shrapnel.


do tell


----------



## gentlegreen (Oct 13, 2016)

i.e. if they hit another vehicle and bits fly off ... though there's always the danger they'll slam across me towards the kerb and I won't stop in time.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 13, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> I told a white van off for not indicating and nearly mashing me yesterday. they got rather irate and tried to come after me to finish me off but were unable to get down the narrow street and follow me.


This kind of thing really pisses me off.

They should've got out of the van and chased you on foot. Total lack of commitment.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Oct 13, 2016)

Judging by the seething incandescence of their scarlet faces , I think it would have killed them to come after me. Maybe flicking the V's and calling them cockney wankers was not the best reaction to their rage

Top tip kids- always make sure you have an escape route mapped out before abusing a van of scaffolders


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 13, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> This kind of thing really pisses me off.
> 
> They should've got out of the van and chased you on foot.


with benny hill music blaring out, pa


----------



## not-bono-ever (Oct 13, 2016)

Sorry for the Mail link

Rider's risky overtake causes calamitous crash sending cyclists sprawling across the floor on a congested superhighway track in London | Daily Mail Online

Crap skillz = wanky accident

Doesn't take much for the non cycling public to adopt a jaundiced view of cyclists when stuff like this is posted up


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 13, 2016)

People do need to behave better on those superhighways though - if you want to go fast, go on the road.
They should have a 10-15mph limit


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 13, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> People do need to behave better on those superhighways though - if you want to go fast, go on the road.
> They should have a 10-15mph limit


There does seem to be a certain breed of cyclist who would no doubt berate car drivers for not waiting behind a slower moving vehicle/bike on the road until it was safe to pass, yet won't themselves slow down for anything.


----------



## IC3D (Oct 13, 2016)

Calling them Superhighways gives the impression they're supposed to be fast right.


----------



## Crispy (Oct 13, 2016)

Was just a matter of time. The new routes are fantastic, but they're not roads and shouldn't be treated like roads. Hopefully twats like that will get swallowed up by the ever-growing numbers of "normal" cyclists and leave their bodysuits, pedal clips and strava records at home.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 13, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> Sorry for the Mail link
> 
> Rider's risky overtake causes calamitous crash sending cyclists sprawling across the floor on a congested superhighway track in London | Daily Mail Online
> 
> ...


tbh by the time most non-cyclists see that they have already formed an opinion of cyclists.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 13, 2016)

IC3D said:


> Calling them Superhighways gives the impression they're supposed to be fast right.


no


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh by the time most non-cyclists see that they have already formed an opinion of cyclists.


What do you think would be some good punishments for cyclists, son?

Umbrella in the spokes? Carpet tacks sprinkled liberally on the road?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 13, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> What do you think would be some good punishments for cyclists, son?
> 
> Umbrella in the spokes? Carpet tacks sprinkled liberally on the road?


depends on the infraction, pa, but i don't think cruel or unusual a good idea. a banal punishment, like community service.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Oct 13, 2016)

.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> depends on the infraction, pa, but i don't think cruel or unusual a good idea. a banal punishment, like community service.


Itching powder on the saddle?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 13, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Itching powder on the saddle?


it's been too long since you handled itching powder, pa. it would have no effect as it would be on the outside of their clothes.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> it's been too long since you handled itching powder, pa. it would have no effect as it would be on the outside of their clothes.


Good point. How about greasing their brake pads?


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 13, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Good point. How about greasing their brake pads?


innocent people may be injured, pa. this would go against the bruce wayne code of conduct by which we abide.


----------



## IC3D (Oct 13, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> no


Superman and super noodle are fast


----------



## IC3D (Oct 13, 2016)

[QUOTE="Spymaster, post: 14742577, member: 432"
Umbrella in the spokes? Carpet tacks sprinkled liberally on the road?[/QUOTE]

It's a super highway not a road. It's for racing and breaking records for commuting times


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 13, 2016)

IC3D said:


> It's a super highway not a road. It's for racing and breaking records for commuting times


No, it isn't


----------



## Artaxerxes (Oct 13, 2016)

IC3D said:


> Calling them Superhighways gives the impression they're supposed to be fast right.



Well theres the problem, they are supposed to be for large volumes, not fast volumes.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 13, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> it's been too long since you handled itching powder, pa. it would have no effect as it would be on the outside of their clothes.


How about just letting their tyres down then?


----------



## Winot (Oct 13, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> Sorry for the Mail link
> 
> Rider's risky overtake causes calamitous crash sending cyclists sprawling across the floor on a congested superhighway track in London | Daily Mail Online
> 
> ...



Good to see Mail reporting that cycle superhighways are full.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Oct 13, 2016)

....all their previous reports are saying that they are empty= waste of money = communist conspiracy


----------



## Winot (Oct 13, 2016)

Quite.


----------



## Fanny Fruitcake (Oct 13, 2016)

I've got nowt against them myself.  Indeed, some of the guys look well fit in that lycra. Mmmmmm. Maybe some male motorists are suppressing their gay feelings when finding themselves having to stare at some guy's pert arse through the windowscreen.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 13, 2016)

That you, Francis?


----------



## Fanny Fruitcake (Oct 13, 2016)

Francis who?

Of Assis?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 13, 2016)

Fanny Fruitcake said:


> Francis who?
> 
> Of Assis?


Frances of Lengel


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 13, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> How about just letting their tyres down then?


too little too late pa

look back at the bruce wayne code of conduct and i'm sure a few things will occur to you


----------



## Fanny Fruitcake (Oct 13, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Frances of Lengel



.


----------



## editor (Oct 13, 2016)

Fanny Fruitcake said:


> I've got nowt against them myself.  Indeed, some of the guys look well fit in that lycra. Mmmmmm. Maybe some male motorists are suppressing their gay feelings when finding themselves having to stare at some guy's pert arse through the windowscreen.


Begone, twat.


----------



## Dogsauce (Oct 14, 2016)

Crispy said:


> Was just a matter of time. The new routes are fantastic, but they're not roads and shouldn't be treated like roads. Hopefully twats like that will get swallowed up by the ever-growing numbers of "normal" cyclists and leave their bodysuits, pedal clips and strava records at home.



They're fair game after midnight though. Daytime stravaing in London is unpossible.


----------



## hash tag (Nov 3, 2016)

Owen Jones turn to vent his wrath on this Owen Jones: Cabbie shouted 'I f***ing love it when you cyclists die' at me


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

loads of modern parents cycling along the pavement this morning.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 3, 2016)

hash tag said:


> Owen Jones turn to vent his wrath on this Owen Jones: Cabbie shouted 'I f***ing love it when you cyclists die' at me


What prompted this confrontation?

It's just a bit of unpleasant verbal. If he was cycling like a total bell end, as is so often the case with cyclists in London, he might have deserved a mouthful.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 3, 2016)

“Mate I will out this on Twitter”.

The Guardian columnist claims the taxi driver grinned and said: “Good, I’ll smile for the camera”.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 3, 2016)

> Many of Mr Jones’ half a million followers leapt to his side, slamming the driver and encouraging him to report the incident to the police.



Nasty working class man said howwible fwings!


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 3, 2016)

Even birds hate cyclists now

'He’s havin’ a crack!': Relentless magpie swoops Aussie cyclist


----------



## pengaleng (Nov 3, 2016)

saw about 5-6 go through a red on the super highway they got while some poor cunt was crossing the road and they nearly hit him. 

such cool.


----------



## rubbershoes (Nov 3, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> saw about 5-6 go through a red on the super highway they got while some poor cunt was crossing the road and they nearly hit him.
> 
> such cool.



Some cyclists are wankers. No one's surprised


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 3, 2016)

rubbershoes said:


> Some cyclists are wankers. No one's surprised


I know that's childish but I'm bored.


----------



## ffsear (Nov 3, 2016)

Critical Mass can fuck off as well!


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 3, 2016)

> *What have people got against cyclists?*





Bahnhof Strasse said:


> “Mate I will out this on Twitter"


There's your answer


----------



## pengaleng (Nov 3, 2016)

rubbershoes said:


> Some cyclists are wankers. No one's surprised




most imo based on personal sightings.

low intelligence levels are what usually get people killed though in all manner of circumstances and I'm guessing if you are too thick to realise that if you are going to be on the road you should learn it's rules then you deserve to be taken out by your own fucking stupidity.


----------



## George & Bill (Nov 3, 2016)

I was about to throw my tuppence-worth in, but then I realised that I've never bought a mid-range German saloon from a used car dealership in an outer borough of London, so I'm probably not in the correct demographic for this thread.


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 3, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> What prompted this confrontation?
> 
> It's just a bit of unpleasant verbal. If he was cycling like a total bell end, as is so often the case with cyclists in London, he might have deserved a mouthful.


Why would you assume that rather, than that (as Jones suggests) the driver was driving like a bell end? Driving like a bell end is much more common than cycling like a bell end. And to reiterate a point that apparently has to be reiterated constantly even though it's bleeding obvious, the cyclist breaking the rules is likely to cause inconvenience and from time to time minor injury, while the driver breaking the rules causes thousands of deaths a year. If you can't work out why cyclists take it a bit personally when car drivers nearly kill them, you can't have much experience of cycling. It's not nice, feeling like you nearly died. It's not an experience that car drivers have to have when cyclists cycle badly. To hear the bleating of some car drivers you'd think the balance of power (i.e. who is likely to die) was the other way around.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

Brainaddict said:


> Why would you assume that rather, than that (as Jones suggests) the driver was driving like a bell end? Driving like a bell end is much more common than cycling like a bell end. And to reiterate a point that apparently has to be reiterated constantly even though it's bleeding obvious, the cyclist breaking the rules is likely to cause inconvenience and from time to time minor injury, while the driver breaking the rules causes thousands of deaths a year. If you can't work out why cyclists take it a bit personally when car drivers nearly kill them, you can't have much experience of cycling. It's not nice, feeling like you nearly died. It's not an experience that car drivers have to have when cyclists cycle badly. To hear the bleating of car drivers you'd think the balance of power (i.e. who is likely to die) was the other way around.


How about when cyclists take it personally when you tell them to fuck off the pavement and get on the road?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> How about when cyclists take it personally when you tell them to fuck off the pavement and get on the road?


A tiny percentage do that. Most do not.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> A tiny percentage do that. Most do not.


Yeh. but everyone on the pavement's thinking what an arse the cyclists are, even if they stay quiet.


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> How about when cyclists take it personally when you tell them to fuck off the pavement and get on the road?


What the fuck's that got to do with anything? There are pricks everywhere, as you constantly remind us. The rage of highly protected car drivers against vulnerable cyclists who cause them a few seconds' inconvenience is however worthy of special study, as this thread shows.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. but everyone on the pavement's thinking what an arse the cyclists are, even if they stay quiet.


This is unfortunate. But that doesn't make all other cyclists arseholes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

Brainaddict said:


> What the fuck's that got to do with anything? There are pricks everywhere, as you constantly remind us. The rage of highly protected car drivers against vulnerable cyclists who cause them a few seconds' inconvenience is however worthy of special study, as this thread shows.


This thread is "what do people have against cyclists" not "what do cyclists have against cars" but nice to see you proving pengaleng's point.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> This is unfortunate. But that doesn't make all other cyclists arseholes.


No indeed. but there are lots of ways those cyclists remaining on the road make wankers of themselves, no lights, going through red lights, wrong way up one way streets...


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> This thread is "what do people have against cyclists" not "what do cyclists have against cars" but nice to see you proving pengaleng's point.


And we still haven't got anywhere, apart from the depressing fact that people tend to make assumptions about others just because of the trifling actions of a few.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> And we still haven't got anywhere, apart from the depressing fact that people tend to make assumptions about others just because of the trifling actions of a few.


Trifling to you maybe, seems like rather more than a few to me


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> No indeed. but there are lots of ways those cyclists remaining on the road make wankers of themselves, no lights, going through red lights, wrong way up one way streets...


Again you're making massive generalisations about people from your observations of a mere fraction of them. This makes you a bigot


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Trifling to you maybe, seems like rather more than a few to me


Trifling compared to road deaths caused by motorists.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Again you're making massive generalisations about people from your observations of a mere fraction of them. This makes you a bigot


of course I've only seen a fraction of them. You're making massive generalisations based on your impressions of a mere fraction of people. that makes you a hypocrite and a bigot.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Trifling compared to road deaths caused by motorists.


Oh right, so let's let antisocial wankers off things as long as they're not killing people.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 3, 2016)

No. That's what you were doing.

And so this sorry saga drags on


----------



## a_chap (Nov 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> How about when cyclists take it personally when you tell them to fuck off the pavement and get on the road?



How about when drivers take it personally when you tell them to fuck off parking on the pavement and park on the road?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> No. That's what you were doing.
> 
> And so this sorry saga drags on


Yeh cos you can't deal with criticism of cyclists


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

a_chap said:


> How about when drivers take it personally when you tell them to fuck off parking on the pavement and park on the road?


How about it?


----------



## a_chap (Nov 3, 2016)

How about it? Ok then, step outside sunshine.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh cos you can't deal with criticism of cyclists


What I can't abide is the bigotry towards cyclists that you and others tediously maintain.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> What I can't abide is the bigotry towards cyclists that you and others tediously maintain.


Yeh we should just swallow all the wankers cycling on pavements etc


----------



## a_chap (Nov 3, 2016)

What I can't abide is just how boring the anti-cycling trolls are.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh we should just swallow all the wankers cycling on pavements etc


Nope, just stop making out all cyclists behave like that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

a_chap said:


> What I can't abide is just how boring the anti-cycling trolls are.


Show me something interesting you've said on this thread


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Nope, just stop making out all cyclists behave like that.


i haven't said they do you dull cunt.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 3, 2016)

i am a fat cyclist . and there are an awful lot of really visible twats amongst us i am afraid to say.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> i am a fat cyclist . and there are an awful lot of really visible twats amongst us i am afraid to say.


Yeh but I bet you're a grand cyclist, like Boycey


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i haven't said they do you dull cunt.


The subject is dull, but you insist on maintaining the bigotry.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> The subject is dull, but you insist on maintaining the bigotry.


You insist on maintaining this lie. you are a bigot, a liar, and a hypocrite. in the course of this thread I have made it explicit I don't mean all while you've decided to go down the goebbelsesque big lie route.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 3, 2016)

You're always at it. Probs just for sport. But it's very annoying.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 3, 2016)

ffsear said:


> Critical Mass can fuck off as well!


Critical mass- ah fuck I was due at church to take communion!


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> You're always at it. Probs just for sport. But it's very annoying.


And you're still at it


----------



## a_chap (Nov 3, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Show me something interesting you've said on this thread



I make no claims for my posts to be interesting.

But you clearly thought my post was sufficiently interesting to read and then reply to.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

a_chap said:


> I make no claims for my posts to be interesting.
> 
> But you clearly thought my post was sufficiently interesting to read and then reply to.


Non sequitur


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 4, 2016)

George & Bill said:


> I was about to throw my tuppence-worth in, but then I realised that I've never bought a mid-range German saloon from a used car dealership in an outer borough of London, so I'm probably not in the correct demographic for this thread.



You more a man of style and class then? High-end German shooting-brake from Sheffield, yeah?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 4, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> The subject is dull ....


Yet here you are!


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 4, 2016)

The subject is dull ....
Yet here you are!
in opposition
To all things car


----------



## Santino (Nov 4, 2016)

Yesterday evening while crossing the road with my daughter and this morning on my way to work I had cause to gently remonstrate with cyclists ignoring red lights.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Yet here you are!


it is where you would expect to find him pa


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 4, 2016)

Brainaddict said:


> Why would you assume that rather, than that (as Jones suggests) the driver was driving like a bell end? Driving like a bell end is much more common than cycling like a bell end. And to reiterate a point that apparently has to be reiterated constantly even though it's bleeding obvious, the cyclist breaking the rules is likely to cause inconvenience and from time to time minor injury, while the driver breaking the rules causes thousands of deaths a year. If you can't work out why cyclists take it a bit personally when car drivers nearly kill them, you can't have much experience of cycling. It's not nice, feeling like you nearly died. It's not an experience that car drivers have to have when cyclists cycle badly. To hear the bleating of some car drivers you'd think the balance of power (i.e. who is likely to die) was the other way around.


See, it's very evident from this post that you're a crap cyclist and probably a danger to yourself and others. Or you don't cycle in London because it's blindingly obvious to anyone with half a brain that the standard of cycling is absolute dog shit. The vast majority of cyclists on London's roads are utterly clueless and if you don't recognise that, chances are you're one of them. The same can't be said of drivers. Sure there are plenty of shit ones who shouldn't be on the road but it's nowhere near the majority. But it's not just drivers that dislike cyclists, pedestrians can't stand you either! If training was compulsory for you dickheads things might improve, but oh no, you all know better, don't you? 

Utter bunch of peanuts.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Nov 4, 2016)

Other day I saw a guy cycling one handed, checking his phone, on a boris bike, up Holborn road in rapidly moving traffic. Oh and with no helmet (but a rather fetching long brown coat and a stylish beard)


The guy was weaving around a fair bit. I do wonder if he got hit by the time he got to the junction at Holborn station.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 4, 2016)

a_chap said:


> How about when drivers take it personally when you tell them to fuck off parking on the pavement and park on the road?


They're cunts too. They should have their cars crushed. But most motorists don't do that and condemn those that do. Cyclists on the other hand are way beyond criticism. Point out cyclist bellendry and the first thing that happens is some beach ball like you starts banging on about car drivers.


----------



## Santino (Nov 4, 2016)

The current standards of indicating at roundabouts displayed by many drivers leaves much to be desired.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 4, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> you're a crap cyclist and probably a danger to yourself and others. Or you don't cycle in London


I have 1st hand experience of Mr. Addict's cycling (in London where he lives) and I can tell you with certainty that you're talking shit sir.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 4, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> It's just a bit of unpleasant verbal. If he was cycling like a total bell end, as is so often the case with cyclists in London, he might have deserved a mouthful.



'Cylcing like a bell end' often seems to include such behaviours as controlling your lane at junctions, which is best practice according to the highway code and which modern cycling infrastructure is designed to encourage; passing parked vehicles with 1.5m to spare as recommended by department for transport funded cycle training programs; not using dangerous and idiotic cycle lanes which are entirely optional and which are often use as car parks anyway; and generally existing as a cyclist, taking up a fraction of the space required by a car and moving, on average, twice as fast as a car in inner city traffic while creating zero noise or pollution.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 4, 2016)

Crispy said:


> I have 1st hand experience of Mr. Addict's cycling (in London where he lives) and I can tell you with certainty that you're talking shit sir.


Nonsense. You're probably useless too.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 4, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Or you don't cycle in London because it's blindingly obvious to anyone with half a brain that the standard of cycling is absolute dog shit.



What about to someone with a whole brain, someone who might want slightly more evidence than one keyboard warrior's spittle-flecked assertion that nobody in London knows how to ride a bike properly?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 4, 2016)

It is possible for one person to be a car owner, motorbike rider pedestrian and cyclist, although all at the same time is a bit unlikely. I am more than happy to openly give all of them a mouthful when they act twattish*. Most of the above are competent at what they do, but you only notice the arseholes , so its confirmation bias and shit

* yes you lycra boy, I know you work at Goldmans  and I know where you fucking live as well and you pass me too close at speed most mornings and you gave me a dirty look when I called you a cunt on Tuesday when you forced your way past the stationary phalanx of bikes at London bridge ad went through a red light . On your £3K carbon bike, you fucking twat, just you wait 'til the yoot at burgess park tax you of your ride one of these dark nights.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 4, 2016)

A met a motorcyclist who wasn't a cunt once. 

But then I woke up.


----------



## Winot (Nov 4, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> It is possible for one person to be a car owner, motorbike rider pedestrian and cyclist, although all at the same time is a bit unlikely. I am more than happy to openly give all of them a mouthful when they act twattish*. Most of the above are competent at what they do, but you only notice the arseholes , so its confirmation bias and shit



A retired friend was having a rant about London cyclists when I last saw her (she knows I cycle). She described a scene in which a bunch of cyclists were waiting behind a stop line for a red to change and a twat had cycled through and nearly knocked her down. The twat was the only cyclist that shaped her views on cyclists generally.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> It is possible for one person to be a car owner, motorbike rider pedestrian and cyclist, although all at the same time is a bit unlikely. I am more than happy to openly give all of them a mouthful when they act twattish*. Most of the above are competent at what they do, but you only notice the arseholes , so its confirmation bias and shit
> 
> * yes you lycra boy, I know you work at Goldmans  and I know where you fucking live as well and you pass me too close at speed most mornings and you gave me a dirty look when I called you a cunt on Tuesday when you forced your way past the stationary phalanx of bikes at London bridge ad went through a red light . On your £3K carbon bike, you fucking twat, just you wait 'til the yoot at burgess park tax you of your ride one of these dark nights.


he'll be lucky if he meets you: and very unlucky should he encounter auld dead eyes.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 4, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Nonsense. You're probably useless too.


Ah of course, the danger of using subjective assessment. What particular behaviours would you consider useless? Just so we're all singing from the same hymn sheet you understand


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 4, 2016)

Crispy said:


> Ah of course, the danger of using subjective assessment. What particular behaviours would you consider useless? Just so we're all singing from the same hymn sheet you understand


Turning without indicating, jumping lights, squeezing behind peds on crossings, speeding in front of peds on crossings, riding on pavements, having no rear vision, being utterly unaware of whats going on around you, inadequate or completely absent lighting, squeezing down the sides of left turning vehicles, wrong way on one way streets, inability to cycle in straight lines, charging down the sides of queuing traffic when peds are crossing, strapping children onto your crap contraptions then riding like a penis, riding whilst on the phone, riding with no hands on the bars, being generally rude arrogant cunts ... that sort of thing. The usual cycling fuckwittery.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Turning without indicating, jumping lights, squeezing behind peds on crossings, speeding in front of peds on crossings, riding on pavements, being utterly unaware of whats going on around you, inadequate or completely absent lighting, squeezing down the sides of left turning vehicles, wrong way on one way streets, inability to cycle in straight lines, charging down the sides of queuing traffic when peds are crossing, strapping children onto your crap contraptions then riding like a penis, riding whilst on the phone, riding with no hands on the bars, being generally rude arrogant cunts ... that sort of thing. The usual cycling fuckwittery.


i'm sure you've left a few things out, pa


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 4, 2016)

lycra is a sin regardless. I can see what you had for dinner.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> lycra is a sin regardless. I can see what you had for dinner.


not to mention what they're having for lunch


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 4, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm sure you've left a few things out, pa


Feel free to fill in the gaps, son.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Feel free to fill in the gaps, son.


cycling through buildings, pa. i've seen it done.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 4, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> What about to someone with a whole brain, someone who might want slightly more evidence than one keyboard warrior's spittle-flecked assertion that nobody in London knows how to ride a bike properly?


Don't be daft, Frank.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 4, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> A met a motorcyclist who wasn't a cunt once.
> 
> But then I woke up.


And yet they're far less hated by the general public than cyclists.

Don't be daft, Frank.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 4, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Turning without indicating, jumping lights, squeezing behind peds on crossings, speeding in front of peds on crossings, riding on pavements, being utterly unaware of whats going on around you, inadequate or completely absent lighting, squeezing down the sides of left turning vehicles, wrong way on one way streets, inability to cycle in straight lines, charging down the sides of queuing traffic when peds are crossing, strapping children onto your crap contraptions then riding like a penis, riding whilst on the phone, riding with no hands on the bars, being generally rude arrogant cunts ... that sort of thing. The usual cycling fuckwittery.


I believe I witnessed Mr Addict caught without his lights one time, so I suppose you are right.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 4, 2016)

Crispy said:


> I believe I witnessed Mr Addict caught without his lights one time, so I suppose you are right.


Excellent post.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 4, 2016)

For what it's worth, the air quality on London's streets put subjective reports of irritating cyclists in perspective.

While cyclists continue to be seen by many as a major problem solutions to toxic cities are harder to come by 

Nearly 9,500 people die each year in London because of air pollution – study


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 4, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Turning without indicating, jumping lights, squeezing behind peds on crossings, speeding in front of peds on crossings, riding on pavements, being utterly unaware of whats going on around you, inadequate or completely absent lighting, squeezing down the sides of left turning vehicles, wrong way on one way streets, inability to cycle in straight lines, charging down the sides of queuing traffic when peds are crossing, strapping children onto your crap contraptions then riding like a penis, riding whilst on the phone, riding with no hands on the bars, being generally rude arrogant cunts ... that sort of thing. The usual cycling fuckwittery.


You forgot being sweaty.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

fredfelt said:


> For what it's worth, the air quality on London's streets put subjective reports of irritating cyclists in perspective.
> 
> While cyclists continue to be seen by many as a major problem solutions to toxic cities are harder to come by
> 
> Nearly 9,500 people die each year in London because of air pollution – study


yeh Spymaster you should be grateful to cyclists for sucking up so much pollution


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 4, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh Spymaster you should be grateful to cyclists for sucking up so much pollution


At last, a practical use for SpookyFrank. 

A filter!


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 4, 2016)

The only thing I can think of is that car drivers are so used to flouting the law or driving badly that it doesn't even register with themselves that they do it.


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 4, 2016)

Winot said:


> A retired friend was having a rant about London cyclists when I last saw her (she knows I cycle). She described a scene in which a bunch of cyclists were waiting behind a stop line for a red to change and a twat had cycled through and nearly knocked her down. The twat was the only cyclist that shaped her views on cyclists generally.


This is the interesting thing. I know someone who hates cyclists on the basis that she once got stuck behind a charity ride and was late for a job interview as a result. It's along the lines of someone saying a Polish person was rude to them once so now they hate all Polish people. Utterly bizarre and a clear indicator of having weak mental models of the world and an inability to think properly.


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 4, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> The only thing I can think of is that car drivers are so used to flouting the law or driving badly that it doesn't even register with themselves that they do it.


Indeed. Not all of them of course. But it's so constant and relentless that I think many of them don't recognise it even in others, let alone themselves. For instance I'd guess about 30% of drivers (at least) don't signal properly on roundabouts. Since you're not going fast on most roundabouts the worst the car drivers will get from this is a few scrapes and dents. For cyclists the potential consequences are a little more severe (including death), so they tend to notice how bad many drivers are.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 4, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> The only thing I can think of is that car drivers are so used to flouting the law or driving badly that it doesn't even register with themselves that they do it.


Don't be daft. You're being almost as silly as Frank. You'll find loads of criticism on here by drivers about drivers, but very little of cyclist criticising cyclists. As I said to Brainaddict, that's because most of you are equally shite and what you believe is a reasonable standard, simply isn't. It's just ignorance and could be improved by training.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 4, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Don't be daft. You're being almost as silly as Frank. You'll find loads of criticism on here by drivers about drivers, but very little of cyclist criticising cyclists.


Are you joking?. Strike up a conversation with anyone and tell them you're a cyclist and you will get all you've posted above back at you and the next time you're in a car with them they're going through reds, speeding etc. Because all the other cars do it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> Are you joking?. Strike up a conversation with anyone and tell them you're a cyclist and you will get all you've posted above back at you and the next time you're in a car with them they're going through reds, speeding etc. Because all the other cars do it.


does this happen to you often?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 4, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> Are you joking?. Strike up a conversation with anyone and tell them you're a cyclist and you will get all you've posted above back at you and the next time you're in a car with them they're going through reds, speeding etc. Because all the other cars do it.


Nonsense. You've been spending too much time reading Spookyfrank's silly posts.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 4, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> does this happen to you often?


I'd say attitudes like spy's are common, it happens a lot of the time.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 4, 2016)

In 44 years I can count the number of times I've seen a car jump a red light on my fingers. Where are all these red-light jumping cars? The same can't quite be said about cyclists, unless you compressed 44 years in to a stroll down the road of a morning.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> In 44 years I can count the number of times I've seen a car jump a red light on my fingers. Where are all these red-light jumping cars? The same can't quite be said about cyclists, unless you compressed 44 years in to a stroll down the road of a morning.


a short stroll


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 4, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> In 44 years I can count the number of times I've seen a car jump a red light on my fingers. Where are all these red-light jumping cars?


I know. It's utter bollocks isn't it? 

They say it so often they've convinced themselves its true!


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'd say attitudes like spy's are common, it happens a lot of the time.


and how often do you get in people's cars and find they're speeding or running red lights?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 4, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> and how often do you get in people's cars and find they're speeding or running red lights?


ALL THE TIME!


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> ALL THE TIME!


in OTHER PEOPLE's cars, pa, not in ma's, in other people's cars


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> In 44 years I can count the number of times I've seen a car jump a red light on my fingers. Where are all these red-light jumping cars? The same can't quite be said about cyclists, unless you compressed 44 years in to a stroll down the road of a morning.


You probably wouldn't notice it as much.
32% of motorists say they jump red lights as opposed to 57% of cyclists, according to a  motorists' survey: 
Lies, damn lies, and statistics about red light jumping
I would argue red light jumping is higher amongst cyclists only because they have more opportunities to jump red lights and get away with it, so it's not due to any inherent dickheadishness in cyclists but due to the dickheadishness of humanity.
So you could probably weakly argue that becoming a cyclist might make you more of a dickhead than the dickhead you already are, cos there are more opportunities to annoy others (although less opportunities to endanger them), but you could never argue that cyclists' behaviour is more dangerous than motorists'.
How strange that annoying behaviour (from cyclists) is deemed as worse than actively dangerous behaviour (by motorists). Perhaps not so strange when we hate celebrities more than politicians.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> You probably wouldn't notice it as much.
> 32% of motorists say they jump red lights as opposed to 57% of cyclists, according to a  motorists' survey:
> Lies, damn lies, and statistics about red light jumping
> I would argue red light jumping is higher amongst cyclists only because they have more opportunities to jump red lights and get away with it, so it's not due to any inherent dickheadishness in cyclists but due to the dickheadishness of humanity.
> ...


Tbh it's not whose behaviour is more dangerous, but which road users have a more cavalier attitude towards others. so 57% of cyclists admit to jumping red lights. how many admit to jumping on and off the pavement for momentary advantage? how many cars drive down the pavement? that's what people have against cyclists, a widespread feeling of entitlement and superiority to pedestrians and other vehicles. of course it's not *all* cyclists, but it is a large proportion of them.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 4, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Lies, damn lies, and statistics about red light jumping


What a laughable load of old pony.

57% is just the number that admitted crashing lights. Sit by a set of lights and about 90% of cyclists will go through them if they can do so without getting mown down.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 4, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Tbh it's not whose behaviour is more dangerous, but which road users have a more cavalier attitude towards others. so 57% of cyclists admit to jumping red lights. how many admit to jumping on and off the pavement for momentary advantage? how many cars drive down the pavement? that's what people have against cyclists, a widespread feeling of entitlement and superiority to pedestrians and other vehicles. of course it's not *all* cyclists, but it is a large proportion of them.


Absolutely. This isn't about who causes more danger, it's about why cyclists are universally hated by everybody who isn't one.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Tbh it's not whose behaviour is more dangerous, but which road users have a more cavalier attitude towards others. so 57% of cyclists admit to jumping red lights. how many admit to jumping on and off the pavement for momentary advantage? how many cars drive down the pavement? that's what people have against cyclists, a widespread feeling of entitlement and superiority to pedestrians and other vehicles. of course it's not *all* cyclists, but it is a large proportion of them.


Dangerous behaviour should be more of a priority than annoying behaviour all the same.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Absolutely. This isn't about who causes more danger, it's about why cyclists are universally hated by everybody who isn't one.


That's not true though.


Motorists get vilified for their behaviour but only as individuals. When cyclists behave badly they are vilified en masse. Why is this?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 4, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> When cyclists behave badly they are vilified en masse. Why is this?


Because there are so microscopically few exceptions to the rule that they are all arrogant, deluded, bell ends.


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 4, 2016)

I think I see what you're trying to do Spymaster, you cunning old fox! By arguing like an immensely stupid person on this topic, you are trying to draw out the really genuinely stupid people by getting them to agree with your position. You will then crush them by point out how moronic your assumed position was. I'm onto you! Always happy to have you on my side!


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 4, 2016)

I've seen the red light jumped by motorists many a time. Nearly had a fight over it once. The gentleman in question decided discretion was the better part of valour after going for his car door handle and getting the verbals from my end. Luckily for me.

Anyway if you follow the ridin' dirty code rather than the highway code you aren't doing anything wrong. Only god can judge me.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 4, 2016)

Brainaddict said:


> I think I see what you're trying to do Spymaster, you cunning old fox! By arguing like an immensely stupid person on this topic, you are trying to draw out the really genuinely stupid people by getting them to agree with your position. You will then crush them by point out how moronic your assumed position was. I'm onto you! Always happy to have you on my side!



 Don't be silly. You'll make Spookyfrank jealous!


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Dangerous behaviour should be more of a priority than annoying behaviour all the same.


I am put at more danger by cyclists than motorists on a daily basis.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> That's not true though.
> 
> 
> Motorists get vilified for their behaviour but only as individuals. When cyclists behave badly they are vilified en masse. Why is this?


Because you only see one car jumping the lights at a time but many cyclists, if you travel as I often do in the rush hour


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Because there are so microscopically few exceptions to the rule that they are all arrogant, deluded, bell ends.


You don't really mean that though


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Because you only see one car jumping the lights at a time but many cyclists, if you travel as I often do in the rush hour


Which shows you why you cyclist haters are such big sillies


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Which shows you why you cyclist haters are such big sillies


Yeh. but being as you're a liar, bigot and hypocrite I think I've the better end of the stick.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. but being as you're a liar, bigot and hypocrite I think I've the better end of the stick.


I don't think I've shown any of those qualities on this thread. 
But aren't we all?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> I don't think I've shown any of those qualities on this thread.


Oh yes, on this thread


----------



## George & Bill (Nov 4, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> In 44 years I can count the number of times I've seen a car jump a red light on my fingers. Where are all these red-light jumping cars? The same can't quite be said about cyclists, unless you compressed 44 years in to a stroll down the road of a morning.





Pickman's model said:


> I am put at more danger by cyclists than motorists on a daily basis.





Spymaster said:


> Absolutely. This isn't about who causes more danger, it's about why cyclists are universally hated by everybody who isn't one.






			
				Spymaster said:
			
		

> See, it's very evident from this post that you're a crap cyclist and probably a danger to yourself and others. Or you don't cycle in London because it's blindingly obvious to anyone with half a brain that the standard of cycling is absolute dog shit. The vast majority of cyclists on London's roads are utterly clueless and if you don't recognise that, chances are you're one of them. The same can't be said of drivers. Sure there are plenty of shit ones who shouldn't be on the road but it's nowhere near the majority. But it's not just drivers that dislike cyclists, pedestrians can't stand you either! If training was compulsory for you dickheads things might improve, but oh no, you all know better, don't you?



At the risk of sounding smug – well, we just do know better, both in terms of our interests and yours. 

I could lament at length the intellectual decrepitude of the likes of the people quoted above. I could point out the statistical schoolboy error committed in cherry-picking a particular offence that cyclists commit a lot (light jumping), and draw your attention to the fact that there are others (like speeding) which motorists do much more. I could point out that in either case, people commit the offences which they find easy to commit. 

I could point out the dubiousness of the whole premise of the thread, that with each new decade that goes by, the teflon coating of moral impunity is flaking off the private motor vehicle, and its corollary - the demonisation of modes of travel which challenge the dominance of cars - is likewise rapidly subsiding.

But I don't really need to do any of this, because, as anyone who has driven or ridden through London recently will be aware, the writing is on the wall for the private car: it is the only mode of travel which is having to rapidly cede road space to others. 

Cars will continue to be important for a long time to come, but in the developed world, their decline is undoubtedly well underway.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

George & Bill said:


> At the risk of sounding smug – well, we just do know better, both in terms of our interests and yours.
> 
> I could lament at length the intellectual decrepitude of the likes of the people quoted above. I could point out the statistical schoolboy error committed in cherry-picking a particular offence that cyclists commit a lot (light jumping), and draw your attention to the fact that there are others (like speeding) which motorists do much more. I could point out that in either case, people commit the offences which they find easy to commit.
> 
> ...


Until motorists start driving down the canal with no regard for others, until they start driving with abandon on the pavement, until then I will find myself in more danger from cyclists than motorists.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Oh yes, on this thread


I don't recall lying. I certainly haven't been bigoted. And I haven't been hypocritical beyond the standard bluster and hyperbole that are part and parcel of participating on these kinds of threads.


----------



## BigTom (Nov 4, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> In 44 years I can count the number of times I've seen a car jump a red light on my fingers. Where are all these red-light jumping cars? The same can't quite be said about cyclists, unless you compressed 44 years in to a stroll down the road of a morning.



Really? I see drivers jumping reds at the end of the phase at most if not every set of traffic lights I'm at on my commute every day, sometimes 2 or 3 at a time, at 4 sets on my usual route so I'd be out of fingers in a day or two. I cross one 6 lane road and sometimes there's a driver crossing on red in all 3 lanes in both directions (edit: just realised it's 7 lanes but the separated left turn is behind me in the morning so I never see it, but drivers jump red in that lane sometimes too when I'm coming home in the evening so I could probably have at somepoint got through all my fingers just at that junction). There's a big junction I go past some mornings and there's always people jumping reds to turn right because they don't want to wait for the next phase and getting in the way of the traffic from the other road. I've nearly been hit by a 7.5tonne driver who decided not to stop for red, thankfully I know not to trust drivers to stop for red and was watching him and stopped when I thought he wasn't going to so wasn't in his path.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> I don't recall lying. I certainly haven't been bigoted. And I haven't been hypocritical beyond the standard bluster and hyperbole that are part and parcel of participating on these kinds of threads.


How swiftly you forget last night.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> How swiftly you forget last night.


you'll have to remind me. it was me who pointed out your bigotry.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> you'll have to remind me. it was me who pointed out your bigotry.


Yes. and it was me who pointed out your mendacity, your double standards and your own bigotry.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Yes. and it was me who pointed out your mendacity, your double standards and your own bigotry.


Yet it is you who pretended to notice them, in the interests of your perverted sport


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Yet it is you who pretended to notice them, in the interests of your perverted sport


I could hardly miss them as you flaunted them under my nose.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> I could hardly miss them as you flaunted them under my nose.


i'm so sorry my failures upset you so, since it's only you who notice them


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 4, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> i'm so sorry my failures upset you so, since it's only you who notice them


Oh, your failures don't upset me in the slightest.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 4, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Oh, your failures don't upset me in the slightest.


why do you bother?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 5, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Which shows you why you cyclist haters are such big sillies


If cyclists weren't such bad people, fewer folk would hate them. Most of them started by torturing small animals and progressed to what they are today from there.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 5, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> why do you bother?


wrong question. the question you should be asking is why you need to repeatedly make shabby ad hominem arguments. don't tell me, it's something you should ask yourself.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 5, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Absolutely. This isn't about who causes more danger, it's about why cyclists are universally hated by everybody who isn't one.



I recon that's a myth perpetuated by the hard of thinking readers of The Daily Mail, Janet Street Porter, Malcolm Tucker and the London Taxi association and then blown out of all proportion by shouty people on the internet.

IMO most people don't give a shit either way.  People ride their bikes, drive their cars etc and generally go about their business without fussing.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 5, 2016)

fredfelt said:


> I recon that's a myth perpetuated by the hard of thinking readers of The Daily Mail, Janet Street Porter, Malcolm Tucker and the London Taxi association and then blown out of all proportion by shouty people on the internet.
> 
> IMO most people don't give a shit either way.  People ride their bikes, drive their cars etc and generally go about their business without fussing.


You say that but I'm not so sure. When you consider that over 70% of cyclists are criminals, and that most of the remainder are proven to be of sub-normal intelligence, I think people have every right to be cautious of them.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 5, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> You say that but I'm not so sure. When you consider that over 70% of cyclists are criminals, and that most of the remainder are proven to be of sub-normal intelligence, I think people have every right to be cautious of them.


You keep overplaying your hand


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 5, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> You keep overplaying your hand


You say that as though you disagree. You can't argue with the facts.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 5, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> If cyclists weren't such bad people, fewer folk would hate them. Most of them started by torturing small animals and progressed to what they are today from there.


But you see, just by getting in your car and starting the engine, you're destroying the planet.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 5, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> But you see, just by getting in your car and starting the engine, you're destroying the planet.


Ahhh, but I'm not, you see.

I set up a U75 emissions sharing program a couple of years ago in which car drivers partnered up with non-driving, yoghurt weavers. The idea is that as a couple, our emissions are less than those of two normal people. My partner is Orang Utan and he's been fantastic. He cycles everywhere, shops organic, and recycles religiously. His frugality had enabled me to run a 3 litre turbo diesel car, a jet ski, and fly short haul at least 4 times a year. It's a true environmental success story. 

I could pair you up with someone too if you want to do your bit for the environment.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 5, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Ahhh, but I'm not, you see.
> 
> I set up a U75 emissions sharing program a couple of years ago in which car drivers partnered up with non-driving, yoghurt weavers. The idea is that as a couple, our emissions are less than those of two normal people. My partner is Orang Utan and he's been fantastic. He cycles everywhere, shops organic, and recycles religiously. His frugality had enabled me to run a 3 litre turbo diesel car, a jet ski, and fly short haul at least 4 times a year. It's a true environmental success story.
> 
> I could pair you up with someone too if you want to do your bit for the environment.


What's in it for me?. I don't eat organic, but I own _two_ bikes.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 5, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> What's in it for me?


Well obviously the satisfaction of knowing that you're saving the planet, but also, your driving partner will take you on monthly speeding tours at 60mph through built up areas, and at 100mph+ on motorways. You'll be surprised at how much fun it can be.


----------



## Purdie (Nov 5, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> But you see, just by getting in your car and starting the engine, you're destroying the planet.


And?

Kid got to cycle 25km single trip to school.  Not do-able.  Should I get her an electric bike and contribute to this kind of practice instead The dystopian lake filled by the world’s tech lust 
Or I could put her in a local school but she would end up getting bullied, socially excluded and eventually get segregated again  
Car is the lesser of two evils I'm afraid.  And I really couldn't care less


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 5, 2016)

BigTom said:


> Really? I see drivers jumping reds at the end of the phase at most if not every set of traffic lights I'm at on my commute every day, sometimes 2 or 3 at a time, at 4 sets on my usual route so I'd be out of fingers in a day or two. I cross one 6 lane road and sometimes there's a driver crossing on red in all 3 lanes in both directions (edit: just realised it's 7 lanes but the separated left turn is behind me in the morning so I never see it, but drivers jump red in that lane sometimes too when I'm coming home in the evening so I could probably have at somepoint got through all my fingers just at that junction). There's a big junction I go past some mornings and there's always people jumping reds to turn right because they don't want to wait for the next phase and getting in the way of the traffic from the other road. I've nearly been hit by a 7.5tonne driver who decided not to stop for red, thankfully I know not to trust drivers to stop for red and was watching him and stopped when I thought he wasn't going to so wasn't in his path.




Massive difference between blowing through on a yellow turning red and just steaming in when the lights are firmly red, which is something that happens so often with cyclists as to be almost the norm at some junctions.


----------



## snadge (Nov 5, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> What's in it for me?. I don't eat organic, but I own _two_ bikes.




I'll have this one, should cover my RS4 and a Ducati.


----------



## BigTom (Nov 5, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Massive difference between blowing through on a yellow turning red and just steaming in when the lights are firmly red, which is something that happens so often with cyclists as to be almost the norm at some junctions.



It's all red light jumping though, and it's not a yellow turning red I'm talking about so much as a red that turned yellow long enough so that the next phase of traffic is well into green and held up by it. Even if it's only just red and not dangerous ins still jumping a red light but ins often dangerous (or would be if it wasn't to be expected and anticipated). As well as the 7.5t I mentioned I can think of three occasions in the last couple of years where I've been driving and turning right at one of two junctions where you always have to wait until the lights change and had to brake sharply as a driver went through reds as I was turning, and a couple of occasions where I've been a pedestrian at a crossing and would have been flattened by a driver had I been blind and started crossing on the pips. I'm sure there are more similar ones I'm forgetting along with a handful I've seen blasting through reds in the middle of a phase.

I've said before I don't see much red light jumping by cyclists in Birmingham but don't deny it happens a lot more elsewhere. Mostly I see cyclists jumping the red at the start of a phase, not dissimilar to drivers at the end.

I've once seen a cyclist jumping reds in a way I thought properly dangerous,  drivers much more often but then more people drive. I really don't think either group of road users is very good at obeying traffic lights. The idea that amber means stop is just a joke at this point, although it does mean it's probably not safe to stop for amber as the person behind you won't so you shouldn't but still.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 5, 2016)

Try cycling north over Westminster Bridge in the rush hour. It would not be uncommon for me to be the only cyclist turning left on to Parliament Square who stopped at the red. 

Good job for them there's no Old Bill around there


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 5, 2016)

snadge said:


> I'll have this one, should cover my RS4 and a Ducati.


The Ducati is fine, but I'm not an Audi type of person - I don't play golf.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 5, 2016)

BigTom said:


> It's all red light jumping though, and it's not a yellow turning red I'm talking about so much as a red that turned yellow long enough so that the next phase of traffic is well into green and held up by it. Even if it's only just red and not dangerous ins still jumping a red light but ins often dangerous (or would be if it wasn't to be expected and anticipated). As well as the 7.5t I mentioned I can think of three occasions in the last couple of years where I've been driving and turning right at one of two junctions where you always have to wait until the lights change and had to brake sharply as a driver went through reds as I was turning, and a couple of occasions where I've been a pedestrian at a crossing and would have been flattened by a driver had I been blind and started crossing on the pips. I'm sure there are more similar ones I'm forgetting along with a handful I've seen blasting through reds in the middle of a phase.
> 
> I've said before I don't see much red light jumping by cyclists in Birmingham but don't deny it happens a lot more elsewhere. Mostly I see cyclists jumping the red at the start of a phase, not dissimilar to drivers at the end.
> 
> I've once seen a cyclist jumping reds in a way I thought properly dangerous,  drivers much more often but then more people drive. I really don't think either group of road users is very good at obeying traffic lights. The idea that amber means stop is just a joke at this point, although it does mean it's probably not safe to stop for amber as the person behind you won't so you shouldn't but still.


Many road users seem to think amber means accelerate!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 5, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> You say that but I'm not so sure. When you consider that over 70% of cyclists are criminals, and that most of the remainder are proven to be of sub-normal intelligence, I think people have every right to be cautious of them.



This is pretty weak even by your standards.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 5, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> This is pretty weak even by your standards.


Don't be daft, Frank


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 5, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Massive difference between blowing through on a yellow turning red and just steaming in when the lights are firmly red, which is something that happens so often with cyclists as to be almost the norm at some junctions.



I don't jump red lights, mostly because I prefer to keep my bones on the inside, but the fact remains that traffic lights only exist because of motor vehicles. They don't have any intrinsic moral authority; especially not over cyclists who, bereft of a protective metal shell, are far less likely to behave in a genuinely dangerous way. 

Inconveniencing motor vehicle drivers is a pretty trivial offence compared to the negative effects of mass car ownership on the structure of urban space, on human psychology, on public health and on the global environment. Look around you. The whole world is bending over backwards to accommodate your fucking car. Wars have been fought to keep it running. Vast amounts of public space have been set aside for it. National and international politics are warped by it. Yeah, that guy on a bike might be a bit of a dick running that red light but at the end of the day he's riding a bike, not the fifth horseman of the apocalypse. The best driver in the land does more harm than a dozen arsehole cyclists.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 5, 2016)

Don't be daft, Frank


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 5, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Don't be daft, Frank



You gonna cite some evidence for the majority of cyclists being of 'sub-normal intelligence' then? Or for 70% of them being criminals?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 5, 2016)

Westminster Bridge turning left to Parliament Square is a pelican crossing. 

You also get the odd person around who is not from the UK and may not be so au fait with cyclists who feel they have a moral authority to run them down.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 5, 2016)

.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 5, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> You gonna cite some evidence for the majority of cyclists being of 'sub-normal intelligence' then? Or for 70% of them being criminals?


Nope.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 5, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Nope.



Follow up question: do you know what a rhetorical question is?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 5, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> The whole world is bending over backwards to accommodate your fucking car.


Quite right too. You need to fall in line, Frank.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 5, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Don't be daft, Frank


everyone knows car drivers are chronic masturbators


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 5, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> You say that but I'm not so sure. When you consider that over 70% of cyclists are criminals, and that most of the remainder are proven to be of sub-normal intelligence, I think people have every right to be cautious of them.



Oh, bless you.

You might find this insightful and useful. It's about how endlessly moaning about something you have no control over can lead to self reinforcement of the perceived problem.

Complaining only nourishes the problem.

Can moaning ever make you happy? | Oliver Burkeman


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 5, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> everyone knows car drivers are chronic masturbators


They don't even stop there. 84% of car drivers fuck their cars.
Here's Spymaster enjoying his whip yesterday:
Man caught on camera having sex with a car exhaust - YouTube


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 5, 2016)

They're all at it!
TOP MAN HAVING SEX WITH A CAR - YouTube


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 5, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> They don't even stop there. 84% of car drivers fuck their cars.
> Here's Spymaster enjoying his whip yesterday:
> Man caught on camera having sex with a car exhaust - YouTube


SpookyFrank tried to blow my car up. Burnt his mouth on the exhaust pipe.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 5, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> They're all at it!
> TOP MAN HAVING SEX WITH A CAR - YouTube


Me and Bahnhof Strasse go two's-up on his motor


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 5, 2016)

Pickman's model is even more of a perbert as he fucks bikes:
https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=Ff6je3uNQhI
Maybe that's why he hates cyclists so much - he's jealous!


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 5, 2016)

I accidentally interrupted my dad's rugby match on the telly by Chromecasting the first video I posted onto his telly.
Now he must think *I'm* the pervert.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 5, 2016)




----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 5, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> everyone knows car drivers are chronic masturbators


Pushing and pulling their gearstick to go faster. It's obvious.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 5, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> Pushing and pulling their gearstick to go faster.


Pumping the brakes.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 5, 2016)

dipping their sticks


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 5, 2016)

Adjusting the choke

/Hutchence


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 5, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Pickman's model is even more of a perbert as he fucks bikes:
> Strange sex: Man with bicycle fetish caught on camera - YouTube
> Maybe that's why he hates cyclists so much - he's jealous!


How much drink have you taken?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 5, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> How much drink have you taken?


None. It's Saturday afternoon and I am spending it gently by baking.
Parkin?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 5, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> None. It's Saturday afternoon and I am spending it gently by baking.
> Parkin?


You love cycling as it's the only time you get your leg over


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 5, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> dipping their sticks


Admiring each other's camshafts


----------



## emanymton (Nov 5, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> They don't even stop there. 84% of car drivers fuck their cars.
> Here's Spymaster enjoying his whip yesterday:
> Man caught on camera having sex with a car exhaust - YouTube





Orang Utan said:


> They're all at it!
> TOP MAN HAVING SEX WITH A CAR - YouTube



I hate to think what you have just done to my YouTube predictions


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 5, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Parkin?


I have a resident's permit


----------



## pengaleng (Nov 5, 2016)

just came back from south, every cyclist I noticed had no lights... 

bicycling  in the dark with no lights - such cool

I predict deserved death.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 5, 2016)

I think lotsa people dont get the need for lights- at the very least to show other people where you are. maybe they didnt wanna spoil the sleek looks. usually find these bokes dont have a rack or anything either. no one deserves death but its pretty fuckin stupid not to take into account basic risk management


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 5, 2016)

There's a lot of black-clad ninjas out there with no lights. I saw a cyclist killed in Bethnal Green who was practically invisible.
They attempted to prosecute the driver for dangerous driving but he got off, which was a relief. Horrible trial, really felt for everyone involved - driver, cyclist (and the cyclist's fiancée, who sat through the trial and inquest)


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 6, 2016)




----------



## Spymaster (Nov 6, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> just came back from south, every cyclist I noticed had no lights...
> 
> bicycling  in the dark with no lights - such cool
> 
> I predict deserved death.


The worst time for this is in the morning just before sunrise. Pretty much every cyclist is unlit, like they know it's getting lighter so no need to have lights, right?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 6, 2016)




----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


>


yeh. that needs some light to be useful.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 6, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> no one deserves death


but everyone will get it


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 6, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. that needs some light to be useful.


thats what the reflective strips are for, to throw back a little of the light from headlights. Pitch black riding also requires red lights I suppose. Not some batman-summoning lantern on the front obvs, thats over the top


----------



## BigTom (Nov 6, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> thats what the reflective strips are for, to throw back a little of the light from headlights. Pitch black riding also requires red lights I suppose. Not some batman-summoning lantern on the front obvs, thats over the top



Lights > reflectives

Also the biggest danger on the road after left turning HGVs is drivers turning out of (or into) side roads and for that you need front lights. The biggest cause of serious injuries to cyclists is drivers pulling out on them from side roads (left turning HGVs are biggest cause of fatalities by a long way). Sometimes drivers don't look or don't really look, or they look and see but misjudge speed in which case lights won't help (although in the second case if you are only running flashing lights then also running a solid light might help but it sounds like mostly when a driver pulls out having misjudged speed in more a case of them seeing a cyclist and thinking 10mph (when they are actually doing 20-25) rather than actually looking and judging speed. However plenty of times a driver looks and if you've no front light (or if your front light is not bright enough compared to cars on the road with you so your light gets lost in theirs) they may well not see you (especially because of the saccade effect. In this case having lights makes it more likely for the driver to see you (combination of flashing for attention and solid for speed judgement probably best).
You should have both front and rear lights obviously but in terms of safety the front is more important, as drivers who need to see you from the front have a smaller time window in which to see you. More danger from the front than behind and much harder to do anything about it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 6, 2016)

BigTom said:


> the biggest danger on the road after left turning HGVs is drivers turning out of (or into) side roads and for that you need front lights. The biggest cause of serious injuries to cyclists is drivers pulling out on them from side roads (left turning HGVs are biggest cause of fatalities by a long way).


I'm surprised that the biggest danger is left turning HGVs rather than cars coming out of side roads. The former is easier to control for a cyclist than the latter. Maybe education isn't good enough and cyclists continue to cycle up the left hand side of lorries when they're parked at lights?


----------



## BigTom (Nov 6, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> I'm surprised that the biggest danger is left turning HGVs rather than cars coming out of side roads. The former is easier to control for a cyclist than the latter. Maybe education isn't good enough and cyclists continue to cycle up the left hand side of lorries when they're parked at lights?



I'm really just talking stats here - HGVs/cyclist collisions account for iirc 75% of cyclist fatalities when HGV traffic is 5% of traffic or something like that, I've a feeling it might be less than 75% but it's still way out of line. In terms of numbers of deaths/serious injuries (KSIs = Killed or Seriously Injured) drivers pulling out of side roads is the biggest type of collision but doesn't often result in a fatality. Which of those you want to say is the biggest danger is a bit of a personal judgement call really, frequency or severity?

With left turning HGVs, someone did a study a couple of years ago which I can't find at the moment looking at police/coroner reports of cyclist deaths involving left turning HGVs in the UK or London and found it was about 50/50 whether the driver was at the junction first with the cyclist undertaking, or the cyclist there first with the driver second. Even when it's the driver making the mistake the cyclist likely has more opportunity to realise what's about to happen and take evasive action that when being pulled out on.

Then there's the deaths that happen at junctions with painted cycle lanes which direct cyclists to go up the left hand side of large vehicles into an advanced stop box which is in the blind spot in front of the cab. The cyclist shouldn't go down there but the infrastructure directs them to do so, it's something that needs fixing badly. Education is good but will never stop everyone being an idiot, but this is something that training really could help with* and having the "do not pass on this side" type stickers on the back of large vehicles is good (not the "cyclist stay back" ones which have the wrong message and I don't like the proliferation onto 3.5tonne, minivans and even cars which all have blind spot mirrors that cover the sides and do not have the dangers large vehicles do, but on large vehicles yes, hopefully someone who hasn't had training sees it and goes around the other side or doesn't pass at all). As much as possible physical segregation and separate traffic light phases at junctions should be used on the roads which HGVs generally use. Doing that will mean that the inattentive/uninformed idiots will not get killed as you have to make an effort to be a dick. Obviously some people will consider that effort to be worth it, just as they do sometimes in cars or on foot or any other form of transport, but we should always be looking to design out idiocy on our roads.

*I'm constantly surprised by how many trainees (edit: I work for a cycle training company teaching adults) have no idea about the blind spots on large vehicles & don't know that they need to move out to the right to turn left. Our trainees tend to be nervous about filtering at all so being told not to go down the inside of vehicles isn't really a surprise as they are only just learning about how/when to filter at all, but I'm always shocked to see cyclists going down the inside of large vehicles or the outside when traffic is clearly about to start moving or even just that it's not clear that you'll be well past before it does, I can understand people not knowing the specifics (though how you drive a car without noticing HGVs moving out right to turn left I really don't know) but it just seems instinctively obvious that you'd give large vehicles a wide berth, experience tells me this isn't the case.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 7, 2016)

BigTom said:


> I'm really just talking stats here - HGVs/cyclist collisions account for iirc 75% of cyclist fatalities when HGV traffic is 5% of traffic or something like that, I've a feeling it might be less than 75% but it's still way out of line. In terms of numbers of deaths/serious injuries (KSIs = Killed or Seriously Injured) drivers pulling out of side roads is the biggest type of collision but doesn't often result in a fatality. Which of those you want to say is the biggest danger is a bit of a personal judgement call really, frequency or severity?
> 
> With left turning HGVs, someone did a study a couple of years ago which I can't find at the moment looking at police/coroner reports of cyclist deaths involving left turning HGVs in the UK or London and found it was about 50/50 whether the driver was at the junction first with the cyclist undertaking, or the cyclist there first with the driver second. Even when it's the driver making the mistake the cyclist likely has more opportunity to realise what's about to happen and take evasive action that when being pulled out on.
> 
> ...



Did you see the DfT's advert, which shows a lorry overtaking a cyclist and then immediately turning left in front of their path - along with a warning given to cyclists?  

Twitter reacts to the Government's 'desperately misguided' cycle safety campaign (video) - Cycling Weekly


----------



## BigTom (Nov 7, 2016)

fredfelt said:


> Did you see the DfT's advert, which shows a lorry overtaking a cyclist and then immediately turning left in front of their path - along with a warning given to cyclists?
> 
> Twitter reacts to the Government's 'desperately misguided' cycle safety campaign (video) - Cycling Weekly



yep, one of the worst safety ads ever, and they stood by it afterwards claiming it was a success. Thing is the even if they did the advert right, this kind of information campaign is not very effective.


----------



## roryer (Nov 8, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


>








From the Road Danger Reduction Forum "Mikael Colville-Andersen gives an interesting account of how “road safety” personnel push hi-viz in his son’s school, even the UK Department of Transport has indicated that there is a lack of evidence to justify hi-viz for cyclists. Mikael states – correctly – that people genuinely concerned with safety on the road should deal with what he calls “_the bull in the china shop_“, namely danger from motorised traffic, which they don’t."

On the other hand lights at night on a bicycle are a legal requirement, and wearing a bit of high viz might just help remove the sorry I didn't see you excuse, although as the article states, there is no actual evidence it helps. Enforcing 20mph limits with large fines, points and driving bans for anyone caught doing over 24mph would be effective, if saving the lives of cyclists were the objective


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2016)

The arguments against HV for cyclists are, by and large, based on contrast seen by motorists in many settings, from motorcycle research. In cities or built up areas there's little doubt that you need to be as bright as possible. To a city driver, half of the cyclists are practically invisible against an urban background especially at dawn and dusk. Lights and HV help immensely. The other arguments, that it gives the wrong message to would-be cyclists (that cycling is inherently dangerous and requires special safety equipment), or that wearing HV puts other (non-HV wearing) cyclists at greater risk are, of course, bollocks.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 8, 2016)

HV are hard wired into motorists brains now after their use by road workers- so even if they do not make you more visible per se, the subliminal trigger of an HV on a road should register with a driver.*


* obviously I have no evidence to back this up, but that has not precluded much of the contributions on the thread so far  etc


----------



## Crispy (Nov 8, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> To a city driver, half of the cyclists are practically invisible against an urban background especially at dawn and dusk. Lights and HV help immensely.


Despite our state of WAR disagreements I can agree with you on this, based on my experience of driving in cities in low light conditions.


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 8, 2016)

Crispy said:


> Despite our state of WAR disagreements I can agree with you on this, based on my experience of driving in cities in low light conditions.



Yup completely agree with this.  When I drive in the city I can pick out cyclists and joggers much more easily if they are wearing HV. Much more easily.  Besides a HV vest costs pence, why on earth wouldn't you?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 8, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> HV are hard wired into motorists brains now after their use by road workers- so even if they do not make you more visible per se, the subliminal trigger of an HV on a road should register with a driver.*
> 
> 
> * obviously I have no evidence to back this up, but that has not precluded much of the contributions on the thread Internet so far  etc



cfy


----------



## Winot (Nov 8, 2016)

Teaboy said:


> Yup completely agree with this.  When I drive in the city I can pick out cyclists and joggers much more easily if they are wearing HV. Much more easily.  Besides a HV vest costs pence, why on earth wouldn't you?



I wear hi-vis pretty much permanently* now and we insist that the kids wear it too when they are cycling to school. My daughter always takes hers off as soon as she gets to the lights near school (and walks after that). I remember doing exactly the same. I guess I'm truly a Dad now as I am past embarrassment.

(*when cycling)


----------



## BigTom (Nov 8, 2016)

pedantry:

Hi-vis is useless at night, there is not enough light around to make any difference.
Reflectives do work at night and will be picked out by car headlights (but any decent lights will/should be visible ahead of that anyway).

I realise most people when talking about hi-vis include reflectives in that meaning and that most hi-vis has reflective strips/markings but they are different things.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2016)

Teaboy said:


> ...why on earth wouldn't you?


Well a lot of cyclists, being the arrogant bell ends they are, cite the paucity of actual evidence that HV improves safety. The reality is that cyclist testing just hasn't been carried out on any major basis. So despite reams and reams of postings from motorists saying that they're more visible with it, they reject it for lack of scientific testing. This they combine with the "it puts people off cycling" argument or "car drivers should take more responsibility, so fuck hi viz".


----------



## Winot (Nov 8, 2016)

Yeah it's dull mornings/dusk when hi-vis makes the most difference. I wouldn't wear it at night.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2016)

Winot said:


> Yeah it's dull mornings/dusk when hi-vis makes the most difference. I wouldn't wear it at night.


You should. Pretty much all HV gear has reflective stuff on it.


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 8, 2016)

BigTom said:


> pedantry:
> 
> Hi-vis is useless at night, there is not enough light around to make any difference.
> Reflectives do work at night and will be picked out by car headlights (but any decent lights will/should be visible ahead of that anyway).
> ...



Actually I think hi-vis is not useless at night if you're talking about an urban environment with decent street lighting.  As someone who drives I can say that I genuinely see HV where I sometimes look straight through someone in dark clothing. Yes the reflective strip helps but so does the HV element of it.

Even a HV rucksack helps, anything really just not all dark clothing and a tiny tiny flashing light.


----------



## BigTom (Nov 8, 2016)

Teaboy said:


> Actually I think hi-vis is not useless at night if you're talking about an urban environment with decent street lighting.  As someone who drives I can say that I genuinely see HV where I sometimes look straight through someone in dark clothing. Yes the reflective strip helps but so does the HV element of it.
> 
> Even a HV rucksack helps, anything really just not all dark clothing and a tiny tiny flashing light.



you'll see lights and reflectives way in advance of hi-vis. way in advance. case in point last night, turned into a road (as a passenger in car), around 100m long, saw cyclist at the other end of the road, by their lights, then reflective strips on their coat. Couldn't see it was a hi-vis coat (as opposed to a black coat with reflectives on it) until we were just about to pass and he was fully lit up in the car headlights. This is in Birmingham with good street lighting, it's not bright enough for hi-vis to have any advantage.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2016)

Obviously hi-vis is going to be less effective than reflective stuff at night, it works in an entirely different way, but again, the vast majority of hi-vis clothing combines reflective elements. Telling people it's useless at night isn't particularly helpful. Granted, most cyclists are blisteringly thick, but even the most intellectually blunted probably realise that HV alone isn't reflective, and that reflective is what's required at night.


----------



## IC3D (Nov 8, 2016)

Helmets have proven to reduce the space drivers leave when passing because they give the impression that the rider is some how safe. I believe hi vis has the same effect making the rider look like a piece of road architecture. The best bet is to look vunerable because you are and therefore make drivers treat you like they would a pedestrian in the road. In London the speed limit is 20 mph most places anyway and lit up making it less useful. I can see the obvious use on unlit country lanes but otherwise nah


----------



## Teaboy (Nov 8, 2016)

IC3D said:


> Helmets have proven to reduce the space drivers leave when passing because they give the impression that the rider is some how safe. I believe hi vis has the same effect making the rider look like a piece of road architecture. The best bet is to look vunerable because you are and therefore make drivers treat you like they would a pedestrian in the road. In London the speed limit is 20 mph most places anyway and lit up making it less useful. I can see the obvious use on unlit country lanes but otherwise nah



As somone who drives regularly in London I completely disagree.  But you know, whatever, your business.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 8, 2016)

IC3D said:


> Helmets have proven to reduce the space drivers leave when passing because they give the impression that the rider is some how safe. I believe hi vis has the same effect making the rider look like a piece of road architecture. The best bet is to look vunerable because you are and therefore make drivers treat you like they would a pedestrian in the road. In London the speed limit is 20 mph most places anyway and lit up making it less useful. I can see the obvious use on unlit country lanes but otherwise nah


A few weeks ago I nearly ran over a cyclist with my car. This had nothing to do with me treating him differently because I saw he was wearing certain clothing, but because it was dark and I couldn't see him.

I mean, I get it, it looks stupid. But you're already riding a bike and therefore a massive weirdo anyway. Who cares what you look like?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2016)

IC3D said:


> Helmets have proven to reduce the space drivers leave when passing because they give the impression that the rider is some how safe.


This oft trotted out nonsense is an ideal example of cyclists selectively quoting research to fit their agenda. There's research out there that can point to pretty much anything you like, even that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit their heads.

Firstly the test sample was tiny and the testing poorly carried out. Secondly, actual research regarding helmet use is very much undecided, with those against primarily citing loss of benefit because of fewer people cycling. Pretty much everyone agrees that's the only _real_ downside, and that helmets can reduce the severity of injuries in quite a lot of cases.

Contradictory evidence about the effectiveness of cycle helmets


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2016)

IC3D said:


> I can see the obvious use on unlit country lanes but otherwise nah


Funnily enough, one of the tests on hi-vis clothing suggested that country lanes, with mixed vegetation backgrounds are one of the environments where HV is often _least_ effective.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 8, 2016)

IC3D said:


> Helmets have proven to reduce the space drivers leave when passing because they give the impression that the rider is some how safe. I believe hi vis has the same effect making the rider look like a piece of road architecture. The best bet is to look vunerable because you are and therefore make drivers treat you like they would a pedestrian in the road.


So drivers are making decisions on how to pass a cyclist based on if they're wearing a helmet or not? Bollocks. You don't have time as a driver to look for that. You see a bike, you pass it. How that's done will be the same for every bike they pass, for better or worse.

If you're daft enough to not wear a helmet then fair enough,your choice. Just don't try and justify it any other way than "I don't want to".


----------



## IC3D (Nov 8, 2016)

There was a study that proved it beesonthewhatnow so not just my opinion, but I had thought this for years.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2016)

IC3D said:


> There was a study that proved it beesonthewhatnow so not just my opinion, but I had thought this for years.


A study which pretty much debunked itself, concluding that the difference was negligible at the clearances given by motorists; that helmets were likely to be beneficial in low speed falls; and that road positioning of the cyclists was paramount, not whether or not the cyclists were wearing helmets. British Study on Passing Clearance and Helmets

But no, you take all that to mean "I'm less safe with a helmet on!"


----------



## BigTom (Nov 8, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Obviously hi-vis is going to be less effective than reflective stuff at night, it works in an entirely different way, but again, the vast majority of hi-vis clothing combines reflective elements. Telling people it's useless at night isn't particularly helpful. Granted, most cyclists are blisteringly thick, but even the most intellectually blunted probably realise that HV alone isn't reflective, and that reflective is what's required at night.



I did preface my initial post saying it was pedantry and having had people have a go at me for wearing a black coat with reflectives at night because it's not hi-vis and they didn't realise the lighter strips were reflective (this isn't out on the road), I disagree that people really do recognise that hi-vis isn't reflective and/or how useless it is without a lot of light around.



Spymaster said:


> This oft trotted out nonsense is an ideal example of cyclists selectively quoting research to fit their agenda. There's research out there that can point to pretty much anything you like, even that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit their heads.
> 
> Firstly the test sample was tiny and the testing poorly carried out. Secondly, actual research regarding helmet use is very much undecided, with those against, primarily citing loss of benefit because of less people cycling. Pretty much everyone agrees that's the only _real_ downside, and that helmets can reduce the severity of injuries in quite a lot of cases.
> 
> Contradictory evidence about the effectiveness of cycle helmets



afaik it's actually pretty clear now, there have been lots of studies particularly from Canada that show that in the kind of collisions that cyclists experience, wearing a helmet will probably result in a slight to moderate reduction in the severity of head injuries, without a reciprocal (if that's the right word, I don't think it is) rise in rotational neck injuries or increase in head injuries as a result of the bigger/different shaped "head" created by the helmet.
Interestingly, the evidence shows that they do not save lives. This is again from canadian study which looked at every cyclist death in a province I think, and found that every cyclist who died having sustained a fatal head injury also had a fatal injury to somewhere in their torso, which is very unprotected and contains many vital organs. So anyone who had died not wearing a helmet, could of worn a helmet and that fatal head injury might have reduced to a severe one, but they would still be dead from their other injuries.

The big question about helmets though is what effect they have on the rate of collisions, which increase because of less people cycling, so you can say it's the only real downside but if we are talking about safety, it's probably not a good idea to take actions which reduce the severity of injuries if it also increases the frequency of injuries. eg this from new zealand:







I don't know where the balance lies - personally I think mandatory helmets probably reduce cycling participation by enough that collisions increase to outweigh the safety benefit of wearing helmets but I don't know about voluntary use. What we do know is that the safest places to cycle are the netherlands and denmark, which have much lower rates of head injuries amongst cyclists even though nobody wears helmets. This tells me we should put our time, money and energy into infrastructure and not bother with trying to get more people wearing helmets or enforcing their use.

It's also worth reflecting that pedestrians have a rate of head injury that is as high as cyclists, and drivers/passengers in cars not far behind so any safety argument for cyclists based on rates of head injuries should also apply to pedestrians and drivers.



IC3D said:


> There was a study that proved it beesonthewhatnow so not just my opinion, but I had thought this for years.



nah, no proof, assuming you are thinking of that professor from Bath university. He did a study which showed drivers gave him more space the less protective gear he had on (and also if he wore a woman's wig) but it doesn't prove anything as it's (a) too small a study and (b) not blinded in any way.
It would actually be really difficult I think to setup experiments that would prove this, as you can't blind them, you can't know if a particular driver would give you more/less space if you wore different things, though with enough data you can aggregate it - but there's so many other factors you can't control for that any conclusions are going to be tentative at best.


----------



## Winot (Nov 8, 2016)

BigTom said:


> without a reciprocal (if that's the right word, I don't think it is)



concomitant


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2016)

BigTom said:


> I did preface my initial post saying it was pedantry and having had people have a go at me for wearing a black coat with reflectives at night because it's not hi-vis and they didn't realise the lighter strips were reflective (this isn't out on the road), I disagree that people really do recognise that hi-vis isn't reflective and/or how useless it is without a lot of light around.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Helmets not reducing fatalities is quite intuitive really. If you're going to be hit by another vehicle hard enough to kill you, chances are a helmet won't make a lot of difference, but if you fall off in town at 10mph, one might stop you grazing your head/being concussed. I don't know about mandatory helmets. It would be difficult with Boris bike schemes etc. I think leaving it to the individual is reasonable. It shouldn't be used as a reason to not wear ANY safety kit though. That's just stupid.


----------



## souljacker (Nov 8, 2016)

I wear a helmet because I'm worried about falling off the bike and bashing my head open. If I get hit by a car I'm probably fucked anyway so a helmet isn't going to help but I'll still wear it.

With HiViz, I believe I'm increasing the chance that someone will see me and not drive into me. For that reason, I'll wear it, whatever research someone can pull up stating it makes no difference.


----------



## IC3D (Nov 8, 2016)

A moderate reduction in space Spymaster  is all it takes. I've been cycling for years (and driving) I can only be anecdotal however as a driver you know timid driving can be dangerous too. From what I've seen the most dangerous situations cyclists end up in is when they dont ride confidently and end up getting bullied of the road by arsehole drivers so if cycling in full view of traffic maybe slowing you down at a junction for a couple of seconds is what it takes so be it.


----------



## IC3D (Nov 8, 2016)

Dp


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2016)

IC3D said:


> From what I've seen the most dangerous situations cyclists end up in is when they dont ride confidently and end up getting bullied of the road by arsehole drivers so if cycling in full view of traffic maybe slowing you down at a junction for a couple of seconds is what it takes so be it.


Quite possibly, but none of that supports your theory that you're safer without a helmet or HV.

You do realise that the study itself suggests that there is little or no benefit from the supposed extra space left at those distances, right?


----------



## IC3D (Nov 8, 2016)

I read that as there is a small benefit to be pedantic Spymaster


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2016)

IC3D said:


> I read that as there is a small benefit to be pedantic Spymaster





> The study measures something that might not be readily apparent to most cyclists--an average of 3.3 inches more clearance. The extra distance would make quite a difference if the average passing distance were 1.5 feet and a lot less if the full recommended 3 feet were the rule. In a web paper discussing his findings, Dr. Walker notes that the average passing distance was 4.5 feet for black cars and 4.1 feet for white trade vans. The difference of 3.3 inches fades to insignificance with passing clearances that good. With lanes of 8.5 feet, the motorists were giving him a half-lane of clearance whether or not he had a helmet or a wig on. In most cases they were shifting over the line to the other lane to pass. Some of the effect is probably due to the "shy distance" from the curb on the opposite side of the road--the driver's side--as they passed.



This study is basically useless as a point of reference on which to base one's safety strategy and it would be even more stupid to attempt to draw a parallel between this and the effectiveness of hi-vis clothing.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 8, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well a lot of cyclists, being the arrogant bell ends they are, cite the paucity of actual evidence that HV improves safety. The reality is that cyclist testing just hasn't been carried out on any major basis. So despite reams and reams of postings from motorists saying that they're more visible with it, they reject it for lack of scientific testing. This they combine with the "it puts people off cycling" argument or "car drivers should take more responsibility, so fuck hi viz".



Are you the poster who often reports how dangerous it is to walk along the canal path?

As the safety benefits are obvious, I assume you take preventative measures by wearing HV, a helmet, and also a life jacket?


----------



## BigTom (Nov 8, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Helmets not reducing fatalities is quite intuitive really. If you're going to be hit by another vehicle hard enough to kill you, chances are a helmet won't make a lot of difference, but if you fall off in town at 10mph, one might stop you grazing your head/being concussed. I don't know about mandatory helmets. It would be difficult with Boris bike schemes etc. I think leaving it to the individual is reasonable. It shouldn't be used as a reason to not wear ANY safety kit though. That's just stupid.



You'd think it would be intuitive but I've long since given up trying to explain this to people who start off with "helmets save lives" and cannot grasp the idea that cyclists don't really die from head injuries.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2016)

fredfelt said:


> Are you the poster who often reports how dangerous it is to walk along the canal path?
> 
> As the safety benefits are obvious, I assume you take preventative measures by wearing HV, a helmet, and also a life jacket?


Oh yes, here we go again, "If I should do it so should you!" Breathtaking arrogance. 

Because walking along the canal path poses exactly the same level of risk and potential danger as cycling on city streets, doesn't it?


----------



## IC3D (Nov 8, 2016)

The point is you should look vunerable because helmets and hv give the impression you are less vunerable and drivers take more risks around you i have seen this so arguing is pointless. 

Out of interest Spymaster do cyclists really annoy you more than drivers. I do both and a Fiesta using the overtaking lane at 72 mph is well more annoying but then again I'm in my car and more prone to aggression than when I ride my bike


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 8, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Oh yes, here we go again, "If I should do it so should you!" Breathtaking arrogance.
> 
> Because walking along the canal path poses exactly the same level of risk and potential danger as cycling on city streets, doesn't it?



There's certainly a risk which you could mitigate. You have argued this case for taking precautionary measures.

Pedestrians have a greater risk of being run over than cyclists.

Far more people die from drowning than cycling.

In the event of accident motorists have a greater risk of head injury than cyclists.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 8, 2016)

BigTom said:


> You'd think it would be intuitive but I've long since given up trying to explain this to people who start off with "helmets save lives" and cannot grasp the idea that *cyclists don't really die from head injuries*.


Don't they? They can certainly get life changing injuries. I know so.
ETA: Just googled it: 
"Around three quarters of cyclists killed have major head injuries"

Cycling Accidents Facts & Figures - RoSPA


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 8, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Oh yes, here we go again, "If I should do it so should you!" Breathtaking arrogance.
> 
> Because walking along the canal path poses exactly the same level of risk and potential danger as cycling on city streets, doesn't it?



Despite your regular reports of problem cyclists you don't feel any risk from them?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2016)

IC3D said:


> The point is you should look vunerable because helmets and hv give the impression you are less vunerable and drivers take more risks around you i have seen this so arguing is pointless.


So the fact that in one poorly conducted study and the opinion of IC3D on the internet, the benefits of wearing HV and helmets are completely outweighed by the loss of the benefit of looking vulnerable! 

IC3D has SEEN this so arguing is pointless!!!! 



> Out of interest Spymaster do cyclists really annoy you more than drivers.



In town, most certainly, as both a driver and pedestrian.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2016)

fredfelt said:


> Despite your regular reports of problem cyclists you don't feel any risk from them?


Risk of what?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2016)

fredfelt said:


> Pedestrians have a greater risk of being run over than cyclists.
> 
> Far more people die from drowning than cycling.
> 
> In the event of accident motorists have a greater risk of head injury than cyclists.



..... so don't wear hi-vis! 

Again, it's the massive arrogance of this position that is so common to cyclists. All that's being asked is that you make yourselves as visible to other road users as possible to make it easier for them to avoid collisions with you. 

But no! 

"Why should we?", "pedestrians are in danger too", "people die from drowning ... lifebelts ... something ..."

_That _is why you are disliked so much. Your arrogant, wanky attitudes to everyone else.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 8, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Risk of what?



You tell me. I assumed that you complained because of a perceived threat.

I'm not suggesting that all cyclists or pedestrians should wear safety equipment by the way. just trying to make sense of your logic that one should always try to mitigate risk.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 8, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> ..... so don't wear hi-vis!
> 
> Again, it's the massive arrogance of this position that is so common to cyclists. All that's being asked is that you make yourselves as visible to other road users as possible to make it easier for them to avoid collisions with you.
> 
> ...



It's not arrogance.

If you are proposing something that has societal benefits, as well as risks you should be quite sure that the benefits outweigh the risks, and that there are not more effective solutions.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2016)

fredfelt said:


> You tell me. I assumed that you complained because of a perceived threat.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that all cyclists or pedestrians should wear safety equipment by the way. just trying to make sense of your logic that one should always try to mitigate risk.


I think you probably assumed wrong then. 

The logic runs thus: If in the course of a regular activity or pastime you are forced to share almost 100% of your time amongst faster moving, more dangerous traffic, to which you are often all but invisible, it makes perfect sense to aid the operators of those other vehicles in identifying you as potentially at risk.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2016)

fredfelt said:


> If you are proposing something that has societal benefits, as well as risks you should be quite sure that the benefits outweigh the risks, and that there are not more effective solutions.


So come on then. Tell us how you'd go about weighing that up?

Every single motorist and most of the cyclists on this thread (and most of the internet if you look around) have said hi-vis aids them in spotting cyclists in at least some cases.

Why wouldn't you wear it? Would you tell your children not to wear it?


----------



## BigTom (Nov 8, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Don't they? They can certainly get life changing injuries. I know so.
> ETA: Just googled it:
> "Around three quarters of cyclists killed have major head injuries"
> 
> Cycling Accidents Facts & Figures - RoSPA



How many of those cyclists who had "major" head injuries had head injuries that were fatal injuries? (I really don't know if major means fatal, I suspect major means serious which definitely does not mean fatal, but major injury is not a term used in RTC stats/info (slight/serious/fatal are the categories) so I don't know what it actually means) 
How many of those cyclists who died (assuming major injury means fatal injury) also sustained fatal injuries to other parts of their bodies? The studies done in Canada show that it would be 100%. 
Therefore the cyclists didn't really die from head injuries, they die from multiple injuries and reducing the fatal head injury to a severe head injury would still leave them dead. So cycle helmets don't save lives, and cyclists don't really die from head injuries. Maybe I should have said cyclists don't die from head injuries alone but it amounts to the same thing I think.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 8, 2016)

But cyclists who hit their head wouldn't get as badly injured if they wore a helmet.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 8, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> So come on then. Tell us how you'd go about weighing that up?
> 
> Every single motorist and most of the cyclists on this thread (and most of the internet if you look around) have said hi-vis aids them in spotting cyclists in at least some cases.
> 
> Why wouldn't you wear it? Would you tell your children not to wear it?



I'd wear if for the same reasons you would, I assume.

On a similar subject. I often avoid unlit shared use cycle paths at night as despite bright lights pedestrians without lights or high viz can be hard to spot.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 8, 2016)

If it's a fatal accident then yeah a helmet won't do a thing. But I don't wear one to save my life, I wear one so that if I fall on my head in a non-fatal accident, I don't hurt my head really badly. I fell on my head in a non-fatal (duh) accident once. At high speed I collided with a kerb and went cartwheeling, the first point of impact being the side of my head. The helmet was fucked, but I came away with a strained shoulder as my worse injury.


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 8, 2016)

Cyclists asserting that their use of public space is normal legitimate behaviour, which doesn't require them to dress up in health and safety gear is already transforming British cities into more bicycle friendly environments. Road layouts and signal phasing at traffic lights are being changed in response to more people getting on their bikes and motorists have come to expect us to be on the roads. Making London more like Amsterdam, Copenhagen or Berlin-rather than Sydney-will continue to make cycling safer.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2016)

fredfelt said:


> I'd wear if for the same reasons you would, I assume.
> 
> On a similar subject. I often avoid unlit shared use cycle paths at night as despite bright lights pedestrians without lights or high viz can be hard to spot.


See, you really think this is a clever, killer argument, don't you? 

"Not all risks are adequately mitigated, so let's not mitigate any".

Typical arrogant cyclist stuff. 

And yes, as a cyclist I'd wear HV. As a motorcyclist I often did.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 8, 2016)

Crispy said:


> If it's a fatal accident then yeah a helmet won't do a thing. But I don't wear one to save my life, I wear one so that if I fall on my head in a non-fatal accident, I don't hurt my head really badly. I fell on my head in a non-fatal (duh) accident once. At high speed I collided with a kerb and went cartwheeling, the first point of impact being the side of my head. The helmet was fucked, but I came away with a strained shoulder as my worse injury.


I've hit my helmet twice against cars that have behaved unexpectedly.
A friend of mine has not much of a life nowadays because of a brain injury acquired from a cycling accident.


----------



## Crispy (Nov 8, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> Cyclists asserting that their use of public space is normal legitimate behaviour, which doesn't require them to dress up in health and safety gear is already transforming British cities into more bicycle friendly environments. Road layouts and signal phasing at traffic lights are being changed in response to more people getting on their bikes and motorists have come to expect us to be on the roads. Making London more like Amsterdam, Copenhagen or Berlin-rather than Sydney-will continue to make cycling safer.


Yes and very good it is to see. If my commute only went along the (excellent) new infrastructure that's just been installed in London, I'd ditch the hiviz, and maybe the helmet too (depends on the riding speed really). But so long as I have to mix it with heavy traffic, isolated from other cyclists, I'll continue to stick out deliberatly.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 8, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> See, you really think this is a clever, killer argument, don't you?
> 
> "Not all risks are adequately mitigated, so let's not mitigate any".
> 
> ...



I've not made any suggestions as to what it's appropriate to wear when cycling, or taking any other form of transport.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> I've hit my helmet twice against cars that have behaved unexpectedly.
> A friend of mine has not much of a life nowadays because of a brain injury acquired from a cycling accident.


Were they wearing a helmet at the time?


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 8, 2016)

I'd say the most worrying trend in cycling at the moment is how bright bike lights have become. You get these clowns flying around the place with four or five powerful strobe lights strapped to their body blinding everyone for miles around. They might not be as powerful as car headlights, but people mount them with no thought about the angle of their beam. I regularly cycle on an unlit towpath with really weak lights at night (at a considerate pace, while whistling a pleasant tune to alert pedestrians of my presence). When you get a peleton of flashing lights flying towards you in the dark it can be really disorientating.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> Cyclists asserting that their use of public space is normal legitimate behaviour, which doesn't require them to dress up in health and safety gear is already transforming British cities into more bicycle friendly environments. Road layouts and signal phasing at traffic lights are being changed in response to more people getting on their bikes and motorists have come to expect us to be on the roads. Making London more like Amsterdam, Copenhagen or Berlin-rather than Sydney-will continue to make cycling safer.


If only pedestrians could expect cyclists to be on the roads


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 8, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Were they wearing a helmet at the time?


no.


----------



## IC3D (Nov 8, 2016)

I agree those Cree led flood lights bug the shit out of me they're totally blinding


----------



## BigTom (Nov 8, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> But cyclists who hit their head wouldn't get as badly injured if they wore a helmet.



What I said (that you took issue with) is that helmets don't save lives. They don't save lives because cyclists don't die from head injuries alone. I also said (in my post previous to the one you quoted) that they reduce injuries, but interestingly don't save lives because cyclists don't die from head injuries alone.

(see Spymaster this is not intuitive at all - the idea that helmets reduce injuries but would not prevent a single cyclist death is hard for many people to grasp)


----------



## souljacker (Nov 8, 2016)

BigTom said:


> Therefore the cyclists didn't really die from head injuries, they die from multiple injuries and reducing the fatal head injury to a severe head injury would still leave them dead. So cycle helmets don't save lives, and cyclists don't really die from head injuries. Maybe I should have said cyclists don't die from head injuries alone but it amounts to the same thing I think.



Coming from someone who is a cycling instructor, you are giving out incredibly confusing messages here. The Paediatric nurse who looked after my daughter when she had hip displasia is also famous for setting up the Bicycle Helmet Initiative. She set this up after seeing a regular stream of kids arriving at hospital with serious head injuries that would have been avoided if they had worn helmets. The injuries ranged from a few stitches to kids in comas for months who would never recover from a vegatitive state. 

I don't want to see legislation for this but we should be advising everyone to wear a helmet. If they weren't important, then why do all pro cyclists wear one even when they race on closed roads or a velodrome?


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 8, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> If only pedestrians could expect cyclists to be on the roads



I disagree. I think the issue is about being considerate, particularly towards pedestrians. I hate it when a cyclist comes up behind me too quickly/too close in a park or along a canal. When they ting at me with their stupid little bells* despite the fact that I have right of way on a shared footpaths it makes my blood boil. But I still cycle in these spaces. I just do it slowly and give people plenty of space.

* Only mute cyclists should be allowed to have bells claxons. If you need to use a bell shouting is likely to be more effective than 'bing, bing, bing'


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 8, 2016)

souljacker said:


> Coming from someone who is a cycling instructor, you are giving out incredibly confusing messages here. The Paediatric nurse who looked after my daughter when she had hip displasia is also famous for setting up the Bicycle Helmet Initiative. She set this up after seeing a regular stream of kids arriving at hospital with serious head injuries that would have been avoided if they had worn helmets. The injuries ranged from a few stitches to kids in comas for months who would never recover from a vegatitive state.
> 
> I don't want to see legislation for this but we should be advising everyone to wear a helmet. If they weren't important, then why do all pro cyclists wear one even when they race on closed roads or a velodrome?


I agree with all of this, but pro cyclists go at very fast speeds compared to the rest of us, esp kids.


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 8, 2016)

Countries that are prescriptive about cycle helmets have much fewer cyclists. The risks of letting people make an informed choice need to be weighed against the wider health benefits of cycling both for the cyclists who enjoy regular exercise and members of society who enjoy cleaner air.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 8, 2016)

Crispy said:


> If it's a fatal accident then yeah a helmet won't do a thing. But I don't wear one to save my life, I wear one so that if I fall on my head in a non-fatal accident, I don't hurt my head really badly. I fell on my head in a non-fatal (duh) accident once. At high speed I collided with a kerb and went cartwheeling, the first point of impact being the side of my head. The helmet was fucked, but I came away with a strained shoulder as my worse injury.


This. I can't for the life of me think of a single reason, once you have decided to ride a bike*, why you wouldn't wear one. You'd have to be mad 



*thus side stepping the "oh but they put people off cycling" argument


----------



## souljacker (Nov 8, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> Countries that are prescriptive about cycle helmets have much fewer cyclists. The risks of letting people make an informed choice need to be weighed against the wider health benefits of cycling both for the cyclists who enjoy regular exercise and members of society who enjoy cleaner air.



Indeed, so don't make it the law, but put out public information stating the benefits.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 8, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> Countries that are prescriptive about cycle helmets have much fewer cyclists. The risks of letting people make an informed choice need to be weighed against the wider health benefits of cycling both for the cyclists who enjoy regular exercise and members of society who enjoy cleaner air.



Conversely, you rarely see people in Holland wearing helmets and cyclists are far safer.

Putting all the focus on mitigation and victims is a useful way to avoid tackling the actual threat.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 8, 2016)

All learner driver should be made to take a test as a cyclist after a minimum of 3 months tuition, only then can they apply for a provisional driving licence

*folds arms, sits back smugly*


----------



## Crispy (Nov 8, 2016)

fredfelt said:


> Putting all the focus on mitigation and victims is a useful way to avoid tackling the actual threat.


The two are not exclusionary


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 8, 2016)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> This. I can't for the life of me think of a single reason, once you have decided to ride a bike*, why you wouldn't wear one. You'd have to be mad
> 
> 
> *thus side stepping the "oh but they put people off cycling" argument



There are plenty of reasons for not wearing a helmet apart from vanity and machismo: they cost money, they are bulky, they can be uncomfortable, they get hot in summer, they get lost and need to be replaced, they aren't always to hand when you spontaneously decide to jump on a bike, they stop you from feeling the wind in your hair. Whatever you make of these reasons won't side step the fact that mandatory helmets put people off cycling. Maybe the benefits of people being free to get on a bike without dressing up like a day-glo American footballer outweigh the risks?


----------



## Crispy (Nov 8, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> mandatory helmets


Is anyone on this thread advocating such a thing?


----------



## souljacker (Nov 8, 2016)

eoin_k said:


> There are plenty of reasons for not wearing a helmet apart from vanity and machismo: they cost money, they are bulky, they can be uncomfortable, they get hot in summer, they get lost and need to be replaced, they aren't always to hand when you spontaneously decide to jump on a bike, they stop you from feeling the wind in your hair. Whatever you make of these reasons won't side step the fact that mandatory helmets put people off cycling. Maybe the benefits of people being free to get on a bike without dressing up like a day-glo American footballer outweigh the risks?



Sounds like you need a better helmet mate. Mine was about £20, fits perfectly and is currently hanging off the handlebars of my bike, ready for when I need it. Yeah, it looks a bit silly, but then its nowhere near as bad as being fed through a tube and having to get my wife to wipe my arse for the rest of my life.


----------



## eoin_k (Nov 8, 2016)

Crispy said:


> Is anyone on this thread advocating such a thing?



The "oh they put people off cycling argument" beesonthewhatnow referred to is about policy. Nobody has argued that people shouldn't have access to information to make an informed choice.


----------



## BigTom (Nov 8, 2016)

souljacker said:


> Coming from someone who is a cycling instructor, you are giving out incredibly confusing messages here. The Paediatric nurse who looked after my daughter when she had hip displasia is also famous for setting up the Bicycle Helmet Initiative. She set this up after seeing a regular stream of kids arriving at hospital with serious head injuries that would have been avoided if they had worn helmets. The injuries ranged from a few stitches to kids in comas for months who would never recover from a vegatitive state.
> 
> I don't want to see legislation for this but we should be advising everyone to wear a helmet. If they weren't important, then why do all pro cyclists wear one even when they race on closed roads or a velodrome?



pro cyclists ride very fast. Do you ask why drivers aren't wearing flameproof suits and helmets, after all racing drivers wear them (and they are on closed roads)?. cycle races are intrinsically dangerous because of the speeds they are riding and the close packed nature of a peleton (otherwise you don't get the aerodynamic advantages), it's really very different to transport cycling.

In terms of your nurse, the really big problems here are that (a) you can't say the head injuries would have been avoided if they were wearing helmets, they may have been reduced but not avoided as helmets can't prevent collisions and (b) if general helmet wearing puts people off cycling, and the resulting reduction in cycling leads to more collisions & injuries (and the evidence from countries with mandatory helmet laws is that is what happens) then she would be seeing more kids in hospital with head injuries, albeit slightly reduced severity of injuries - is that an improvement? More lower severity injuries vs fewer higher severity injuries? 
Alongside that, she should be putting her time/energy into getting segregated cycle lanes not getting helmets mandated in law or even just encouraging people to wear them, as the safest places in the world to cycle (in any terms but specifically here in terms of lowest rate of head injuries) is the Netherlands and Denmark, where no-one wears helmets. That is the most effective safety measure by such a long way that anything else pales into insignificance. This isn't an argument against wearing helmets, it's an argument against people putting time/money/energy into campaigns/projects to get people to wear helmets when that time/money/energy could be spent on campaigns/projects getting cycle lanes built.

I'm also not saying they aren't important. They don't save lives, that's what I've said; I've also said they lead to some reduction in injuries and that it's interesting that they don't save lives as a result. Nobody who was cycling without a helmet and was in a fatal collision would still be alive today had they been wearing a helmet, because they would all have died from injuries to another part of their body.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2016)

BigTom said:


> (see Spymaster this is not intuitive at all - the idea that helmets reduce injuries but would not prevent a single cyclist death is hard for many people to grasp)


That's almost certainly not true though and I get where OU is coming from. Helmets have highly likely saved a few lives of cyclists, it's just that under the circumstances of the accident, it isn't possible to say with any certainty that the helmet definitely prevented death.  But there will be a point at which a blow to the head without a helmet would be fatal, whereas a similar blow with a helmet wouldn't. The frequency of that blow happening to cyclists is what's at issue, not whether or not it happens at all. Of course that ignores the fact that there is very definite evidence that helmets can significantly reduce _injury_ in lower speed, non fatal, collisions.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 8, 2016)

Crispy said:


> The two are not exclusionary



No, certainly not. But I get weary of the endless implied victim blaming. Like the recent TFL saftey video aimed at cyclists that shows an HGV left hooking a cyclist, where the cyclist actions couldn't have prevented being crushed.

Give all the safety advice, wear all the right clothes and a cyclist will always be placed at a greater risk in this country until proper attention is given to design of the urban environment.

Attitudes that cyclists are somehow different to anyone else also doesn't help.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 8, 2016)

For what it's worth I feel my biggest risk at the moment is not cycling to work.

Driving is doing no good for my health or soul.


----------



## BigTom (Nov 8, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> That's almost certainly not true though and I get where OU is coming from. Helmets have highly likely saved a few lives of cyclists, it's just that under the circumstances of the accident, it isn't possible to say with any certainty that the helmet definitely prevented death.  But there will be a point at which a blow to the head without a helmet would be fatal, whereas a similar blow with a helmet wouldn't. The frequency of that blow happening to cyclists is what's at issue, not whether or not it happens at all. Of course that ignores the fact that there is very definite evidence that helmets can significantly reduce _injury_ in lower speed, non fatal, collisions.



If I'm in a collision and I have a fatal head injury and a fatal injury to say my liver I am dead. If I go back in time and put on a helmet and I still have the same collision (helmets can't prevent collisions) and the helmet reduces my fatal head injury to a serious one, I am still dead from the fatal injury to my liver (or whatever other organ in the torso gets fucked). The helmet has not saved my life has it?

The studies from canada* showed that in 100% of cases - *every single one* - where a cyclist died that they sustained a fatal injury to somewhere other than their head (as well as some of them having fatal head injuries). Some of those cyclists who died were wearing helmets, some weren't. Had every single cyclist been wearing a helmet, not a single life would have been saved because those fatal head injuries would have reduced to severe ones but the injuries to other parts of the body would still have been fatal and the cyclist would still die. The helmet does not save their life.

I told you this wasn't intuitive but we can say it for certain as long as we can access coroner reports because we can see that there are no deaths of cyclists from head injuries alone, the head injury is always accompanied by other injuries which will kill you even if the head injury doesn't.

*I'm annoyed that I can't quickly find this study/these studies, there are so many cycle helmet studies from Canada that I can't find it in amongst the others, I'm absolutely certain it exists though and was a good comprehensive study looking at all deaths in one province (Ontario I think) over a long time period, 10 or 15 years. I will keep looking for it and will post up later in this thread if/when I find it.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2016)

BigTom said:


> If I'm in a collision and I have a fatal head injury and a fatal injury to say my liver I am dead. If I go back in time and put on a helmet and I still have the same collision (helmets can't prevent collisions) and the helmet reduces my fatal head injury to a serious one, I am still dead from the fatal injury to my liver (or whatever other organ in the torso gets fucked). The helmet has not saved my life has it?
> 
> The studies from canada* showed that in 100% of cases - *every single one* - where a cyclist died that they sustained a fatal injury to somewhere other than their head (as well as some of them having fatal head injuries). Some of those cyclists who died were wearing helmets, some weren't. Had every single cyclist been wearing a helmet, not a single life would have been saved because those fatal head injuries would have reduced to severe ones but the injuries to other parts of the body would still have been fatal and the cyclist would still die. The helmet does not save their life.
> 
> I told you this wasn't intuitive but we can say it for certain as long as we can access coroner reports because we can see that there are no deaths of cyclists from head injuries alone, the head injury is always accompanied by other injuries which will kill you even if the head injury doesn't.



Come off it, Tom. None of the above proves in the least that a helmet has NEVER saved a life. What about the occasions where a blow to the head has proved non-fatal, but the rider was wearing a lid? There's no way you'll ever know if the helmet was the decisive factor but inconceivable that it's NEVER been the case that the helmet prevented a fatality. 

All that the Canadian studies that you cite above show are that in the cases looked at there was more than one fatal blow besides the one to the head. What you need to prove, for this argument to hold any water, is that _*NONE*_ of the blows sustained to the heads of helmet wearing cyclists would have proven fatal if the helmet was absent. 

How are you going to do that?


----------



## souljacker (Nov 8, 2016)

BigTom said:


> pro cyclists ride very fast. Do you ask why drivers aren't wearing flameproof suits and helmets, after all racing drivers wear them (and they are on closed roads)?. cycle races are intrinsically dangerous because of the speeds they are riding and the close packed nature of a peleton (otherwise you don't get the aerodynamic advantages), it's really very different to transport cycling.



I'm not sure the racing car analogy is that good as modern cars have airbags and rarely explode in a massive fireball but I get your point. The type of accidents pro cyclists have are quite similar to the ones normal cyclists have though, but I concede that the peloton thing coupled with speed makes a massive difference.



BigTom said:


> In terms of your nurse, the really big problems here are that (a) you can't say the head injuries would have been avoided if they were wearing helmets, they may have been reduced but not avoided as helmets can't prevent collisions and (b) if general helmet wearing puts people off cycling, and the resulting reduction in cycling leads to more collisions & injuries (and the evidence from countries with mandatory helmet laws is that is what happens) then she would be seeing more kids in hospital with head injuries, albeit slightly reduced severity of injuries - is that an improvement? More lower severity injuries vs fewer higher severity injuries?



The nurse, (Pride of Reading nomination for Angela Lee if any one is interested) *can* say that the head injuries would have been prevented by helmets. In fact, that's exactly what she is saying. Also, I don't really agree with this whole 'helmets put people off cycling' argument. If you want to cycle on roads (in the UK at least), surely everyone knows it can be dangerous and you should do everything you can to protect yourself?




BigTom said:


> Alongside that, she should be putting her time/energy into getting segregated cycle lanes not getting helmets mandated in law or even just encouraging people to wear them, as the safest places in the world to cycle (in any terms but specifically here in terms of lowest rate of head injuries) is the Netherlands and Denmark, where no-one wears helmets. That is the most effective safety measure by such a long way that anything else pales into insignificance. This isn't an argument against wearing helmets, it's an argument against people putting time/money/energy into campaigns/projects to get people to wear helmets when that time/money/energy could be spent on campaigns/projects getting cycle lanes built.



I totally agree, but while the UK has the infrastructure it currently has, people should be encouraged to wear helmets (and hi viz and decent lights).



BigTom said:


> Nobody who was cycling without a helmet and was in a fatal collision would still be alive today had they been wearing a helmet, because they would all have died from injuries to another part of their body.



Surely that's not true. There must be some that have been fatally injured due to only a bang to the head.

My point here isn't that if everyone wore a helmet, everyone would be safe. Its that, with our roads being how they are, wearing a helmet/hiviz and having good lights is giving you a better chance of survival than not doing it. Proper bike lanes, better training and better driving standards will also help but while we wait for them, stick a helmet on.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2016)

souljacker said:


> Surely that's not true. There must be some that have been fatally injured due to only a bang to the head.


Of course there are, just not in the study that he's citing. 

Also, nobody is counting the number of head only, not fatal, collisions where a helmet was worn that would have been fatal otherwise. 

It's nonsense to say with any certainty that helmets have never saved a life.


----------



## souljacker (Nov 8, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Also, nobody is counting the number of head only, not fatal, collisions where a helmet was worn that would have been fatal otherwise.



No mention of the bang to head, 6 months in hospital, migraines for the rest of your life collisions either.


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 8, 2016)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> This. I can't for the life of me think of a single reason, once you have decided to ride a bike*, why you wouldn't wear one. You'd have to be mad
> 
> 
> 
> *thus side stepping the "oh but they put people off cycling" argument



Fortunately a health and safety culture didn't stop Boris Bikes from being a success.

I wonder if anyone has done any analysis on how these impact on the health of the capital and any one using them in terms of personal activity and traffic fumes.

If helmet wearing was expected the scheme wouldn't exist, and London would probably be at a loss.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2016)

souljacker said:


> No mention of the bang to head, 6 months in hospital, migraines for the rest of your life collisions either.


Yeah, but more people are cycling because they don't have to wear helmets, so it's all good ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2016)

Tbh the way a sizeable proportion of cyclists perch their helmets on scarves or hoodies or pushed back at a rakish angle or unfastened they might as well not bother wearing one at all


----------



## pengaleng (Nov 8, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> I'm surprised that the biggest danger is left turning HGVs rather than cars coming out of side roads. The former is easier to control for a cyclist than the latter. Maybe education isn't good enough and cyclists continue to cycle up the left hand side of lorries when they're parked at lights?




they dont know what a fucking blind spot is or where it is. 

they need a fucking course.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 8, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> they dont know what a fucking blind spot is or where it is.
> 
> they need a fucking course.


Yep, though I don't know why people don't just use their common sense. I see it all the time and it's sickening to watch. Makes my stomach do flips.


----------



## pengaleng (Nov 8, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Yep, though I don't know why people don't just use their common sense. I see it all the time and it's sickening to watch. Makes my stomach do flips.




I see it all the time as well, going through red lights at speed on the bike highway seems to be a good one even when theres pedestrians IN the road without even slowing down

some of these fucking idiots need shot.

why dont cyclists educate other cyclists about this shit?

am sorely tempted to start kicking these cunts wheels


----------



## BigTom (Nov 8, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Come off it, Tom. None of the above proves in the least that a helmet has NEVER saved a life. What about the occasions where a blow to the head has proved non-fatal, but the rider was wearing a lid? There's no way you'll ever know if the helmet was the decisive factor but inconceivable that it's NEVER been the case that the helmet prevented a fatality.
> 
> All that the Canadian studies that you cite above show are that in the cases looked at there was more than one fatal blow besides the one to the head. What you need to prove, for this argument to hold any water, is that _*NONE*_ of the blows sustained to the heads of helmet wearing cyclists would have proven fatal if the helmet was absent.
> 
> How are you going to do that?



They looked at every single cyclist death. Every single one. All of them. Some of them had fatal head injuries, some didn't. Some were wearing helmets, some weren't. They all sustained fatal injuries to another part of their body. all of them.
If we could go through coroners records in the UK looking at cyclist's deaths I'm confident we would find the same - nobody who has died only sustained a fatal head injury, everyone who died had a fatal injury to somewhere else in their body as well as the fatal head injury (or no fatal head injury).
I don't need to prove none of the blows would have proven fatal, all I need to show is that in the event of a collision which produces a fatal head injury, it also produces a fatal injury to somewhere else in the body - that's what the canadian study showed, in real life, happens.
What you need to do is to produce evidence of a collision where a cyclist has died from a head injury but not sustained fatal injuries anywhere else - that's what the canadian study went looking for and couldn't find.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 8, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> why dont cyclists educate other cyclists about this shit?


They do - free cycle training is available for anyone who wants to ride in London via things like the Bikeability scheme. Idiots wouldn't think to go on these courses though


----------



## BigTom (Nov 8, 2016)

souljacker said:


> I'm not sure the racing car analogy is that good as modern cars have airbags and rarely explode in a massive fireball but I get your point. *The type of accidents pro cyclists have are quite similar to the ones normal cyclists have though*, but I concede that the peloton thing coupled with speed makes a massive difference.



I don't think this is true, I think most pro-riders have collisions in a pack of cyclists or come off as a result of the speed + cornering/surface conditions, whereas most transport cyclist collisions involve a motor vehicle.




> The nurse, (Pride of Reading nomination for Angela Lee if any one is interested) *can* say that the head injuries would have been prevented by helmets. In fact, that's exactly what she is saying. Also, I don't really agree with this whole 'helmets put people off cycling' argument. If you want to cycle on roads (in the UK at least), surely everyone knows it can be dangerous and you should do everything you can to protect yourself?



You said "avoided" not "prevented". The studies show that they would likely have been reduced by a slight to moderate amount. So the slight injuries might have gone entirely but the serious ones wouldn't, they might still be serious or they might be reduced to slight. Injuries get reduced in severity by cycle helmets, they do not get avoided (because helmets do not stop the collision from happening) and they may not get prevented (Because they get reduced not removed).
If you think helmets do not put people off cycling, how do you explain the huge drops in cycling rates in the countries that have introduced mandatory helmet laws, following the introduction of those helmet laws?



> I totally agree, but while the UK has the infrastructure it currently has, people should be encouraged to wear helmets (and hi viz and decent lights).



All that time/money/energy spent on trying to get people to wear helmets, could be spent on getting segregated cycle lanes built. They would arrive quicker and be better if everyone who was working on cycling safety focused on that, and it would make a much bigger difference to cyclist safety than helmet wearing.



> Surely that's not true. There must be some that have been fatally injured due to only a bang to the head.



Not in that Canadian province over a 10 or 15 year period there wasn't. 



> My point here isn't that if everyone wore a helmet, everyone would be safe. Its that, with our roads being how they are, wearing a helmet/hiviz and having good lights is giving you a better chance of survival than not doing it. Proper bike lanes, better training and better driving standards will also help but while we wait for them, stick a helmet on.



I really am undecided on whether voluntary helmet wearing reduces cycling participation to the extent that the increase in collisions outweighs the decrease in head injury severity, however as most people do wear helmets its a bit of a moot point as not wearing a helmet doesn't have the effect that nobody wearing a helmet might.


----------



## pengaleng (Nov 8, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> They do - free cycle training is available for anyone who wants to ride in London via things like the Bikeability scheme. Idiots wouldn't think to go on these courses though




yeah I realised 

if you didnt *need* a licence to drive and the entire thing was 'optional' as it is with bicyclists then no one would bother - as with bikes.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2016)

BigTom said:


> They looked at every single cyclist death. Every single one. All of them. Some of them had fatal head injuries, some didn't. Some were wearing helmets, some weren't. They all sustained fatal injuries to another part of their body. all of them.
> If we could go through coroners records in the UK looking at cyclist's deaths I'm confident we would find the same - nobody who has died only sustained a fatal head injury, everyone who died had a fatal injury to somewhere else in their body as well as the fatal head injury (or no fatal head injury).
> I don't need to prove none of the blows would have proven fatal, all I need to show is that in the event of a collision which produces a fatal head injury, it also produces a fatal injury to somewhere else in the body - that's what the canadian study showed, in real life, happens.
> What you need to do is to produce evidence of a collision where a cyclist has died from a head injury but not sustained fatal injuries anywhere else - that's what the canadian study went looking for and couldn't find.


No. All that shows is that potentially_ fatal_ head injuries were always accompanied by fatal injuries to other parts of the body.

It does not take into account lives that were _saved_ by helmets when blows to the head occurred. You seem to be trying to argue that because no head-only fatalities have occurred, that helmets haven't saved lives. 

That's nonsense and doesn't follow at all.


----------



## BigTom (Nov 8, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> No. All that shows is that potentially_ fatal_ head injuries were always accompanied by fatal injuries to other parts of the body.
> 
> It does not take into account lives that were _saved_ by helmets when blows to the head occurred. You seem to be trying to argue that because no head-only fatalities have occurred, that helmets haven't saved lives.
> 
> That's nonsense and doesn't follow at all.



If there are lives that have been saved by helmets when there was only a blow to the head, doesn't it also follow that there will have been cyclists who were not wearing helmets that would have been involved in this type of collision and died? Why would wearing a helmet change the type of collision a cyclist is involved in?


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 8, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> yeah I realised
> 
> if you didnt *need* a licence to drive and the entire thing was 'optional' as it is with bicyclists then no one would bother - as with bikes.


I think a cycle registration scheme would be impossible to administer though


----------



## pengaleng (Nov 8, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> I think a cycle registration scheme would be impossible to administer though




only cus theres a lack of people or funds to police it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 8, 2016)

pengaleng said:


> only cus theres a lack of people or funds to police it.


Even with that I think it would practically be impossible


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2016)

BigTom said:


> If there are lives that have been saved by helmets when there was only a blow to the head, doesn't it also follow that there will have been cyclists who were not wearing helmets that would have been involved in this type of collision and died?


No, of course not. Not necessarily. 


> Why would wearing a helmet change the type of collision a cyclist is involved in?


It doesn't, but it can change the severity of the injury from a blow to the head. 

You're asking us to believe that because something has never been documented, it has never happened. It's a false dichotomy.


----------



## BigTom (Nov 8, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> No, of course not. Not necessarily.
> 
> It doesn't, but it can change the severity of the injury from a blow to the head.
> 
> You're asking us to believe that because something has never been documented, it has never happened. It's a false dichotomy.



Why not? If it doesn't change the type of collision then why doesn't it follow? 
I've always said a helmet will probably reduce the severity of injury, this is not in question and is irrelevant to the point I am making.
I mean there's lots of things that haven't been documented and have obviously never happened. You're asking us to believe that even though something has never been documented it has happened. I clearly cannot prove a negative, it's impossible, but you could prove the positive by demonstrating an occasion where a cyclist has died from a head injury alone.


----------



## souljacker (Nov 8, 2016)

BigTom said:


> All that time/money/energy spent on trying to get people to wear helmets, could be spent on getting segregated cycle lanes built. They would arrive quicker and be better if everyone who was working on cycling safety focused on that, and it would make a much bigger difference to cyclist safety than helmet wearing.



The budget for Angie's scheme extends to her getting some discounted helmets and putting in a load of voluntary hours. Segregated bike lanes cost a lot more.


----------



## pengaleng (Nov 8, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Even with that I think it would practically be impossible




ah well... let em die then I suppose.

everyone needs dash cams to expose these dickheads.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2016)

BigTom said:


> Why not? If it doesn't change the type of collision then why doesn't it follow?
> I've always said a helmet will probably reduce the severity of injury, this is not in question and is irrelevant to the point I am making.
> I mean there's lots of things that haven't been documented and have obviously never happened. You're asking us to believe that even though something has never been documented it has happened. I clearly cannot prove a negative, it's impossible, but you could prove the positive by demonstrating an occasion where a cyclist has died from a head injury alone.



I'd want to see the research that you're referring to, Tom. I find it impossible to believe that no cyclist has EVER been killed solely by an impact to the head.

I assume the CDC in the US didn't just pull these numbers out of their arses:



> Universal use of bicycle helmets by children aged 4 through 15 years old would prevent between 135 and 155 deaths, between 39,000 and 45,000 head injuries, and between 18,000 and 55,000 scalp and face injuries annually.



CDC - PPEO - X. Bicycle Helmet Usage and Head Injury Prevention


----------



## BigTom (Nov 8, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> I'd want to see the research that you're referring to, Tom. I find it impossible to believe that no cyclist has EVER been killed solely by an impact to the head.
> 
> I assume the CDC in the US didn't just pull these numbers out of their arses:
> 
> ...



I'll look for it but I'm out now and on my phone so it won't be tonight. The cdc may have considered how many fatal head injuries would be reduced to non fatal injuries without considering the likelihood of other injuries, again being on my phone I haven't looked at the link but I will do tomorrow.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2016)

BigTom said:


> I'll look for it but I'm out now and on my phone so it won't be tonight. The cdc may have considered how many fatal head injuries would be reduced to non fatal injuries without considering the likelihood of other injuries, again being on my phone I haven't looked at the link but I will do tomorrow.


Ok. I'd be interested to see it. I had a quick look around but got bored. Given that 70-80% of cyclists fatalities involve a head injury, I find it impossible to believe that EVERY SINGLE ONE of those cases also involved a fatal injury to another part of the body and that _*not a single cyclist has ever died from head injury only*_. That actually looks even more ludicrous when it's written down.


> A study of 116 fatal cyclist accidents in London and rural areas found over 70% of the cyclist fatalities in London had moderate or serious head injuries in London, and over 80% of those killed in collisions on rural roads.


Cycling Accidents Facts & Figures - RoSPA


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Ok. I'd be interested to see it. I had a quick look around but got bored. Given that 70-80% of cyclists fatalities involve a head injury, I find it impossible to believe that EVERY SINGLE ONE of those cases also involved a fatal injury to another part of the body and that _not a single cyclist has ever died from head injury only_. That actually looks even more ludicrous when it's written down.
> 
> Cycling Accidents Facts & Figures - RoSPA



i imagine most of the fatalities fall within the 5% of chest/abdomen injuries, pa


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 95198
> i imagine most of the fatalities fall within the 5% of chest/abdomen injuries, pa


Possibly. But NOT ONE head injury only death ever?

Really????


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Possibly. But NOT ONE head injury only death ever?
> 
> Really????


depends if a cyclist's ever had only their head run over, pa


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 8, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> depends if a cyclist's ever had only their head run over, pa


No. What Tom is saying is that every cyclist with a fatal head injury has also had_ another fatal injury _to somewhere else on the body. 

Can't you foresee a cyclist getting sideswiped by a car which smashes his legs, causes no other fatal injury, but propels his head into an oncoming car, or onto the road?  

That has NEVER happened??????


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 8, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> No. What Tom is saying is that every cyclist with a fatal head injury has also had_ another fatal injury _to somewhere else on the body.
> 
> Can't you foresee a cyclist getting sideswiped by a car which smashes his legs, causes no other fatal injury, but propels his head into an oncoming car, or onto the road?
> 
> That has NEVER happened??????


not seen that gif, pa, sorry


----------



## BigTom (Nov 8, 2016)

souljacker said:


> The budget for Angie's scheme extends to her getting some discounted helmets and putting in a load of voluntary hours. Segregated bike lanes cost a lot more.



It's hard to be critical of someone doing something good but I honestly believe her time would be better spent campaigning for segregated cycles lanes.


----------



## BigTom (Nov 8, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> No. What Tom is saying is that every cyclist with a fatal head injury has also had_ another fatal injury _to somewhere else on the body.
> 
> Can't you foresee a cyclist getting sideswiped by a car which smashes his legs, causes no other fatal injury, but propels his head into an oncoming car, or onto the road?
> 
> That has NEVER happened??????



That cyclist is going to hit the ground, most likely impacting on their torso, probably with their bike around them. The skull is pretty strong in comparison to ribs or the stomach/back area which houses so many organs, that area is just really vulnerable, I can totally conceive of the idea that any collision which produces a strong enough impact to break the skull in a serious way is going to impact elsewhere on the body during the course of that collision, I'd never have considered it had I not read this study but having done so and considered it I think it's kind of odd but totally conceivable. 
Nothing I produce can ever prove that no cyclist anywhere in the world ever has died from head injuries alone and it's worth remembering the first thing I said on this:



> Interestingly, the evidence shows that they do not save lives. This is again from canadian study which looked at every cyclist death in a province I think, and found that every cyclist who died having sustained a fatal head injury also had a fatal injury to somewhere in their torso, which is very unprotected and contains many vital organs. So anyone who had died not wearing a helmet, could of worn a helmet and that fatal head injury might have reduced to a severe one, but they would still be dead from their other injuries.



Perhaps I was too strong in my wording in the first sentence but it's quite clear from the rest that the only absolute claim I can make is that in the time period/area that this study looked at no cyclist died from head injuries alone, and that I'm extrapolating from that study to a general statement, I think the UK and Canadian roads are similar enough for comparisons to be viable. It'd be interesting to see more studies that examine deaths in the way this one did, perhaps I will find some when I go looking for it but when I saw it before I thought it was fascinating because it's counter-intuitive and looked for others then which I didn't find, the things I remember finding were more general studies into head injuries & the effects of helmets, some of which made statements about reducing deaths based on the evidence that a certain amount of fatal head injuries would be reduced to non-fatal head injuries, without considering what other injuries there might be to other parts of the body (they are studies into head injuries after all).


----------



## BigTom (Nov 9, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Ok. I'd be interested to see it. I had a quick look around but got bored. Given that 70-80% of cyclists fatalities involve a head injury, I find it impossible to believe that EVERY SINGLE ONE of those cases also involved a fatal injury to another part of the body and that _*not a single cyclist has ever died from head injury only*_. That actually looks even more ludicrous when it's written down.
> 
> Cycling Accidents Facts & Figures - RoSPA



Well this is deeply unsatisfying. I have "found" the study I was looking for but it's not available online anymore as far as I can see.
http://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/engl...lingDeathReview/DI_Cycling_Deatth_Review.html
is where it should be 
It is referenced in a few places I've found such as: http://caep.ca/sites/caep.ca/files/...atement_-_improving_bike_safety_-_english.pdf but this doesn't give us the information we need:



> It examined the circumstances of 129 deaths that occurred from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2010.3 The findings of the review include recommendations that target infrastructure, education, legislation and enforcement. The main findings of the review were:
> *The vast majority of cycling deaths are preventable. The review data supported the conclusion that all of the 129 deaths in this Review could have been prevented.
> *Cycling deaths are more likely to occur in those not wearing helmets. Those cyclists whose causes of death included a head injury were three times more likely to not be wearing a helmet compared to those who died of other injuries.
> * The proportion of helmet use was very low – only 26 percent of those cyclists killed during the study period were wearing a helmet.
> ...



I remembered the province right but the length of time wrong, I'm sure this will be the study I remember reading, it's from about the right time.

That the middle conclusion seems to support the idea that cyclists do die of head injuries alone it doesn't actually contain the information we need (those deaths without a helmet "included" a head injury which suggests to me that they also had other injuries, it certainly doesn't mean they didn't, and I'm not disputing the idea that helmets can reduce head injuries, so you would see more fatal head injuries amongst non-helmet wearing cyclists) and as the study wasn't apparently published in a journal I doubt that Pickman's model or someone with library journal access could find it though I'm tagging him here just in case he could?
I've not looked at your other links to see what they say. Without being able to go back to that study and memory check I can't back up my claims to the extent I would like to. I still think that helmets don't really save lives (despite reducing injuries), maybe at the margins but not significantly and that if we could examine UK cyclists deaths we'd find there weren't any who died just from head injuries but I don't have the time or inclination to do that myself even if it were possible to get detailed coroner reports (I have no idea if it is).

On a slightly different statistical matter, re HGVs and deaths that I posted earlier, the figure (for 2011) was 53% of deaths and 4% of traffic in London, this is probably where the stat I'm thinking of comes from even if I've remembered it as a higher & and UK not London, but there's probably the same stat available for more recent years UK wide: Cyclists and HGVs | Cycle Law (edit: I thought this was a RoSPA link, too many tabs open, will possibly look for a better source as don't know this website and they aren't sourced)


----------



## hash tag (Nov 23, 2016)

You can't just sit in your car and get on with things in private without some bloody cyclist poking their nose in!

Driver 'using THREE mobile phones behind the wheel' near Elephant and Castle


----------



## nuffsaid (Nov 24, 2016)

As an answer to the original posted question - As a person that drives and does get annoyed at cyclists _when _they slow traffic down - let me enlighten you.

My annoyance isn't actually directed at the cyclist, but at either:
a. the idiot driving behind them at a snails pace thinking he/she can't overtake safely, when they quite obviously can.
b. car manufacturers that build cars wider today making it impossible for many car drivers to overtake a cyclist safely.

I've been driving since the early 80s and cyclists were never a problem back then as all us drivers easily passed by between cyclist and white lines as cars were narrower. I have a car that is able to fit in a garage on a house built in the 70s so I still have the luxury of whizzing by cyclists without the need to cross the centre line of roads, and so get annoyed when others can't, or think they have to give an entire lane to a cyclist when clearly you don't.

I will get annoyed though at the cyclist if they are of the type that feels they need to sit so far out of the kerb that even I have to cross the centre line to pass them - and especially when cyclists travel side by side which is against highway code rules.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 24, 2016)

Side by side is not a contravention of the HC. It may or may not be the best option as regards traffic wanting to overtake.

Having to cross the centre line is not in itself a big deal.

Your perspective of a safe overtake as viewed from behind is not necessarily the same as the driver trying to perform one, and their caution should be viewed as a positive, within reason.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 24, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> I will get annoyed though at the cyclist if they are of the type that feels they need to sit so far out of the kerb that even I have to cross the centre line to pass them - and especially when cyclists travel side by side which is against highway code rules.



The highway code allows cyclists to ride two abreast. It also allows cyclists to control a lane if necessary for their safety, which means riding in the cntre of the lane.

Reasons for controlling a lane include:
-improved visibility of cyclist 
-ability to turn right without cutting across traffic
-preventing drivers overtaking in the middle of a junction
-safer road surface

Cyclists in the middle of a lane are not holding you up. They can accelerate away from a junction faster than a motorist. Cyclists in London travel at an average of 8mph in urban traffic, which is double the speed of the average car in the same traffic. Cyclists are not holding you up, you are hoding them up.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Side by side is not a contravention of the HC. It may or may not be the best option as regards traffic wanting to overtake.
> 
> Having to cross the centre line is not in itself a big deal.
> 
> Your perspective of a safe overtake as viewed from behind is not necessarily the same as the driver trying to perform one, and their caution should be viewed as a positive, within reason.


"never ride more than two abreast" (rule 66)


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 24, 2016)

And the highway code requires all vehicles to pass cyclists with at least 1.5m clearance. On small urban roads this will necessitate crossing the centre line even if the cyclist is riding near to the kerb. If there's oncoming traffic, then you shouldn't be overtaking. You wouldn't overtake any other vehicle against oncoming traffic.

This is what many driver fail to understand. Cyclists do not have special rights (except as regards advanced stop boxes and other cycle-specific infrastructure) they have exactly the same rights as all other vehicles. This means they have every right to use an entire lane, and to use any road they want besides motorways. It's not special treatment of cyclists that drivers get angry about, it's the lack of special treatment for drivers.

e2a: And advanced stop boxes (driving into which at a red light is an offence incidentally) exist not because cyclists are slower than drivers, but because they're quicker. A typical cyclist is through the junction and gone before you've even found second gear.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 24, 2016)

Knowledge of the highway code in this country is very poor. Smugness about knowing the highway code however, inexplicably high.


----------



## nuffsaid (Nov 24, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> The highway code allows cyclists to ride two abreast. It also allows cyclists to control a lane if necessary for their safety, which means riding in the cntre of the lane.
> 
> 
> Cyclists in the middle of a lane are not holding you up. They can accelerate away from a junction faster than a motorist. Cyclists in London travel at an average of 8mph in urban traffic, which is double the speed of the average car in the same traffic. Cyclists are not holding you up, you are hoding them up.



They are when they are on just travelling along a road and NOT at a junction. As soon as a cyclist has moved off from a junction.....it holds traffic up - IF they are in a ridiculous chelsea tractor who can't get passed. I agree with you they don't hold me up, becuase I can whizz by without having to cross the centre line.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 24, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> They are when they are on just travelling along a road and NOT at a junction. As soon as a cyclist has moved off from a junction.....it holds traffic up - IF they are in a ridiculous chelsea tractor who can't get passed. I agree with you they don't hold me up, becuase I can whizz by without having to cross the centre line.



Even if they are holding you up, that doesn't change the highway code.


----------



## nuffsaid (Nov 24, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> The highway code allows cyclists to ride two abreast. It also allows cyclists to control a lane if necessary for their safety, which means riding in the cntre of the lane.
> 
> Reasons for controlling a lane include:
> -improved visibility of cyclist
> ...




Or how about when a group of cyclists (4 to be precise) actively blocked me from overtaking on an A-road by moving out as a group before coming up to a set of traffic lights to stop me getting passed to the green light and then actually insulted me and laughed for being able to stop me reaching the green light. Would that be a good reason to get annoyed at cyclists. It seemed to work.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> The highway code allows cyclists to ride two abreast. It also allows cyclists to control a lane if necessary for their safety, which means riding in the cntre of the lane.
> 
> Reasons for controlling a lane include:
> -improved visibility of cyclist
> ...


where's your 4 mph from?

You're Not Imagining It—London's Traffic Really Is Moving More Slowly

7.4 mph apparently, not 4.

back in the 1890s traffic in the centre of london could roar past at the heady rate of 10 or even 15 mph.


----------



## nuffsaid (Nov 24, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Even if they are holding you up, that doesn't change the highway code.


 
I'm just answering the original question. It's annoying, the op wanted to know why. Stopping people travelling at the speed they wish to within speed limits annoys people. It might not be safe, but it obviously annoys people.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> I'm just answering the original question. It's annoying, the op wanted to know why. Stopping people travelling at the speed they wish to within speed limits annoys people. It might not be safe, but it obviously annoys people.


yeh, i'm often irritated when cyclists dawdling along in the cycle lane retard the progress of the bus i'm on.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 24, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> As an answer to the original posted question - As a person that drives and does get annoyed at cyclists _when _they slow traffic down - let me enlighten you.
> 
> My annoyance isn't actually directed at the cyclist, but at either:
> a. the idiot driving behind them at a snails pace thinking he/she can't overtake safely, when they quite obviously can.
> ...


You need to read the highway code again.
If you are passing within the central white line, you are almost certainly passing too closely. Would you pass a car within the white line? You're supposed to give the same amount of room to cyclists as cars.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 24, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> I will get annoyed though at the cyclist if they are of the type that feels they need to sit so far out of the kerb that even I have to cross the centre line to pass them - and especially when cyclists travel side by side which is against highway code rules.


That's correct procedure! It's called taking the primary position. It's advised that cyclists do it. There are even bus stop posters saying so!


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 24, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> They are when they are on just travelling along a road and NOT at a junction. As soon as a cyclist has moved off from a junction.....it holds traffic up - IF they are in a ridiculous chelsea tractor who can't get passed. I agree with you they don't hold me up, becuase I can whizz by without having to cross the centre line.


You are driving dangerously then. I hope a copper pulls you up. This might even happen if you're in the West Midlands.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> That's correct procedure! It's called taking the primary position. It's advised that cyclists do it. There are even bus stop posters saying so!


yeh i have often seen people looking at them bemused while waiting for the bus


----------



## mauvais (Nov 24, 2016)

Also cars have only gone up in width by about 15% in 40 years, apparently. If your margin of error is a foot, you're doing it wrong.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 24, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh i have often seen people looking at them bemused while waiting for the bus


You mean yourself


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> You mean yourself


yes, i myself have seen people looking at them bemused while waiting for the bus. i. myself. i have seen people looking at these posters. i have seen other people too, looking at people looking at the posters. but in this instance i am talking of my own experience of seeing people looking bemused at these posters while waiting for the bus. i hope that clarifies things for you.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 24, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yes, i myself have seen people looking at them bemused while waiting for the bus. i. myself. i have seen people looking at these posters. i have seen other people too, looking at people looking at the posters. but in this instance i am talking of my own experience of seeing people looking bemused at these posters while waiting for the bus. i hope that clarifies things for you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> View attachment 96046


yeh. this has more of the desired effect when the poster using the image hasn't shown themselves to be baffled by who is meant by someone saying 'i have seen...'.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 24, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. this has more of the desired effect when the poster using the image hasn't shown themselves to be baffled by who is meant by someone saying 'i have seen...'.


I know what I meant and so do you.  You really are a tedious petty troll.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 24, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> I'm just answering the original question. It's annoying, the op wanted to know why. Stopping people travelling at the speed they wish to within speed limits annoys people. It might not be safe, but it obviously annoys people.



Traffic jams stop everyone travelling at the speed they wish to. Traffic jams do not consist of bicycles.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 24, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh, i'm often irritated when cyclists dawdling along in the cycle lane retard the progress of the bus i'm on.



Blame the genius who invented bus and cycle lanes.


----------



## nuffsaid (Nov 24, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Traffic jams stop everyone travelling at the speed they wish to. Traffic jams do not consist of bicycles.



The question wasn't about traffic jams, of course they are annoying, in the same way when a cyclist holds up traffic for the reasons I've already mentioned. Being held up is annoying, the reason doesn't matter.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 24, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> Or how about when a group of cyclists (4 to be precise) actively blocked me from overtaking on an A-road by moving out as a group before coming up to a set of traffic lights to stop me getting passed to the green light and then actually insulted me and laughed for being able to stop me reaching the green light. Would that be a good reason to get annoyed at cyclists. It seemed to work.



There are more than four cyclists in the country.

Get on a bike for a bit, and you'll soon have way more than one anecdote about cuntish driving. And unlike these rogue cyclists of yours, a large proportion of these incidents will involve genuine danger to your life.


----------



## nuffsaid (Nov 24, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> You need to read the highway code again.
> If you are passing within the central white line, you are almost certainly passing too closely. Would you pass a car within the white line? You're supposed to give the same amount of room to cyclists as cars.



Nope
Nope
and er....nope.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 24, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> The question wasn't about traffic jams, of course they are annoying, in the same way when a cyclist holds up traffic for the reasons I've already mentioned. Being held up is annoying, the reason doesn't matter.



Some advice for you:



Spoiler



Cope


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 24, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> Nope
> Nope
> and er....nope.



Safe passing distance for vulnerable road users is 1.5 metres minimum.


----------



## nuffsaid (Nov 24, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> There are more than four cyclists in the country.
> 
> Get on a bike for a bit, and you'll soon have way more than one anecdote about cuntish driving. And unlike these rogue cyclists of yours, a large proportion of these incidents will involve genuine danger to your life.



I used to cycle to school for several years, and also much later in life, quite recently, to work. I'd completely understand drivers thinking I was a pain in the ass and wouldn't care so long as I got to where I was going. 

I'm merely asnwering the initial question, don't moan if people answer it - you're not going to change my mind.


----------



## nuffsaid (Nov 24, 2016)

Separation of traffic is the best policy to deal with issues like this, the trouble is it's not viable to pay for a cycle path on every road in the land, I wish it was.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 24, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> I'm merely asnwering the initial question, don't moan if people answer it - you're not going to change my mind.



I'm not going to change your mind but I am going to annoy you. Which, as a cyclist, is what I live for.

What annoys me is cretins quoting fake rules from the highway code at me.


----------



## emanymton (Nov 24, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Cyclists do not have special rights


I wish more cyclist knew this.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 24, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> I'm merely asnwering the initial question, don't moan if people answer it - you're not going to change my mind.


OK, you can claim the right to get annoyed by a combination of an actual hindrance and your own duff behaviour. So what? Does any of it matter?


----------



## nuffsaid (Nov 24, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'm not going to change your mind but I am going to annoy you. Which, as a cyclist, is what I live for.



So there you are. You ask what annoys people about cyclists, when in actual fact you WANT to annoy people, well if you're cycling along in the joy at cycling in a manner that annoys people, I'd suggest that's quite dangerous for your well-being - up to you.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 24, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> Nope
> Nope
> and er....nope.


Not good enough. You are ignorant of good road sense.


----------



## nuffsaid (Nov 24, 2016)

Wel


Orang Utan said:


> Not good enough. You are ignorant of good road sense.


Well... I haven't hit a cyclist yet, if it ain't broke don't fix it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 24, 2016)

nuffsaid 
rule 163
Using the road (159 to 203) - The Highway Code - Guidance - GOV.UK
"give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car"


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 24, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> Wel
> 
> Well... I haven't hit a cyclist yet, if it ain't broke don't fix it.


That's a shit drunk driver's argument


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 24, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> Wel
> 
> Well... I haven't hit a cyclist yet, if it ain't broke don't fix it.



More by luck than judgement if your posts here are an accurate reflection of how you think drivers should behave around cyclists.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 24, 2016)

emanymton said:


> I wish more cyclist knew this.



You misunderstand. Having the same rights as anyone else means being entitled to control an entire lane of the highway. It entitles cyclists to take up as much space as they need to travel safely. Motorists aren't obliged to get out of everyone else's way all the time, neither are cyclists.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> I know what I meant and so do you.  You really are a tedious petty troll.








ou in his mind, tilting at his opponents


ou as he really is...


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 24, 2016)

Do one, Pooter


----------



## emanymton (Nov 24, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> You misunderstand. Having the same rights as anyone else means being entitled to control an entire lane of the highway. It entitles cyclists to take up as much space as they need to travel safely. Motorists aren't obliged to get out of everyone else's way all the time, neither are cyclists.


No I didn't. I am a pavement user not a road user and dont really care how much space cyclist take up on the road, at least they are on the road. Cyclists not having special rights meen they do have to stop at red lights, and should not be on the pavement. something many cyclists seem to struggle with. A lot of cyclists seem to want the best of both worlds. To be considered a vehicle when it is to their advantage and then be considered a pedestrian when that is to their advangate. I'm sorry, but if you want to be considered a pedestrian, get of the bike and walk with it. DO NOT ride at speed along the pavement, yelling at pedestrians for getting in your way.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> Do one, Pooter


the only insect or invertebrate i seem to have collected is you


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 24, 2016)

emanymton said:


> No I didn't. I am a pavement user not a road user and dont really care how much space cyclist take up on the road, at least they are on the road. Cyclists not having special rights meen they do have to stop at red lights, and should not be on the pavement. something many cyclists seem to struggle with. A lot of cyclists seem to want the best of both worlds. To be considered a vehicle when it is to their advantage and then be considered a pedestrian when that is to their advangate. I'm sorry, but if you want to be considered a pedestrian, get of the bike and walk with it. DO NOT ride at speed along the pavement, yelling at pedestrians for getting in your way.



Whilst I won't defend cycling on the pavement there are a lot of ill thought out and poorly marked mixed use paths around. There's one round the corner from me that is marked on one side of the street, then you're directed to a mixed use crossing, then there's no further information on the other side of the road. So people cycle on that pavement because they've sort of been told to, and because swerving back onto the road is dangerous. But I still have no idea if it's supposed to be a mixed use path or not.

And then there's my favourite subject: parking on the pavement. Driving on the pavement is illegal, and far more dangerous than cycling on the pavement. And yet in some places everyone parks on the pavement as a matter of course. While the laws on the subject are vague, the law about driving on the pavement is not. A car parked on the pavement should be conclusive evidence of the driver having committed the offence of driving on the pavement. And yet every day I see the local PCSO busybody strolling happily past dozens if not hundreds of cars on the pavement, including many parked in such a way that a single pedestrian couldn't pass, never mind a pushchair or wheelchair user.

So yeah, people should not be cycling on pavements. But there are mixed signals about what's acceptable, both from dubious cycle infrastructure and from the general culture, led by motorists and facillitated by lack of enforcement, of using pavements as an informal extra bit of highway.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Whilst I won't defend cycling on the pavement there are a lot of ill thought out and poorly marked mixed use paths around. There's one round the corner from me that is marked on one side of the street, then you're directed to a mixed use crossing, then there's no further information on the other side of the road. So people cycle on that pavement because they've sort of been told to, and because swerving back onto the road is dangerous. But I still have no idea if it's supposed to be a mixed use path or not.
> 
> And then there's my favourite subject: parking on the pavement. Driving on the pavement is illegal, and far more dangerous than cycling on the pavement. And yet in some places everyone parks on the pavement as a matter of course. While the laws on the subject are vague, the law about driving on the pavement is not. A car parked on the pavement should be conclusive evidence of the driver having committed the offence of driving on the pavement. And yet every day I see the local PCSO busybody strolling happily past dozens if not hundreds of cars on the pavement, including many parked in such a way that a single pedestrian couldn't pass, never mind a pushchair or wheelchair user.
> 
> So yeah, people should not be cycling on pavements. But there are mixed signals about what's acceptable, both from dubious cycle infrastructure and from the general culture, led by motorists and facillitated by lack of enforcement, of using pavements as an informal extra bit of highway.


not that fucking busy a body then


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 24, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> not that fucking busy a body then



They're mostly busy telling people to take their wheelie bins in, and then being told to fuck off.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 24, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> They can accelerate away from a junction faster than a motorist.





SpookyFrank said:


> A typical cyclist is through the junction and gone before you've even found second gear.



My arse!

Chris Hoy might manage it (for about 3 meters on a good day) but by the time your average London evilist has woken-up, noticed the light's green, mounted his contraption, wobbled a bit, and got moving, you could have put an articulated convoy through the fucking junction!


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> My arse!
> 
> Chris Hoy might manage it (for about 3 meters on a good day) but by the time your average London evilist has woken-up, noticed the light's green, mounted his contraption, wobbled a bit, and got moving, you could have put an articulated convoy through the fucking junction!


still waiting for SpookyFrank to show where his 4 mph comes from.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 24, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> still waiting for SpookyFrank to show where his 4 mph comes from.



From the course I took to train as a cycling instrutor. 4mph is rush hour speeds IIRC.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> From the course I took to train as a cycling instrutor. 4mph is rush hour speeds IIRC.


and when did you take this course?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> From the course I took to train as a cycling instrutor. 4mph is rush hour speeds IIRC.


in one or two places perhaps but not generally see e.g. Are you driving the Road to Hell?


----------



## mauvais (Nov 24, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> My arse!
> 
> Chris Hoy might manage it (for about 3 meters on a good day) but by the time your average London evilist has woken-up, noticed the light's green, mounted his contraption, wobbled a bit, and got moving, you could have put an articulated convoy through the fucking junction!


I used to regularly out-accelerate cars. If you were up against someone trying to do their car's 0-60 time, then perhaps not, but most of the time it was easy.


----------



## nuffsaid (Nov 24, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> nuffsaid
> rule 163
> Using the road (159 to 203) - The Highway Code - Guidance - GOV.UK
> "give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car"



Ah yes, horses, now for them (the ones with riders on at least) I do indeed slow down and give a wide birth, crossing fully into the oncoming lane when it's clear. Where I live I can quite regularly come across horse riders of a Sunday afternoon, I'm in no rush and it's quite nice to be reminded of the rural aspect of my location, clippity-clop.

Thankfully they have the sense not to be out on the same roads at rush-hour midweek.

Motorcyclists always seem to be in a hurry to overtake me and why not indeed, that's up to them, so long as my wing mirrors remain intact.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 24, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> Ah yes, horses, now for them (the ones with riders on at least) I do indeed slow down and give a wide birth, crossing fully into the oncoming lane when it's clear. Where I live I can quite regularly come across horse riders of a Sunday afternoon, I'm in no rush and it's quite nice to be reminded of the rural aspect of my location, clippity-clop.
> 
> Thankfully they have the sense not to be out on the same roads at rush-hour midweek.
> 
> Motorcyclists always seem to be in a hurry to overtake me and why not indeed, that's up to them, so long as my wing mirrors remain intact.


People do not tend to commute on horses, but they do on bikes. You need to consider them too.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 24, 2016)

mauvais said:


> I used to regularly out-accelerate cars. If you were up against someone trying to do their car's 0-60 time, then perhaps not, but most of the time it was easy.


You perhaps did it for a few meters when the drivers weren't trying to tear away and you were. An athlete can out-accelerate a Gallardo (and a cyclist) on foot out of the blocks for about a meter but it goes downhill very rapidly after that. It's pretty simple physics. This nonsense that you're average evilist can be across a junction and away "before the driver's found 2nd gear" (most cars would be ahead of the cycle in 1st anyway) is utter tosh though.


----------



## nuffsaid (Nov 24, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> People do not tend to commute on horses, but they do on bikes. You need to consider them too.



I refer you to my earliest post on this as to why cyclists may be annoying - cars being too wide or nervous drivers not using common sense being the prime reasons, not necessarily the cyclist themselves - unless like SpookyFrank they actually cycle in a manner to purposely annoy drivers. Then of course they will be....annoying.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 24, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> You perhaps did it for a few meters when the drivers weren't trying to tear away and you were.


Nope. I had to pay attention and put a bit of effort in, but not a massive amount. You can get up to 15-20mph very quickly, which is often the speed of traffic anywhere urban.

I dunno about the average. Depends where you are. Lots of lycra-clad commuters doing the same thing. Casual & leisure cyclists, definitely not.


----------



## andysays (Nov 24, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> ...ou in his mind, tilting at his opponents...



More like


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 24, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> I refer you to my earliest post on this as to why cyclists may be annoying - cars being too wide or nervous drivers not using common sense being the prime reasons, not necessarily the cyclist themselves - unless like SpookyFrank they actually cycle in a manner to purposely annoy drivers. Then of course they will be....annoying.


it's not nervous drivers not using common sense - you're the one in the wrong here - you've admitted violating the highway coder. sort it out.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 24, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Nope. I had to pay attention and put a bit of effort in, but not a massive amount. You can get up to 15-20mph very quickly, which is often the speed of traffic anywhere urban.


But that suggests that the car is impeded by the traffic in front (which would also prevent the cyclists progress).

Let's put it to the test! If you can beat me across a clear junction of reasonable size, I'll buy you beer for a month. If I win you buy me beer for a week?  

No way ho-fucking-zay, will you do it!


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 24, 2016)

If your car is slower across a clear junction than a bike I'd be looking at getting a better car


----------



## T & P (Nov 24, 2016)

Re which method is speedier. There's all sorts of different situations innit. As a cyclist I invariably beat cars from Hyde Park Corner to Piccadilly Circus at any given time between 8 am and 10 pm, all while adhering to the Highway Code. Which is not surprising due to the sheer volumes of traffic in Central London. 

As a driver however I will beat the any cyclists I might encounter when travelling home from Chelsea to South London, unless it is a very bad day or there's been an accident/ roadworks. But then, if I get held up behind one, I'm happy to wait until I can overtake safely and giving shit loads of space. Overtaking leaving a foot's gap is a cunt's trick, no matter how proficient the driver might be.

My only gripe, both as a driver and a cyclist actually, is the extremely slow cyclists one encounters from time to time, usually Boris bikers pissing about or people who are apparently so unfit they seem incapable of cycling above 7 mph. I can understand If not condone drivers who get impatient if they find themselves behind such slow moving traffic, and end up overtaking at the first opportunity and with little clearance.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 24, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> But that suggests that the car is impeded by the traffic in front (which would also prevent the cyclists progress).
> 
> Let's put it to the test! If you can beat me across a clear junction of reasonable size, I'll buy you beer for a month. If I win you buy me beer for a week?
> 
> No way ho-fucking-zay, will you do it!


Of course not, because you will be trying, whereas most motorists are decidedly not. Also I'm fat and slow now.

And no, it suggests neither tbh - because one, you can filter through traffic on a bike, and two, most normal drivers don't accelerate hard towards slower moving traffic and then slow again. They gently accelerate to match the speed of traffic.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2016)

andysays said:


> More like
> 
> View attachment 96053


Yeh but on a unicycle with a clown wig on


----------



## andysays (Nov 24, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh but on a unicycle with a clown wig on



I tried a google image search for that, but the above was the closest I could find


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2016)

andysays said:


> More like
> 
> View attachment 96053


Typical cyclist, cycling without due care or attention - note hands off handlebars


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> it's not nervous drivers not using common sense - you're the one in the wrong here - you've admitted violating the highway coder. sort it out.


(((Highway coder)))


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 24, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Of course not, because you will be trying, whereas most motorists are decidedly not.Also I'm fat and slow now.
> 
> And no, it suggests neither tbh - because one, you can filter through traffic on a bike, and two, most normal drivers don't accelerate hard towards slower moving traffic and then slow again. They gently accelerate to match the speed of traffic.


Well that's my point. The scenario is hypothetical. You can out-accelerate a car, over a short distance, or in circumstances which completely favour you.

Spookyfrank was suggesting that bikes don't impede cars across junctions which is plain pish.

In the real world, as you will know, if you are behind evilists in an ASB, you have to hold off the accelerator for fucking ages until they've moved aside and you can pass them. I've no particular problem with this, btw, but this notion that bikes are away at junctions significantly quicker than cars, in reality, is utter bollocks.


----------



## nuffsaid (Nov 24, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> it's not nervous drivers not using common sense - you're the one in the wrong here - you've admitted violating the highway coder. sort it out.



Toot! toot!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 24, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> I refer you to my earliest post on this as to why cyclists may be annoying - cars being too wide or nervous drivers not using common sense being the prime reasons, not necessarily the cyclist themselves - unless like SpookyFrank they actually cycle in a manner to purposely annoy drivers. Then of course they will be....annoying.



I didn't say I cycle to annoy people, I said I cycle to annoy _you_. We all do, everyone who owns a bike. That's how important you are.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Nov 24, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> My arse!
> 
> Chris Hoy might manage it (for about 3 meters on a good day) but by the time your average London evilist has woken-up, noticed the light's green, mounted his contraption, wobbled a bit, and got moving, you could have put an articulated convoy through the fucking junction!


You're not factoring in the time it takes for the average motorist to : Stop thinking about his boss's secretary, put down his phone after texting some bantz and stop looking for that Phil Collins track before gets to move that 10ft and be stuck in another jam.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 24, 2016)

sleaterkinney said:


> You're not factoring in the time it takes for the average motorist to : Stop thinking about his boss's secretary, put down his phone after texting some bantz and stop looking for that Phil Collins track ...


... and, in my case, put the whisky bottle down.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 24, 2016)

Anyway, I bought a bike yesterday and haven't been a twat to a single person any more than usual yet.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 24, 2016)

Spymaster said:


> Well that's my point. The scenario is hypothetical. You can out-accelerate a car under circumstnces which completely favour you.


No, normal circumstances favour me. Normal circumstances means bored, probably texting drivers not out to destroy their clutch, and cyclists who can put all their weight straight into the drivetrain and go. I know that it doesn't stack up very well on paper, but that was my experience of bike commuting every day for about five years.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 24, 2016)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Anyway, I bought a bike yesterday and haven't been a twat to a single person any more than usual yet.


What's the baseline though?


----------



## emanymton (Nov 24, 2016)

SpookyFrank said:


> Whilst I won't defend cycling on the pavement there are a lot of ill thought out and poorly marked mixed use paths around. There's one round the corner from me that is marked on one side of the street, then you're directed to a mixed use crossing, then there's no further information on the other side of the road. So people cycle on that pavement because they've sort of been told to, and because swerving back onto the road is dangerous. But I still have no idea if it's supposed to be a mixed use path or not.
> 
> And then there's my favourite subject: parking on the pavement. Driving on the pavement is illegal, and far more dangerous than cycling on the pavement. And yet in some places everyone parks on the pavement as a matter of course. While the laws on the subject are vague, the law about driving on the pavement is not. A car parked on the pavement should be conclusive evidence of the driver having committed the offence of driving on the pavement. And yet every day I see the local PCSO busybody strolling happily past dozens if not hundreds of cars on the pavement, including many parked in such a way that a single pedestrian couldn't pass, never mind a pushchair or wheelchair user.
> 
> So yeah, people should not be cycling on pavements. But there are mixed signals about what's acceptable, both from dubious cycle infrastructure and from the general culture, led by motorists and facillitated by lack of enforcement, of using pavements as an informal extra bit of highway.


I don't disagree with any of that. pavement parking is a bugbear of mine as well. 

If i can barely squezze past their tank of a car then how are people with pushchars, or in wheelchairs supossed to manage it? Selfish fucking fuckers.

But, but, none of that excuses shitty cyclists.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2016)

mauvais said:


> No, normal circumstances favour me. Normal circumstances means bored, probably texting drivers not out to destroy their clutch, and cyclists who can put all their weight straight into the drivetrain and go. I know that it doesn't stack up very well on paper, but that was my experience of bike commuting every day for about five years.


That's another thing about cyclists, I often see them riding along on the phone or texting


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 24, 2016)

And another thing. that Richard Hammond - *hamster* as you may know him - rides a bike and he is a twat of some standing.

case closed


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2016)

not-bono-ever said:


> And another thing. that Richard Hammond - *hamster* as you may know him - rides a bike and he is a twat of some standing.
> 
> case closed


Does Cliff Richard cycle?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 24, 2016)

mauvais said:


> No, normal circumstances favour me. Normal circumstances means bored, probably texting drivers not out to destroy their clutch, and cyclists who can put all their weight straight into the drivetrain and go. I know that it doesn't stack up very well on paper, but that was my experience of bike commuting every day for about five years.



My car's automatic, so just push the right foot down and blat past the lycra-loons.

Will take on Spy's bet and bet you I'd beat you over 1/2 a junction...


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2016)

Branson a cyclist I see


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> My car's automatic, so just push the right foot down and blat past the lycra-loons.
> 
> Will take on Spy's bet and bet you I'd beat you over 1/2 a junction...


Why stop there


----------



## mauvais (Nov 24, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> My car's automatic, so just push the right foot down and blat past the lycra-loons.
> 
> Will take on Spy's bet and bet you I'd beat you over 1/2 a junction...


Are you the average driver in the average car? You've let yourself go.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Are you the average driver in the average car? You've let yourself go.


I hope you're not the average cyclist


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 24, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Are you the average driver in the average car? You've let yourself go.



I live in Surrey, a 330bhp Audi is fairly average round here...


----------



## mauvais (Nov 24, 2016)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I live in Surrey, a 330bhp Audi is fairly average round here...


Well, there is that. I won't go bicycle drag racing in Surrey.

_"I live my life a quarter foot at a time"_


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 24, 2016)

nuffsaid said:


> Ah yes, horses, now for them (the ones with riders on at least) I do indeed slow down and give a wide birth, crossing fully into the oncoming lane when it's clear. Where I live I can quite regularly come across horse riders of a Sunday afternoon, I'm in no rush and it's quite nice to be reminded of the rural aspect of my location, clippity-clop.
> 
> Thankfully they have the sense not to be out on the same roads at rush-hour midweek.
> 
> Motorcyclists always seem to be in a hurry to overtake me and why not indeed, that's up to them, so long as my wing mirrors remain intact.



One of the reasons why it's far safer to ride well out into the road is precisely because of people who slide past in the smallest gap, rather than overtaking.

Often you need to swerve to avoid pot holes, it's never good to swerve into the road so the gap gives you wiggle room.  Or drivers will swerve in front of you too soon - if you have a gap then you can use it.  No gap and you are crushed.

Good road positioning also helps for you to be seen.  

Taking space on the road must be the most important measure a cyclist can take for protecting their own safety.  If anyone feels like telling cyclists how to be safer on the road I'd say cycling well out from the gutter is much more important than, for example, wearing high viz.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 24, 2016)

spymaster is the ronnie pickering of this thread


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 24, 2016)

fredfelt said:


> One of the reasons why it's far safer to ride well out into the road is precisely because of people who slide past in the smallest gap, rather than overtaking.
> 
> Often you need to swerve to avoid pot holes, it's never good to swerve into the road so the gap gives you wiggle room.  Or drivers will swerve in front of you too soon - if you have a gap then you can use it.  No gap and you are crushed.
> 
> ...


This is something motorists don't seem to be educated about.
Cyclists ride far out in primary in order to prevent dangerous overtaking. They merely wish to stay alive. They're not being awkward dicks. 
If arrogant berks like nuffsaid insist on passing in the same lane, what choice do we have?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 24, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


> Does Cliff Richard cycle?



25 seconds into this clip and he tries to wipe out The Shadows on their bikes


----------



## fredfelt (Nov 24, 2016)

Orang Utan said:


> This is something motorists don't seem to be educated about.
> Cyclists ride far out in primary in order to prevent dangerous overtaking. They merely wish to stay alive. They're not being awkward dicks.
> If arrogant berks like nuffsaid insist on passing in the same lane, what choice do we have?



A choice I often make is to be very wary of narrow, on road cycle lanes.  They are often narrower than your handlebars, yet if you cycle in them cars often go past without giving any space, thinking that the lane in wide enough.

Cyclists, be safe and make sure you avoid cycle lanes.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Nov 24, 2016)

mauvais said:


> What's the baseline though?


Pretty fucking low tbh


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 24, 2016)

fredfelt said:


> A choice I often make is to be very wary of narrow, on road cycle lanes.  They are often narrower than your handlebars, yet if you cycle in them cars often go past without giving any space, thinking that the lane in wide enough.
> 
> Cyclists, be safe and make sure you avoid cycle lanes.


I nearly always take the centre of the lane or even centre right, even if there is a cycle lane. Sometimes even if there's a special cycle path as they are sometimes poorly maintained and/or too slow, full, or have pedestrians wandering into them.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Dec 2, 2016)

Another death on the roads 

Cyclist dies after hit-and-run crash in north-east London



> A cyclist who was seriously injured in a suspected hit-and-run in north-east London has died.
> 
> The victim, a man in his 40s, was on his way to work when he was hit by what police believe was a small lorry at about 4.15am on Thursday.
> 
> ...


----------



## Santino (Dec 2, 2016)

Can't remember the details but I'm fairly sure I saw a cyclist doing something vaguely objectionable the other day.


----------



## Teaboy (Dec 2, 2016)

Saw a cyclist being knocked of her bike the other day in central london.  It was by a pedestrian crossing the road. London is a battlefield.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 3, 2016)

Teaboy said:


> Saw a cyclist being knocked of her bike the other day in central london.  It was by a pedestrian crossing the road. London is a battlefield.


Obviously the cyclists fault.


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 10, 2016)

Teaboy said:


> Saw a cyclist being knocked of her bike the other day in central london.  It was by a pedestrian crossing the road. London is a battlefield.



I saw the same a couple of weeks ago at Finsbury Square - pedestrians flooding across the road at a crossing despite the lights not having changed - I guess a few started to cross thinking they'd avoid or wait for the bike to pass, and another dozen or so just followed them lemming style without looking. Low-speed so don't think she was hurt, but still.


----------



## hash tag (Jan 18, 2017)

My other half was walking to work at the Elephant and Castle yesterday. She saw a cyclist (lycra lout), cycling at speed on the pavement, clip a kerb and went flying over his handlebars.
She went over to him to make sure he was ok, see if he needed first aid etc. and he told her in no uncertain terms where to go.
I know his pride was dented and embarrassed but really, there was no need for that. A curt NO would have sufficed.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 18, 2017)

hash tag said:


> My other half was walking to work at the Elephant and Castle yesterday. She saw a cyclist (lycra lout), cycling at speed on the pavement, clip a kerb and went flying over his handlebars.
> She went over to him to make sure he was ok, see if he needed first aid etc. and he told her in no uncertain terms where to go.
> I know his pride was dented and embarrassed but really, there was no need for that. A curt NO would have sufficed.


The vast majority of cyclists behave in a similar way. They are violent, abusive, thugs.

She should have kicked his spokes in.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 18, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> I saw the same a couple of weeks ago at Finsbury Square - pedestrians flooding across the road at a crossing despite the lights not having changed - I guess a few started to cross thinking they'd avoid or wait for the bike to pass, and another dozen or so just followed them lemming style without looking. Low-speed so don't think she was hurt, but still.


if it was low speed she could of course have halted.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> The vast majority of cyclists behave in a similar way. They are violent, abusive, thugs.
> 
> She should have kicked his spokes in.




By 'spokes' you mean, 'teeth'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 18, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> By 'spokes' you mean, 'teeth'.


pa meant spokes, but i wouldn't be surprised if he'd go back for afters.


----------



## hash tag (Jan 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> The vast majority of cyclists behave in a similar way. They are violent, abusive, thugs.
> 
> She should have kicked his spokes in.



Don't mess with an angry lycra lout!


----------



## Santino (Jan 18, 2017)

There's a woman who regularly ignores the red lights (when all traffic is stopped to allow pedestrians to cross) in order to cross a junction near where I live, with two children following on smaller bicycles. I would like to gently remonstrate with this woman but I don't want to swear in front of the kids.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 18, 2017)

Santino said:


> There's a woman who regularly ignores the red lights (when all traffic is stopped to allow pedestrians to cross) in order to cross a junction near where I live, with two children following on smaller bicycles. I would like to gently remonstrate with this woman but I don't want to swear in front of the kids.


there's a choice. allow them to hear swearing now or see or suffer a great gaping injury later. which would you consider better/less bad?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 18, 2017)

Santino said:


> There's a woman who regularly ignores the red lights (when all traffic is stopped to allow pedestrians to cross) in order to cross a junction near where I live, with two children following on smaller bicycles. I would like to gently remonstrate with this woman but I don't want to swear in front of the kids.


Call social services. Some people shouldn't be allowed to have charge of children. There's somethng about cycling that causes people to become instant fuckwits. This woman should be on a register.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Call social services. Some people shouldn't be allowed to have charge of children. There's somethng about cycling that causes people to become instant fuckwits. This woman should be on a register.


yeh before she's on a stretcher


----------



## fredfelt (Jan 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> The vast majority of cyclists behave in a similar way. They are violent, abusive, thugs.
> 
> She should have kicked his spokes in.



I'd suggest that only those who are inclined to thuggish behaviour would attack the vehicle of someone who's just been thrown to the floor in a crash.  Even if the crash is entirely their own fault, and they are behaving like a cock.

In day to day life, especially when travelling which can bring the worst out in some people, manners go a long way - if only to avoid getting into fights with other idiots.


----------



## Sea Star (Jan 18, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> I saw the same a couple of weeks ago at Finsbury Square - pedestrians flooding across the road at a crossing despite the lights not having changed - I guess a few started to cross thinking they'd avoid or wait for the bike to pass, and another dozen or so just followed them lemming style without looking. Low-speed so don't think she was hurt, but still.


i still have a scar on my face from some guy who jumped off a moving bus, saw me managing to just avoid him and decided to attack. I spent the next three hours in A&E and had to have my lip sewn up. He legged it.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 19, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> I saw the same a couple of weeks ago at Finsbury Square - pedestrians flooding across the road at a crossing despite the lights not having changed - I guess a few started to cross thinking they'd avoid or wait for the bike to pass, and another dozen or so just followed them lemming style without looking. Low-speed so don't think she was hurt, but still.


I've seen the same when I have been in London. But I've also noticed that car drivers in this situation stop. But cyclists, they are in the right so they just plow on into the crowd. 

Cyclists seem to get hung up on what is right or wrong instead of what is safe or sensible. The fact that the pedestrians are wrong to be crossing, doesn't make it safe to try and weave through at high speed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 19, 2017)

There I was on the pavement yesterday minding my own business when a cyclist ploughed into me. When I remonstrated with them they said they had no brakes so they weren't on the road  so pedestrians had to put up with their incompetent fuck-knucklery  what have people got against cyclists? Only that so many of them are useless oxygen thief wankers


----------



## Sue (Jan 19, 2017)

Was waiting for the green man to come on the other day. A cyclist approaching pretty fast saw the lights change, slowed down and stopped.

The cyclist behind had no intention of stopping and it obviously hadn't even crossed her mind that the cyclist in front would stop so she went straight into the back of the first cyclist at speed and they both ended up on the ground.

Felt sorry for the first cyclist who hit the ground pretty hard.

Something I don't get though. Is it not a bit dangerous for a cyclist to go through a red light on a minor road that's perpendicular to a busy main road? Surely they can't really see what's coming?


----------



## Sue (Jan 19, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> There I was on the pavement yesterday minding my own business when a cyclist ploughed into me. When I remonstrated with them they said they had no brakes so they weren't on the road  so pedestrians had to put up with their incompetent fuck-knucklery  what have people got against cyclists? Only that so many of them are useless oxygen thief wankers



 I've had the 'I'm cycling on the pavement because it's too dangerous to cycle on the road' conversation too. 

When I've suggested they need to find a route they're more comfortable with or maybe they should consider another mode of transport, it's been met with incomprehension.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jan 19, 2017)

emanymton said:


> I've seen the same when I have been in London. But I've also noticed that car drivers in this situation stop. But cyclists, they are in the right so they just plow on into the crowd.
> 
> Cyclists seem to get hung up on what is right or wrong instead of what is safe or sensible. The fact that the pedestrians are wrong to be crossing, doesn't make it safe to try and weave through at high speed.




From the perspective of someone who thinks cycling in central London is insane I have to point out if you waited for Pedestrians and erred on the side of safety when it came to them crossing the road when they shouldn't, you'd probably get across London in about 3 days... 

Most people walking across the roads in London do not give a fuck and frequently don't give a shit about the cyclist, or car, coming towards them.


----------



## spanglechick (Jan 19, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> From the perspective of someone who thinks cycling in central London is insane I have to point out if you waited for Pedestrians and erred on the side of safety when it came to them crossing the road when they shouldn't, you'd probably get across London in about 3 days...
> 
> Most people walking across the roads in London do not give a fuck and frequently don't give a shit about the cyclist, or car, coming towards them.


Yet cars manage to wait for pedestrians wandering into the road.  And still get where they're going.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jan 19, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> Yet cars manage to wait for pedestrians wandering into the road.  And still get where they're going.



It helps that less people walk in front of cars.


I come out of bank station on a regular basis, one of the side streets is regularly filled with people happily walking in front of bikes, but thankfully less of them do so to cars.


----------



## Rebelda (Jan 19, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> Yet cars manage to wait for pedestrians wandering into the road.  And still get where they're going.


Pedestrians can hear cars and spot them more easily peripherally. I stop for pedestrian crossings, red lights etc. essentially I ride my bike as if it's a car and get across London fine, but people do often step into the road/my path without seemingly looking first. I've had some near misses and some crashes into people just walking out. I use my bell a lot now, or shout, which I know irritates people but when someone looks like they're about to step into the road I'd rather they knew I was there. 

I've made some mistakes too. I used to get so cross with road users doing stupid things, but in London there's so many of us that if you account for most people not being bad drivers/cyclists/pedestrians but occasionally making mistakes, that's a lot of mistakes per day.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 19, 2017)

Rebelda said:


> Pedestrians can hear cars and spot them more easily peripherally. I stop for pedestrian crossings, red lights etc. essentially I ride my bike as if it's a car and get across London fine, but people do often step into the road/my path without seemingly looking first. I've had some near misses and some crashes into people just walking out. I use my bell a lot now, or shout, which I know irritates people but when someone looks like they're about to step into the road I'd rather they knew I was there.
> 
> I've made some mistakes too. I used to get so cross with road users doing stupid things, but in London there's so many of us that if you account for most people not being bad drivers/cyclists/pedestrians but occasionally making mistakes, that's a lot of mistakes per day.



This is absolutely true.  I had a car with a hybrid engine for a bit and at low speed it ran on the battery making no engine noise.  I quickly realised just how much we all rely on our ears when crossing the road.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 19, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> From the perspective of someone who thinks cycling in central London is insane I have to point out if you waited for Pedestrians and erred on the side of safety when it came to them crossing the road when they shouldn't, you'd probably get across London in about 3 days...
> 
> Most people walking across the roads in London do not give a fuck and frequently don't give a shit about the cyclist, or car, coming towards them.


Yeah but one of the advantages of it bike is its possible to get through at a safe speed. You can even get of and walk with it if you have to.


----------



## denniseagle (Jan 20, 2017)

I was on the Cheltenham Park and Ride bus this morning , on part of its journey into Cheltenham the road has a dedicated bus lane.This bus lane runs alongside a wide pavement which is split 50/50 cycle lane /footpath.Both are very clearly signposted, this didn't however mean anything to the young guy on his pushbike who rode in the centre of the BUS lane for the entire length of the dedicated lane, when he reached the end of the BUS lane he then  mounted the pavement and proceeded to cycle quite happily away using the cycle lane.
I am at a loss to try and understand his action or frankly the actions of other cyclists who refuse to use cycle lanes but would rather risk life and limb mixing with all manner of motor vehicles.Fair play to the bus driver he sat a good 30' back from the guy on the bike and matched his speed (just a bit faster than walking speed tbh) so it could be a regular occurance  on this stretch of road and the driver was used to or expecting it.


----------



## T & P (Jan 21, 2017)

In the last few days I've witnessed a number of bad instances of undertaking. And not by insecure/ inexperienced riders, but by experienced but cocksure types. I actually reckon the various campaigns/ stories in the media about the dangers of undertaking lorries have had an effect and cyclists on the whole are far more aware of the dangers than we were only a couple of years ago, even if fatal incidents are still happening.

But in the last three days I've seen a couple of bad ones. Yesterday a cyclist undertook me at a junction after the lights had gone green and as I had been indicating to turn left and had indeed starting to turn. He was actually pushing pedal like mad in his effort to overtake me, and I had to brake not to hit him. He'd clearly intended to jump the traffic lights, which were still red, and when they changed he decided he couldn't give a fuck to slow down and risked it.

And today I saw another undertake a moving lorry on a narrow road that was pulling away after a pedestrian crossing had caused traffic to momentarily stop, squeezing through a gap of literally 50 cm in the process. It gave me the fucking jitters. That the traffic was already rolling and yet he put so much effort in undertaking the already accelerating lorry so he could get just in front and then inevitably prevent the lorry to overtake him for the next half mile led me to believe the cyclist had some point to make. But that he'd risk his life in such manner in the first place left me speechless.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 21, 2017)

denniseagle said:


> I was on the Cheltenham Park and Ride bus this morning , on part of its journey into Cheltenham the road has a dedicated bus lane.This bus lane runs alongside a wide pavement which is split 50/50 cycle lane /footpath.Both are very clearly signposted, this didn't however mean anything to the young guy on his pushbike who rode in the centre of the BUS lane for the entire length of the dedicated lane, when he reached the end of the BUS lane he then  mounted the pavement and proceeded to cycle quite happily away using the cycle lane.
> I am at a loss to try and understand his action or frankly the actions of other cyclists who refuse to use cycle lanes but would rather risk life and limb mixing with all manner of motor vehicles.Fair play to the bus driver he sat a good 30' back from the guy on the bike and matched his speed (just a bit faster than walking speed tbh) so it could be a regular occurance  on this stretch of road and the driver was used to or expecting it.



Generally speaking, cyclists choose not to use shared pavements because they are slow and frustrating. 5-10mph on the pavement, slower if it's busy with people, kids, dogs, pedestrians wandering into the cycle part of split pavements, stopping at every side road to give way (and in somee cases with give ways marked to entrances to driveways as well!). Compared to the road where you can go 20-25mph without causing danger to pedestrians and have priority over side roads, plenty of cyclists choose the road.

If it's a regular occurrence here then there's a lot of cyclists who choose the danger of the road over the shared pavement, which probably means there's a good reason not to use the pavement, there's plenty of pavements that are really not suitable for shared spaces but have been designated as such by council's looking to meet targets for cycling infrastructure provision. Shouldn't be in the bus lane unless specified to be allowed there obviously (which round here cyclists and taxis are always allowed in bus lanes).

Painted cycle lanes are usually avoided because they are actively dangerous. Potholes never get filled in as quickly, glass, leaves and other debris gets pushed there and the lanes themselves legitimise, even direct, drivers to pass too close (by simply staying in lane), put you in a less visible position at side roads and direct you to filter past large vehicles on the inside (a particular issue with ASL filter-in lanes at junctions). Use with caution imo, I'm happy on shared pavements cos I'm never getting much over 10mph anyway and I'm not usually in any rush, I avoid a handful that are actively dangerous and don't use pavements at all if I am in a rush though.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jan 21, 2017)

A guy riding his bike though Borough market at 1pm on a Friday. Incase people arent aware you can barely walk through it at the best of times.



This is why we can't have nice things.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 21, 2017)

I've learnt very quickly why a lot of people avoid cycle lanes - they're slow and shit.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 21, 2017)

I'm also getting the hang of riding smack bang in the middle of the road when I think it isn't safe for cars to try and pass me. As soon as it's clear I pull back over and let them go by.

Been called a wanker a couple of times now, I feel like I've joined a special club


----------



## fredfelt (Jan 21, 2017)

denniseagle said:


> I was on the Cheltenham Park and Ride bus this morning , on part of its journey into Cheltenham the road has a dedicated bus lane.This bus lane runs alongside a wide pavement which is split 50/50 cycle lane /footpath.Both are very clearly signposted, this didn't however mean anything to the young guy on his pushbike who rode in the centre of the BUS lane for the entire length of the dedicated lane, when he reached the end of the BUS lane he then  mounted the pavement and proceeded to cycle quite happily away using the cycle lane.
> I am at a loss to try and understand his action or frankly the actions of other cyclists who refuse to use cycle lanes but would rather risk life and limb mixing with all manner of motor vehicles.Fair play to the bus driver he sat a good 30' back from the guy on the bike and matched his speed (just a bit faster than walking speed tbh) so it could be a regular occurance  on this stretch of road and the driver was used to or expecting it.



It was on a frosty morning a few years ago a former partner was spat on for having the audacity of choosing to cycle on the road, as opposed to using an ungritted, icy cycle path.

"I'm at a loss to try to understand..." why some people are so resentful when faced with sharing the road with cyclists.  

People use cycle paths when they are useful - if they are not used there will be a reason for it, a reason that may be lost on you.  It's not personal, no one is trying to delay your journey.  People are just trying to get on with their day.  In accepting this you may find your commute a little less stressful.

Apologies if my tone is a little patronising, however angry people not wanting to share the road with cyclists is a bugbear of mine.  I was the target of a 'punishment pass' that nearly run me of the road a couple of weeks ago.  Before the cycle path started I spotted someone with a double buggy on what is, essentially, a relatively narrow footpath marked as a cycle path.  I'll always give pedestrians priority and I cycled on the road.  

You may be at a loss to understand the actions of others, that's no problem, but all too often a small minority of people turn that befuddlement into an aggression.  That aggression is as bad, or often worse than what what provoked them.  People need to chill out.


----------



## fredfelt (Jan 21, 2017)

Being on the receiving end of warrantless aggression goes some way to me taking the bait when posters here make statements along the lines of 'all cyclists are scum' 'waste of air', ' should have hit them / their bike' etc.  I'm not sure if it's worse if it is meant, or simply said for fun.  Either way it's these attitudes that lead to more aggression.  It gives certain people a sense of 'justification' for aggressive and dangerous driving around cyclists.  Perhaps I shouldn't let it irritate me, but it does.


----------



## andysays (Jan 21, 2017)

Interesting article

Should cycling be allowed on pavements?

And this illustration is particularly interesting to me, given that it appears to contradict the assertions of many cyclists here about just how much space they need to be safe


----------



## fredfelt (Jan 21, 2017)

andysays said:


> Interesting article
> 
> Should cycling be allowed on pavements?
> 
> And this illustration is particularly interesting to me, given that it appears to contradict the assertions of many cyclists here about just how much space they need to be safe



How so?  Is it unreasonable to expect to be given at least as much room to overtake as you would give to a car?


----------



## andysays (Jan 21, 2017)

fredfelt said:


> How so?  Is it unreasonable to expect to be given at least as much room to overtake as you would give to a car?



Don't ask me, take it up with West Midlands Police


----------



## BigTom (Jan 21, 2017)

andysays said:


> Interesting article
> 
> Should cycling be allowed on pavements?
> 
> And this illustration is particularly interesting to me, given that it appears to contradict the assertions of many cyclists here about just how much space they need to be safe



I dunno why you say that - 1.5m is a good distance and the minimum distance recommended by west midlands police, campaigns around overtaking distances tend to be asking for 1m-1.5m or 3-4.5ft of space, countries with specified distances in their rules are around that distance, 1.5m is at the wider end of what is asked for, and the BMW has clearly used the "oncoming lane" in that graphic to overtake the cyclist. Where is the contradiction? How much space do you think cyclists ask for to be safe? Ime the rule of thumb asked for is that drivers use the oncoming lane to overtake (as shown in the graphic) and point out that once you are using the oncoming lane you might as well be more or less fully into it as it makes no difference at all to a driver.

Have a read of a couple of west mids police blogs about their close pass operation:
Safer Cycling | WMP Traffic from just before it started

Climbing Mountains…. more recently talking about how it has worked (50% reduction in submissions of footage of close passes = clear success and anecdotally it's made a huge difference to me, from daily close passes and weekly seriously dangerous ones to weekly close passes and monthly seriously dangerous ones, quite a few police forces are now going to roll this out)

There are some stills from 3rd party footage prosecutions in those blogs, compare the distances the drivers have left to the graphic you've posted up or the images in this tweet:



Drivers leaving a few inches, less than a foot or 30cm or maybe a couple of foot at higher speeds or in bigger vehicles. That's what gets complained about.


----------



## fredfelt (Jan 21, 2017)

andysays said:


> Don't ask me, take it up with West Midlands Police



Fair enough.  I accept it can be hard to understand what a close pass feels like when you are protected in a car.

Have you ever parked up at the side of a road, and felt your car move when an HGV comes past?  Or stood at the side of your car in the hard shoulder?  How far away do you think the traffic is then?  How does it feel?


----------



## baldrick (Jan 21, 2017)




----------



## Spymaster (Jan 21, 2017)

baldrick said:


>



This was quite obviously the cyclists fault.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 21, 2017)

baldrick said:


>



Yep, that's exactly why I'm riding right in the middle of the road a lot of the time...


----------



## baldrick (Jan 21, 2017)

It just made me laugh (in a bitter and not very funny way) about how being presented with a cyclist on the road seems to shut drivers' brains down.

Oh and cycling in the middle of the road is no deterrent when people are determined to be idiots - I once had a middle aged fool in a corsa overtake me on a residential road with cars parked on either side who then had the nerve to tell me I should be cycling by the side of the cars. He seemed puzzled at my reaction.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 21, 2017)

baldrick said:


> It just made me laugh (in a bitter and not very funny way) about how being presented with a cyclist on the road seems to shut drivers' brains down.
> 
> Oh and cycling in the middle of the road is no deterrent when people are determined to be idiots - I once had a middle aged fool in a corsa overtake me on a residential road with cars parked on either side who then had the nerve to tell me I should be cycling by the side of the cars.


Again, quite clearly your fault.


----------



## T & P (Feb 7, 2017)

I suspect it's little more than clickbait, and apologise for linking to it in the first place, but there is an _amazing_ rant against cyclists in the Daily Mail today 

Is anywhere safe from the Lycra louts? | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Artaxerxes (Feb 7, 2017)

T & P said:


> I suspect it's little more than clickbait, and apologise for linking to it in the first place, but there is an _amazing_ rant against cyclists in the Daily Mail today
> 
> Is anywhere safe from the Lycra louts? | Daily Mail Online




The Eveining Standard needs to be careful nicking pictures from the ES, I bet Lebedev knows someone who breaks knees... 

I think I got about a fifth of the way down before giving up, does he actually have a point? Is he pissed someone over took him and he had to sit there in traffic?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 7, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> The Eveining Standard needs to be careful nicking pictures from the ES, I bet Lebedev knows someone who breaks knees...


----------



## Artaxerxes (Feb 7, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


>


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 7, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


>


Yeh so the evening standard need to be careful nicking stuff from the ES, what's all that about?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 7, 2017)

does thats say *EVEINING* STANDARD ?


----------



## T & P (Feb 7, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> I think I got about a fifth of the way down before giving up, does he actually have a point? Is he pissed someone over took him and he had to sit there in traffic?


  It sounds like it doesn't it. It must be nice to have a job where you get paid to vent your fury and talk bullshit.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 7, 2017)

T & P said:


> It sounds like it doesn't it. It must be nice to have a job where you get paid to vent your fury and talk bullshit.



Ehrm, wtf do you think 99% of people are doing on here?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2017)

T & P said:


> I suspect it's little more than clickbait, and apologise for linking to it in the first place, but there is an _amazing_ rant against cyclists in the Daily Mail today
> 
> Is anywhere safe from the Lycra louts? | Daily Mail Online


A very fair and accurate piece of journalism.


----------



## High Voltage (Feb 7, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> A very fair and accurate piece of journalism.



Understated . . . you forgot to include understated


----------



## Artaxerxes (Feb 7, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Ehrm, wtf do you think 99% of people are doing on here?




I'm not paid for my time on here


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 7, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> I'm not paid for my time on here



An amateur?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Feb 7, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> An amateur?




I tried crowdsourcing my ideal life but all I got was spam emails and deeper in debt.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 7, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> I'm not paid for my time on here


everyone else is.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 7, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> A very fair and accurate piece of journalism.


understated, i thought, pa


----------



## Santino (Feb 7, 2017)

This morning a woman cycled through a red light where pedestrians were crossing at a T-junction and joined the moving traffic in a way that I imagine might startle a driver who was not expecting the sudden appearance of a cyclist.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 7, 2017)

Santino said:


> This morning a woman cycled through a red light where pedestrians were crossing at a T-junction and joined the moving traffic in a way that I imagine might startle a driver who was not expecting the sudden appearance of a cyclist.


i expect that happened up and down the country in every town


----------



## Sue (Feb 7, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> i expect that happened up and down the country in every town


Happens so often as to be unremarkable.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 7, 2017)

Sue said:


> Happens so often as to be unremarkable.


surprised when it doesn't tbh


----------



## hash tag (Mar 6, 2017)

Cyclists 



hash tag said:


> Fucking cyclists
> 
> 'I’ve just witnessed a cyclist f**king someone in the trees': Cyclist spotted fornicating at Putney Commondale


----------



## emanymton (Mar 6, 2017)

T & P said:


> I suspect it's little more than clickbait, and apologise for linking to it in the first place, but there is an _amazing_ rant against cyclists in the Daily Mail today
> 
> Is anywhere safe from the Lycra louts? | Daily Mail Online


I see nothing in that article to disagree with. Must be the best article ever published in the Daily Mail.


----------



## Sirena (Mar 8, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Cyclists


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 8, 2017)

Typically aggressive cyclist behaviour.


----------



## joustmaster (Mar 8, 2017)

Cyclist wins that. Extra points for the headbut.


----------



## Teaboy (Mar 8, 2017)

Not sure anyone 'wins' there.  A bit of a flurry and no damage.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 8, 2017)

joustmaster said:


> Cyclist wins that. Extra points for the headbut.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 8, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Not sure anyone 'wins' there.  A bit of a flurry and no damage.



French fighting


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 8, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> French fighting


No call for that nonsense, not after the Russians beat our lads at the euros.


----------



## hash tag (Mar 9, 2017)

Speed bumps, on a popular cycle route http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/row-erupts-over-plans-to-build-speed-bumps-on-popular-cycle-route-in-hyde-park-a3484936.html


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 9, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Speed bumps, on a popular cycle route http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/row-erupts-over-plans-to-build-speed-bumps-on-popular-cycle-route-in-hyde-park-a3484936.html


Good. It's a park, not a road. Anyone riding at speed there is an idiot.


----------



## hash tag (Mar 9, 2017)

It's not just cyclists in the park, also skateboarders and skaters.


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 9, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Good. It's a park, not a road. Anyone riding at speed there is an idiot.



Eh? The park has road through it, with vehicles going a lot faster than 10mph. I guess pedestrians manage to stay mostly on the pavements though, rather than walking in the middle of the road so it's less of a problem. Perhaps they should learn to do that with cycle paths too.


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 9, 2017)

hash tag said:


> It's not just cyclists in the park, also skateboarders and skaters.



Bastards. Perhaps should you start a "Parks for Perambulators" campaign.


----------



## snadge (Mar 9, 2017)

hash tag said:


> It's not just cyclists in the park, also skateboarders and skaters.



I would have thought that these people would welcome the addition of features to enhance their trick pulling capabilities.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 9, 2017)

snadge said:


> I would have thought that these people would welcome the addition of features to enhance their trick pulling capabilities.


i think it's their lack of pulling tricks which leads to their solitary practices.


----------



## snadge (Mar 9, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> i think it's their lack of pulling tricks which leads to their solitary practices.




Added to overly baggy jeans.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 9, 2017)

joustmaster said:


> Cyclist wins that. Extra points for the headbut.


 






Retiens-moi les gars etc


----------



## hash tag (Mar 9, 2017)

"Cycle campaigners have called on Sadiq Khan's new cycling tsar, Will Norman, and deputy mayor for transport Val Shawcross to force the Royal Parks to reconsider the £215,000 scheme."
£215,000 
Bloody cyclists "This has backfired – cyclists divert round them onto the grass or speed up to minimise the discomfort of riding over them"
Jeremy Vine  "Today Mr Vine, who presents Crimewatch and a daily Radio 2 show, tweeted that he was a daily user of the Kensington path on his way to the BBC. He said of the speed humps: "They are so big it's ridiculous."

WHAT ABOUT THE POOR PEDESTRIANS that get frightened by speeding bikes and nearly knocked down, huh?


----------



## bi0boy (Mar 9, 2017)

Well Park Lane used to be in the park but now it's a multi-lane highway. I wonder why the faster cyclists don't like to use it?


----------



## Winot (Mar 9, 2017)

hash tag said:


> "Cycle campaigners have called on Sadiq Khan's new cycling tsar, Will Norman, and deputy mayor for transport Val Shawcross to force the Royal Parks to reconsider the £215,000 scheme."
> £215,000
> Bloody cyclists "This has backfired – cyclists divert round them onto the grass or speed up to minimise the discomfort of riding over them"
> Jeremy Vine  "Today Mr Vine, who presents Crimewatch and a daily Radio 2 show, tweeted that he was a daily user of the Kensington path on his way to the BBC. He said of the speed humps: "They are so big it's ridiculous."
> ...



I don't know this particular route or the extent that it's segregated. There's certainly no excuse for cycling at 32mph as has bene reported. However the majority of cyclists were clocked going at normal commuting speeds of 15-20mph.

I can also understand people on foot in the park not wanting cyclists there. However, as always with London travel, we need to step back and consider the bigger picture. Public transport is over-crowded and we have an obesity crisis. How in that case can cycling NOT be considered to be a part of the solution? We need to start from that predicate and then try to work out how to encourage more Londoners to cycle safely and how to fit them in. It would be great if they could put a properly segregated route down Park Lane (for example). There is room to do so. Until that happens, there needs to be an accommodation (on both sides) for a shared solution for the park.


----------



## T & P (Mar 9, 2017)

I've ridden on that cycle lane a few times and nowadays I prefer to take my chances with the motor traffic on Park Lane tbh, if only to avoid the myriad of idiots, both on foot and on bikes going on the wrong side of the lane or zig-zagging across (yes, casual Boris bikers- I'm looking at you), who make riding on that lane an extremely fucking infuriating and rather dodgy experience.


----------



## Teaboy (Mar 9, 2017)

Given there are speed limits for bikes it begs the question why they just didn't have a big clamp down on speeding.  Could probably have made a few quid out of it and not inconveniced those who are just going about their business.


----------



## Winot (Mar 9, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Given there are speed limits for bikes it begs the question why they just didn't have a big clamp down on speeding.  Could probably have made a few quid out of it and not inconveniced those who are just going about their business.



There aren't iirc. This is a legal lacuna.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 9, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Good. It's a park, not a road. Anyone riding at speed there is an idiot.



93% are under 20mph and there have been no incidents or accidents, two near misses is all. Jeremy Vine wades into row over Hyde Park bicycle speed bumps
That ES article says royal parks want cyclists at 10-12mph but that it's not enforcable so is there a speed limit at all in hyde park?
Regardless with no actual incidents and the vast, vast majority of cyclists under 20mph, why are they doing this?


----------



## BigTom (Mar 9, 2017)

Winot said:


> There aren't iirc. This is a legal lacuna.



royal parks can have speed limits that apply to bikes, but I have no idea about hyde park specifically. Speed limits can be applied to bicycles via local by-laws.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 9, 2017)

Jeremy Vine's turning in to quite the cycle vigilante lately, doing his best to get a young woman get sent to prison and now this shit. #runthecuntofftheroad


----------



## Sue (Mar 9, 2017)

BigTom said:


> 93% are under 20mph and there have been no incidents or accidents, two near misses is all. Jeremy Vine wades into row over Hyde Park bicycle speed bumps
> That ES article says royal parks want cyclists at 10-12mph but that it's not enforcable so is there a speed limit at all in hyde park?
> Regardless with no actual incidents and the vast, vast majority of cyclists under 20mph, why are they doing this?



Surely no *reported* incidents or accidents which is a different thing altogether. I certainly didn't report it either time when I was hit by a bike (on the pavement) and I don't know anyone else who has either. 

That includes the ex-colleague who was hit by a bike going the wrong way up a one-way street and ended up in hospital.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 9, 2017)

Sue said:


> Surely no *reported* incidents or accidents which is a different thing altogether. I certainly didn't report it either time when I was hit by a bike (on the pavement) and I don't know anyone else who has either.
> 
> That includes the ex-colleague who was hit by a bike going the wrong way up a one-way street and ended up in hospital.



I understood it as meaning that during the time when they were doing the speed surveys they (as in the people doing the survey) didn't report any incidents but did report two near misses.


----------



## Winot (Mar 9, 2017)

BigTom said:


> royal parks can have speed limits that apply to bikes, but I have no idea about hyde park specifically. Speed limits can be applied to bicycles via local by-laws.



Looks like it's legally a bit of a grey area and possibly cyclists (as opposed to motor vehicles) can only be fined for 'dangerous and careless cycling'. 

Can cyclists be fined for speeding?


----------



## BigTom (Mar 9, 2017)

Winot said:


> Looks like it's legally a bit of a grey area and possibly cyclists (as opposed to motor vehicles) can only be fined for 'dangerous and careless cycling'.
> 
> Can cyclists be fined for speeding?



I asked the police after this question was raised on another thread (or on this one maybe) and the police got back to me saying generally speed limits don't apply but that they can if local by-laws make it so, and that royal parks are the primary example of this - but I've no idea if all royal parks are covered.


----------



## Winot (Mar 9, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Jeremy Vine's turning in to quite the cycle vigilante lately, doing his best to get a young woman get sent to prison and now this shit. #runthecuntofftheroad



#runthetrolloffthethread


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 9, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I asked the police after this question was raised on another thread (or on this one maybe) and the police got back to me saying generally speed limits don't apply but that they can if local by-laws make it so, and that royal parks are the primary example of this - but I've no idea if all royal parks are covered.


https://www.royalparks.org.uk/__dat...es-Regulations-1997-informal-consolidated.pdf
see 3(9)(a); 3(10)(a); 3(12) and arguably 3(13)(a).
[Content removed at request of poster]


----------



## hash tag (Mar 9, 2017)

A few years ago a cyclist was charged with riding furiously, I think it was, in Cambridge.
I was stopped once or twice whilst cycling. Once was a warning for speeding in traffic, the other, whilst pissed, one Saturday lunchtime, while carrying another bike! There may have been other times. I was with the late Barry Mason, doing a treasure hunt in the city, the day or week after Diana's death when he was stopped for going the wrong way around a roundabout near spitalfields. I had to stop him from hitting them! There were never fines given nor details taken.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 9, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> https://www.royalparks.org.uk/__dat...es-Regulations-1997-informal-consolidated.pdf
> see 3(9)(a); 3(10)(a); 3(12) and arguably 3(13)(a).
> 
> View attachment 101892
> View attachment 101893


further to this: 4(28):
Acts in a park for which written permission is required:


----------



## BigTom (Mar 9, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> further to this: 4(28):
> Acts in a park for which written permission is required:
> View attachment 101894
> View attachment 101895



So does Part II 1) mean that the speed limit for bikes on that path in hyde park is 30mph? Which means maybe a handful of cyclists have broken the speed limit. I wonder how that compares to cars on the road.


----------



## Winot (Mar 9, 2017)

A pedal cycle is not a vehicle.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 9, 2017)

Winot said:


> A pedal cycle is not a vehicle.


On the grounds that...


----------



## Winot (Mar 9, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> On the grounds that...



Look at sections 3(10) and 3(11). A pedal cycle is listed separately to "any vehicle". If it was a vehicle there would be no need to do that.


----------



## hash tag (Mar 9, 2017)

That's just to make it clear to numptys who are cyclists.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Mar 10, 2017)

Winot said:


> A pedal cycle is not a vehicle.



It may not be a mechanically propelled vehicle but it most certainly is a vehicle, and subject to (most of) the same laws as other road going vehicles.


----------



## Winot (Mar 10, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> It may not be a mechanically propelled vehicle but it most certainly is a vehicle, and subject to (most of) the same laws as other road going vehicles.



I was talking specifically about the Royal Parks regulations.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 10, 2017)

BigTom said:


> So does Part II 1) mean that the speed limit for bikes on that path in hyde park is 30mph? Which means maybe a handful of cyclists have broken the speed limit. I wonder how that compares to cars on the road.








so over half of drivers around hyde park break speed limits with the highest recorded being 84mph!! no action on drivers though.

(I don't know the source of the image but the twitter feed it's been posted on is from very reliable person, @aseasyasriding)


----------



## hash tag (Mar 10, 2017)

84 MPH at 08.10 in the morning on a weekday! I doubt that even an Audi driver could reach that at that time!


----------



## Dogsauce (Mar 10, 2017)

Reckon that'd be a motorbike, not uncommon to see them flooring it in London.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 10, 2017)

BigTom said:


> so over half of drivers around hyde park break speed limits with the highest recorded being 84mph!! no action on drivers though.
> 
> (I don't know the source of the image but the twitter feed it's been posted on is from very reliable person, @aseasyasriding)


The outer circle is not in Hyde Park. The data does not relate to Hyde Park. This is to do with a different park altogether, namely Regent's Park. Do you know London?


----------



## BigTom (Mar 10, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> The outer circle is not in Hyde Park. The data does not relate to Hyde Park. This is to do with a different park altogether, namely Regent's Park. Do you know London?



Not very well no, apologies for my mistake, as I said before in this thread I don't know Hyde Park at all really. Regent's Park is also a Royal Park though, so it's the same people, even if it's not the same park.

edit: apparently I didn't say that on this thread, thought I did, I asked if there was a speed limit so clearly don't know hyde park. anyway, no I live in Birmingham as I've often said in other places.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 10, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Not very well no, apologies for my mistake, as I said before in this thread I don't know Hyde Park at all really. Regent's Park is also a Royal Park though, so it's the same people, even if it's not the same park.
> 
> edit: apparently I didn't say that on this thread, thought I did, I asked if there was a speed limit so clearly don't know hyde park. anyway, no I live in Birmingham as I've often said in other places.


----------



## Dogsauce (Mar 10, 2017)

Regent's Park outer circle (above) is popular for cycling as it is a big wide road with only a few sets of lights and not a lot of traffic. Pretty well suited for doing laps on a road bike, I've done a few circuits myself. Hyde Park is nothing like that.


----------



## fredfelt (Mar 11, 2017)

Imagine if similar standards of behaviour were demanded on our roads?...  and when somebody somewhere does something irritating the road is made all but useless for anyone looking to get from a to b.

Does anyone know if the plan is also make the route useless for anyone wishing to use it on a mobility aid?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Mar 11, 2017)

fredfelt said:


> Imagine if similar standards of behaviour were demanded on our roads?...  and when somebody somewhere does something irritating the road is made all but useless for anyone looking to get from a to b.
> 
> Does anyone know if the plan is also make the route useless for anyone wishing to use it on a mobility aid?


Speed bumps don't really make it "all but useless", do they?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 11, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> Reckon that'd be a motorbike, not uncommon to see them flooring it in London.


I think you need to check how motorcycle accelerators work.


----------



## fredfelt (Mar 11, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Speed bumps don't really make it "all but useless", do they?



Not useless, but what do you think the reaction would be if major routes around you were covered in speed bumps?  

I don't know about you, but I'd be pissed off if the route I took to work was covered in speed ramps because someone went too fast on that road.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 11, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Speed bumps don't really make it "all but useless", do they?



Not at all, since people just cycle around them using the grass. I dunno which park this is but this is what they are going to put into hyde park as well:

 

or, apparently, you just speed up to reduce the discomfort


----------



## Saul Goodman (Mar 11, 2017)

Any cyclist who couldn't bunny-hop over those little things deserves them


----------



## keybored (Mar 11, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Any cyclist who couldn't bunny-hop over those little things deserves them


"Speed bumps"? Pah! They're _technical trail features_


----------



## CNT36 (Mar 27, 2017)

I had some fun Saturday afternoon while riding home. Approaching a roundabout when a van driver didn't see me. Knocked the bike down with me on it. Felt as though I was being sucked under the van. The front wheel went over my back tyre and caught the side of my foot. I shouted and the van stopped. I hopped around to the drivers side and got him to give me and the remains of my bike a lift home. Got away with a few cuts and bruises. The wife made me goto minor injuries this morning who said I have a bit of concussion and shock. People have been saying I should report it. What do you all think?


----------



## Brainaddict (Mar 27, 2017)

hash tag said:


> "Cycle campaigners have called on Sadiq Khan's new cycling tsar, Will Norman, and deputy mayor for transport Val Shawcross to force the Royal Parks to reconsider the £215,000 scheme."
> £215,000
> Bloody cyclists "This has backfired – cyclists divert round them onto the grass or speed up to minimise the discomfort of riding over them"
> Jeremy Vine  "Today Mr Vine, who presents Crimewatch and a daily Radio 2 show, tweeted that he was a daily user of the Kensington path on his way to the BBC. He said of the speed humps: "They are so big it's ridiculous."
> ...


I've got a good story about this saga - hadn't clocked people were talking about it on here. After Royal Parks fitted the rumble strips along the Kensington Gardens route I wrote to them explaining that they had made them too bumpy, and that this would incentivise people to ride on the grass instead. I was annoyed too because the rumble strips were bad enough to damage the bearings on bikes, so I said I didn't intend to slow down, as I wanted to ensure their anti-cyclist measures didn't work. RP replied to me saying they had forwarded my message to the parks police to investigate, because it was clear I was a menace, or something. I pointed out I hadn't admitted to any illegal behaviour, and also added 'I wonder why people think you're anti-cyclists when you report people to the police for making a complaint'? Anyway, needless to say I never heard from the parks police.

What happened the other week? Lo and behold they flattened the rumble strips a little to make them reasonable, then had to spend thousands returfing the sides where cyclists had been cycling on the grass around them.

Listening to me instead of reporting me to the police could have saved them lots of money - I'm tempted to write and tell them that


----------



## Saul Goodman (Mar 27, 2017)

CNT36 said:


> I had some fun Saturday afternoon while riding home. Approaching a roundabout when a van driver didn't see me. Knocked the bike down with me on it. Felt as though I was being sucked under the van. The front wheel went over my back tyre and caught the side of my foot. I shouted and the van stopped. I hopped around to the drivers side and got him to give me and the remains of my bike a lift home. Got away with a few cuts and bruises. The wife made me goto minor injuries this morning who said I have a bit of concussion and shock. People have been saying I should report it. What do you all think?


Did you incur any expenses as a result?
Was there any damage to the bike?
If 'Yes', contact him and tell him that you don't want to get him into any trouble with the old bill, so thought it better not to involve them, but you will need reimbursing for your out-of-pocket expenses.
If 'No', just leave it. Nobody was hurt and It isn't worth the aggro.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Mar 27, 2017)

CNT36 said:


> I had some fun Saturday afternoon while riding home. Approaching a roundabout when a van driver didn't see me. Knocked the bike down with me on it. Felt as though I was being sucked under the van. The front wheel went over my back tyre and caught the side of my foot. I shouted and the van stopped. I hopped around to the drivers side and got him to give me and the remains of my bike a lift home. Got away with a few cuts and bruises. The wife made me goto minor injuries this morning who said I have a bit of concussion and shock. People have been saying I should report it. What do you all think?


Did you get his details?. Why wouldn't you report it if he damaged your bike, you can claim off the insurance.


----------



## gentlegreen (Mar 28, 2017)

I had that happen twice to me - in the case of the motorcycle incident he took me to hospital then subsequently visited me at home and tried to get me to admit some fault - he later pleaded not guilty to the very obvious driving offence and was fined extra for doing so.
Then a client at work slowly rolled over my rear wheel at the gates, drove me home with my bike then subsequently refused to cough up.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2017)

It would be nice to see cyclists indicate, as so many drivers do, when they are about to turn. It would help them avoid crashing into people.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2017)

hash tag said:


> 84 MPH at 08.10 in the morning on a weekday! I doubt that even an Audi driver could reach that at that time!


There was someone last week apparently hit 76mph on Westminster Bridge on a weds afternoon, that's unusual


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 28, 2017)

Watch as cyclist smashes windscreen with bike after row with driver


----------



## hash tag (Mar 28, 2017)

Makes a change to be somewhere other than London.


----------



## joustmaster (Mar 28, 2017)

“There was no clear cycle lane and even if there was I definitely wasn’t in it"

Her video shows her driving in the cycle lane


----------



## Dogsauce (Mar 28, 2017)

Suspect something happened a bit earlier on before the footage they've shared, doesn't show the car passing the cyclist beforehand and the guy seems miffed right from the start. Or could just be someone with a very short fuse.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 28, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> Suspect something happened a bit earlier on before the footage they've shared, doesn't show the car passing the cyclist beforehand and the guy seems miffed right from the start. Or could just be someone with a very short fuse.



Also appears to be handheld and not a dashcam so why were they filming if nothing happened beforehand?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Not at all, since people just cycle around them using the grass. I dunno which park this is but this is what they are going to put into hyde park as well:
> 
> View attachment 102036
> 
> or, apparently, you just speed up to reduce the discomfort


just put a cattle grid sideways on at the side of those or a thorny bush. piece of piss.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 28, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> just put a cattle grid sideways on at the side of those or a thorny bush. piece of piss.



They've put fences up. I wonder how wide they'll need to be to stop cyclists going around them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2017)

BigTom said:


> They've put fences up. I wonder how wide they'll need to be to stop cyclists going around them.


fucking punji sticks ftw


----------



## BigTom (Mar 28, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> fucking punji sticks ftw
> 
> View attachment 103058



Great for pedestrians, but worried that the bicycle will cause a problem for dealing with cyclists, as instinctively think it would likely be between the cyclist and the punji sticks, leaving the cyclist unharmed or just scratched, and also with something to stand on to get out (though that could be dealt with by having a deep enough hole).


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 28, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Great for pedestrians, but worried that the bicycle will cause a problem for dealing with cyclists, as instinctively think it would likely be between the cyclist and the punji sticks, leaving the cyclist unharmed or just scratched, and also with something to stand on to get out (though that could be dealt with by having a deep enough hole).


the image is provided for visualization purposes only, i am sure that staff at the royal parks could design a particularly effective bespoke spikey solution.


----------



## Dogsauce (Mar 28, 2017)

Those spikes would never get through a Schwalbe Marathon Plus.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Mar 28, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> Those spikes would never get through a Schwalbe Marathon Plus.


Thanks for the heads-up. 
Back to the drawing board!


----------



## T & P (Mar 29, 2017)

CNT36 said:


> I had some fun Saturday afternoon while riding home. Approaching a roundabout when a van driver didn't see me. Knocked the bike down with me on it. Felt as though I was being sucked under the van. The front wheel went over my back tyre and caught the side of my foot. I shouted and the van stopped. I hopped around to the drivers side and got him to give me and the remains of my bike a lift home. Got away with a few cuts and bruises. The wife made me goto minor injuries this morning who said I have a bit of concussion and shock. People have been saying I should report it. What do you all think?


Given the current trend of people treating any traffic incident as a golden ticket and making ludicrous, overblown claims, I reckon the bloke would be happy as fuck if you told him all you wanted is any bike repair needed was being met by him.

Plenty of people in your position would take the cunt's approach and sue for thousands of Pounds for non-existent injuries, so kudos to you for not even considering going down that route.


----------



## Santino (Mar 29, 2017)

Me, crossing the road with my daughter, addressing a cyclist: There's a red light there! It applies to you too!
My daughter: I think he heard you, but he didn't turn around.


----------



## ffsear (Apr 10, 2017)

Deffo the drivers fault this one!
""


----------



## T & P (Apr 10, 2017)

I'm not sure how I feel about this story.

UK's first crowdfunded prosecution sees defendant acquitted in just 17 minutes

On the one hand nobody wants to see a miscarriage of justice, and the driver's statements about the incident raise a few questions- though they're certainly not definite proof of guilt.

On the other hand the idea of crowdfunded private prosecutions doesn't sit rightly with me at all, specially as the CPS had already ruled the driver had no case to answer. It'll be interesting to see if The Cyclists' Defence Fund is selective about the cases they decide to raise cash for in the future, or simply target every case where a driver is found to be not at fault.


----------



## Winot (Apr 11, 2017)

My understanding is that the judge's comments showed that the driver did have a case to answer.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 11, 2017)

T & P said:


> I'm not sure how I feel about this story.
> 
> UK's first crowdfunded prosecution sees defendant acquitted in just 17 minutes





> Ms Purcell said traffic was free flowing, that she never saw the cyclist, and that *he appeared as though he had  "have come from nowhere"*.


That's the same excuse drivers use when they kill motorcyclists. It would seem motorcyclists can break the laws of physics, and judges usually agree.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 11, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> That's the same excuse drivers use when they kill motorcyclists. It would seem motorcyclists can break the laws of physics, and judges usually agree.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 12, 2017)

They cause drivers to lose sleep. 

Suspended sentence for Yorkshire driver who killed oncoming cyclist while overtaking


----------



## emanymton (Apr 12, 2017)

ffsear said:


> Deffo the drivers fault this one!
> ""



Spymaster


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 12, 2017)

emanymton said:


> Spymaster


The guy in the car should have sounded the horn when the cyclist was 3 yards away. The look on the moron's face would've been priceless.


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 14, 2017)

Just popped to the local Asda to do a bit of shopping and some idiot on a bike, riding on a bike, rode straight into me, because he wasn't taking a blind bit of notice where he was going.  Apparently it was all my fault.......

We exchanged "words" and he rode off. Idiot.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 14, 2017)

Bungle73 said:


> Just popped to the local Asda to do a bit of shopping and some idiot on a bike, riding on a bike, rode straight into me, because he wasn't taking a blind bit of notice where he was going.  Apparently it was all my fault.......
> 
> We exchanged "words" and he rode off. Idiot.


Was this on the road or the footpath?

Leaving aside your 'some idiot on a bike, riding on a bike' bit...


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 14, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Was this on the road or the footpath?
> 
> Leaving aside your 'some idiot on a bike, riding on a bike' bit...


On the pavement.

Because someone who rides into people is not an idiot are they.........


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 14, 2017)

Bungle73 said:


> On the pavement.
> 
> Because someone who rides into people is not an idiot are they.........


You've gone dotty


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 14, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> You've gone dotty


How so?


----------



## bi0boy (Apr 14, 2017)




----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 14, 2017)

Bungle73 said:


> .........


Dotty


----------



## joustmaster (Apr 14, 2017)

Bungle73 said:


> Just popped to the local Asda to do a bit of shopping and some idiot on a bike, riding on a bike, rode straight into me, because he wasn't taking a blind bit of notice where he was going.  Apparently it was all my fault.......
> 
> We exchanged "words" and he rode off. Idiot.




I'd  love to cycle round an asda


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 14, 2017)

Bungle73 said:


> On the pavement.
> 
> Because someone who rides into people is not an idiot are they.........


Perhaps from the cyclist's pov you walked into him


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 14, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Perhaps from the cyclist's pov you walked into him


No, he rode into to me because he was taking zero notice of where he was going. If he had of been taking notice he would have seen me instead of stupidly running into me.

In any case, he shouldn't have been on the pavement in the first place. And if someone is going to ride on the pavement they should defer to the priority of pedestrians, and not be a dick about it and expect everyone to jump out of their way. I always do.


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 14, 2017)

It was a narrow pavement, and I was already walking along the far edge of it.


----------



## Winot (Apr 14, 2017)

T & P said:


> I'm not sure how I feel about this story.
> 
> UK's first crowdfunded prosecution sees defendant acquitted in just 17 minutes
> 
> ...



Some details of the case here:

The Michael Mason case - why, what happened, and where now?  | Cycling UK


----------



## hash tag (Apr 16, 2017)

This is not appropriate


----------



## Santino (Apr 16, 2017)

We all have our cyclocross to bear.


----------



## hash tag (Apr 19, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Jeremy Vine's turning in to quite the cycle vigilante lately, doing his best to get a young woman get sent to prison and now this shit. #runthecuntofftheroad



She did get sent down, 9 nine months Jeremy Vine 'road rage' driver jailed after losing appeal - BBC News


----------



## hash tag (Apr 19, 2017)

Please tell me this is not about a cyclist but someone with health issues! Man 'pooed in his hands and hurled it at driver's windscreen after being beeped'


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 19, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Please tell me this is not about a cyclist but someone with health issues! Man 'pooed in his hands and hurled it at driver's windscreen after being beeped'


It is about a cyclist. It says so in the headline, which somewhat gives the game away.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 19, 2017)

hash tag said:


> She did get sent down, 9 nine months Jeremy Vine 'road rage' driver jailed after losing appeal - BBC News


So she's driving an unlicensed car, threatening people, on a suspended sentence. 

Yep. That'll get you sent down.


----------



## Sue (Apr 19, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> It is about a cyclist. It says so in the headline, which somewhat gives the game away.


Going to count my blessings that I just have to deal with pavement cyclists and very nearly getting hit when crossing on a green man. Well so far anyway.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 19, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> It is about a cyclist. It says so in the headline, which somewhat gives the game away.


Of course it's about a cyclist, son. They all do it. In London, cyclists often carry spare poos to throw at people.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 19, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Of course it's about a cyclist, son. They all do it. In London, cyclists often carry spare poos to throw at people.


Cyclists are full of shit pa. They keep one in the hole, so to speak.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 19, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> So she's driving an unlicensed car, threatening people, on a suspended sentence.
> 
> Yep. That'll get you sent down.



Clearly if unlicensed she'd also be uninsured, so yeah she's being a right twat, especially while on a suspended for another driving offence, but that video doesn't warrant jail time at all, it's just a mild row. No gun sign, just a middle-aged, middle-class white man vs. a working class young black woman.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 19, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Clearly if unlicensed she'd also be uninsured, so yeah she's being a right twat, especially while on a suspended for another driving offence, but that video doesn't warrant jail time at all, it's just a mild row. No gun sign, just a middle-aged, middle-class white man vs. a working class young black woman.


And if it had just been what's in the video she probably wouldn't have gone to jail. But it wasn't. Being a twat on a suspended jail sentence is very likely to send you to prison.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 19, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> And if it had just been what's in the video she probably wouldn't have gone to jail. But it wasn't. Being a twat on a suspended jail sentence is very likely to send you to prison.



Not so sure, her suspended was for 'driving without reasonable consideration for other road users', hardly Brinks Mat. And plenty of people on a suspended get another nicking without triggering the suspended, even if for a similar offence, which this probably is.


----------



## keybored (Apr 19, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Clearly if unlicensed she'd also be uninsured


How so? Having no tax doesn't invalidate insurance.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 19, 2017)

keybored said:


> How so? Having no tax doesn't invalidate insurance.



Who mentioned tax?


----------



## BigTom (Apr 19, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Not so sure, her suspended was for 'driving without reasonable consideration for other road users', hardly Brinks Mat. And plenty of people on a suspended get another nicking without triggering the suspended, even if for a similar offence, which this probably is.



BBC article says:



> At the time of the incident, she was subject to a suspended sentence for a string of previous convictions for robbery, thefts and assault.



Isn't the "driving without..." what she was charged with for this incident?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 19, 2017)

BigTom said:


> BBC article says:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't the "driving without..." what she was charged with for this incident?



Fair enough then, was reading this bit:
She was also convicted in February of driving without reasonable consideration for other road users at Hammersmith Magistrates' Court. She had admitted driving an unlicensed vehicle.

Probably does deserve to go down. Still not gun bullshit though. Vine well played it up.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 19, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Not so sure, her suspended was for 'driving without reasonable consideration for other road users', hardly Brinks Mat.


No. 



			
				BBC said:
			
		

> At the time of the incident, she was subject to a suspended sentence for a string of previous convictions for robbery, thefts and assault.


She sounds like a right charmer. 

The fact that she's then gone on to threaten another road user strongly suggests that a few months chokey is probably the best place for her.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 19, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> And if it had just been what's in the video she probably wouldn't have gone to jail. But it wasn't. Being a twat on a suspended jail sentence is very likely to send you to prison.


If it wasn't for the fact he was a tv presenter, the cops would not have done anything, video or not.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 19, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Vine well played it up.


Far be it from me to support a poo chucker, but in this case Vine is pretty much spot on. He does aggravate the situation in the first place by creating the confrontation rather than riding away, but from then on it's all her. I don't think she can have any reasonable complaints.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 19, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> I don't think she can have any reasonable complaints.



She should have nutted the prick, wouldn't have got any longer.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 19, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> If it wasn't for the fact he was a tv presenter, the cops would not have done anything, video or not.


I disagree. If it weren't for the fact that she was on a suspended sentence for convictions with violence, the cops may have let it slide. No chance in this case.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 19, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> She should have nutted the prick, wouldn't have got any longer.


Now you're talking.


----------



## keybored (Apr 19, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Who mentioned tax?


An unlicensed vehicle is an untaxed vehicle.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 19, 2017)

keybored said:


> An unlicensed vehicle is an untaxed vehicle.



It's her who has no valid license to drive the car. Chances are it's not taxed too.


----------



## keybored (Apr 19, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It's her who has no valid license to drive the car.


No, the article says she admitted to driving an unlicensed vehicle. Meaning it had no tax, not that she had no licence.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 19, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It's her who has no valid license to drive the car. Chances are it's not taxed too.


"Unlicensed vehicle" usually refers to the VED.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Apr 19, 2017)

..


----------



## BigTom (Apr 19, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> I disagree. If it weren't for the fact that she was on a suspended sentence for convictions with violence, the cops may have let it slide. No chance in this case.



Police wouldn't have looked at it enough to find out who she was if it hadn't been a tv presenter who'd reported it. If they did look at it, then I agree with you, they would not have let it slide, but I doubt they would have.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 19, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> "Unlicensed vehicle" usually refers to the VED.



'anging's too good for 'er then.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Apr 19, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> I disagree. If it weren't for the fact that she was on a suspended sentence for convictions with violence, the cops may have let it slide. No chance in this case.


No, I meant if you went to the cops with a video of a confrontation like that between someone on a bike and a driver, they would do nothing.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 19, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> No, I meant if you went to the cops with a video of a confrontation like that between someone on a bike and a driver, they would do nothing.


Really? It's clear evidence of an identifiable individual assaulting a member of the public. 

I can understand the OB's reluctance to view video footage taken by every poo chucker who feels aggrieved, especially since more often than not it's them in the wrong. This case is pretty clear though.


----------



## Artaxerxes (May 8, 2017)

Inconsiderate Cyclist gets in the way of a van


----------



## Orang Utan (May 8, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> Inconsiderate Cyclist gets in the way of a van



jesus! i hope they got the van driver's number - that's attempted murder


----------



## gentlegreen (May 8, 2017)

He was sacked apparently.

White van driver forces cyclist off road in West Sussex | Daily Mail Online

Best avoid reading any of the comments.


----------



## Artaxerxes (May 8, 2017)

gentlegreen said:


> He was sacked apparently.
> 
> White van driver forces cyclist off road in West Sussex | Daily Mail Online
> 
> Best avoid reading any of the comments.




Talk about reaching...



> The cyclist, who was wearing a helmet and a high visibility jacket, hit the side of the Vidette UK van to alert the driver of his presence as the vehicle skimmed past him.



The article makes it sound like the cyclist spontaneously reached out and rapped the vehicle as it drove past instead of sticking his arm out as 2 tons of van tried to swipe him into a ditch...


----------



## Dogsauce (May 8, 2017)

Of course, if he hadn't been wearing hi viz and a helmet he'd have been fair game according to Mail logic.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 8, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> Of course, if he hadn't been wearing hi viz and a helmet he'd have been fair game according to Mail logic.


he gets a slagging for 'hogging the road' in the comments, despite him riding in the safest position, despite it being dangerous for the van to overtake, despite him riding in a legally endorsed position. Again, a bunch of ignoramuses who have forgotten the highway code.


----------



## Spymaster (May 8, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> he gets a slagging for 'hogging the road' in the comments, despite him riding in the safest position, despite it being dangerous for the van to overtake, despite him riding in a legally endorsed position.


But you'd agree that it's still his fault?


----------



## hash tag (May 8, 2017)

It is always the cyclists fault, never anyoe elses. ever.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 8, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> But you'd agree that it's still his fault?


it's the driver's fault, yes


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 8, 2017)

Seeing as our hero in the van is now in the market for a change or career, perhaps he'd be interested in this little number:


----------



## Spymaster (May 8, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> it's the driver's fault, yes


Don't be ridiculous.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 8, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Don't be ridiculous.


he overtook dangerously, contravening rule 163 of the Highway Code. The cyclist was doing what he was supposed to do.
But you know this, Trolly McTrollPants


----------



## Spymaster (May 8, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> he overtook dangerously, contravening rule 163 of the Highway Code. The cyclist was doing what he was supposed to do.


The cyclist looked drunk to me.


----------



## T & P (May 9, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> he overtook dangerously, contravening rule 163 of the Highway Code. The cyclist was doing what he was supposed to do.
> But you know this, Trolly McTrollPants


Fuck knows I'd never condone that cunt van driver's behaviour, who should have the book thrown at him, but as a cyclist myself I must question weather that riding position was wise on that particular stretch of the road, Rule 163 or not.

That was not an urban street with cars parked on the side- which of course are a major hazard for cyclists. That was a proper out-of-town road where there is no danger of parked cars opening their doors in front of you, and where invariably motor vehicles will be travelling much faster than cyclists. 

As I cannot emphasise enough, the van driver's actions were abominable and I hope he sees time inside for it. But as a cyclist it'd never occur me to occupy that position on an extra-urban road, if only to avoid incidents as this.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 9, 2017)

T & P said:


> Fuck knows I'd never condone that cunt van driver's behaviour, who should have the book thrown at him, but as a cyclist myself I must question weather that riding position was wise on that particular stretch of the road, Rule 163 or not.
> 
> That was not an urban street with cars parked on the side- which of course are a major hazard for cyclists. That was a proper out-of-town road where there is no danger of parked cars opening their doors in front of you, and where invariably motor vehicles will be travelling much faster than cyclists.
> 
> As I cannot emphasise enough, the van driver's actions were abominable and I hope he sees time inside for it. But as a cyclist it'd never occur me to occupy that position on an extra-urban road, if only to avoid incidents as this.


that's where he is supposed to ride. he's only a little bit towards the centre. he is just riding defensively, to prevent the van from overtaking in the same lane, as there's a solid white line in the middle


----------



## T & P (May 9, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> that's where he is supposed to ride. he's only a little bit towards the centre. he is just riding defensively, to prevent the van from overtaking in the same lane, as there's a solid white line in the middle


 I see what you are saying, but from a real world practical point of of view I would still stick to the left on that kind of road as I'd deem it the safest place to be. Not according to what the Highway Code stipulates of course, but what one can expect motor vehicle drivers to behave like. Unfortunately a selfish cunt like the van driver featured will seek to overtake a cyclist on that kind of extra-urban road as soon as they encounter them, regardless of the line markings in the middle. From a practical rather than a legal perspective, I'd ensure I ride as far to the left as it's safe to do so when there are no parked cars and no built up areas. You can bet your bottom dollar cars will be doing 40- 50 mph around there.

Incidentally, towards the very end of that clip there is a speed limit sign seen painted on the road. Can anyone make out what it is?


----------



## BigTom (May 9, 2017)

T & P said:


> Fuck knows I'd never condone that cunt van driver's behaviour, who should have the book thrown at him, but as a cyclist myself I must question weather that riding position was wise on that particular stretch of the road, Rule 163 or not.
> 
> That was not an urban street with cars parked on the side- which of course are a major hazard for cyclists. That was a proper out-of-town road where there is no danger of parked cars opening their doors in front of you, and where invariably motor vehicles will be travelling much faster than cyclists.
> 
> As I cannot emphasise enough, the van driver's actions were abominable and I hope he sees time inside for it. But as a cyclist it'd never occur me to occupy that position on an extra-urban road, if only to avoid incidents as this.



As a cycling instructor I must say that his riding position was correct according to the national standards for cycling, as the solid white line and then oncoming traffic make overtaking illegal and dangerous. Being in secondary position will lead to close passing, which may not be preferable to the risk of a driver being ignorant and aggressive about a cyclist being in the middle of the lane.
It's a difficult issue for cyclists tbf, and until the infrastructure changes, driver education here is key (west Midlands traffic police have been great on Twitter with this)


----------



## High Voltage (May 9, 2017)

Obviously the cyclists fault as the Highway code clearly states:-



> *Rule 168
> Being overtaken.* If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving unpredictably while someone is overtaking you is dangerous. Drop back to maintain a two-second gap if someone overtakes and pulls into the gap in front of you.



and



> *Rule 169*
> Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or slow-moving vehicle. Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass.



As demonstrated by the cyclist in question, he was perfectly able to ride safely AND AT SPEED on the grass allowing the van driver to go about his way

I'm always fascinated when cyclist bang on about the only law they've taken the trouble to learn from the Highway Code about how much space THEY need to have around THEM when being overtaken by a car - yet, when the tables are reversed and it's the cyclist who's doing the overtaking they're perfectly capable of squeezing through gaps between slower moving cars, often at high speed, that would make any sane road user baulk


----------



## Sprocket. (May 9, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> Of course, if he hadn't been wearing hi viz and a helmet he'd have been fair game according to Mail logic.



It was the cyclist at fault. He did not have any lights on. Then he maliciously attempted to overturn the van.
Seriously, they are as bad as each other, luckily no fatalities or lives ruined by discourtesy.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 9, 2017)

BigTom said:


> as the solid white line and then oncoming traffic make overtaking illegal



No it doesn't.


----------



## Spymaster (May 9, 2017)

BigTom said:


> ... the solid white line and then oncoming traffic make overtaking illegal and dangerous. Being in secondary position will lead to close passing, which may not be preferable to the risk of a driver being ignorant and aggressive about a cyclist being in the middle of the lane.


The white line was broken (dotted) on the van's side when he overtook, and was for as long as the video continued. You can pass on those if it's safe so long as you're back in lane before it goes solid again. The cyclist should have seen that and moved in.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (May 9, 2017)

Well it was a whole lot worse for Froome in France , supposed home of cycling. Rammed off the road 

Don't quite get the 'followed onto pavement bit' ?


----------



## Artaxerxes (May 9, 2017)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Well it was a whole lot worse for Froome in France , supposed home of cycling. Rammed off the road
> 
> Don't quite get the 'followed onto pavement bit' ?




Shat himself.


----------



## BigTom (May 9, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> No it doesn't.





> highway code rule 129
> *Double white lines where the line nearest you is solid.* This means you *MUST NOT* cross or straddle it unless it is safe and you need to enter adjoining premises or a side road. You may cross the line if necessary, provided the road is clear, to pass a stationary vehicle, or overtake a pedal cycle, horse or road maintenance vehicle, if they are travelling at 10 mph (16 km/h) or less.
> _Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10 & 26_


_
_
Overtaking safely would mean crossing/straddling the white lines (even if the cyclist was in secondary position not primary). The cyclist is clearly going to be going more than 10mph. Overtaking in such a situation is illegal.



Spymaster said:


> The white line was broken (dotted) on the van's side when he overtook, and was for as long as the video continued. You can pass on those if it's safe so long as you're back in lane before it goes solid again. The cyclist should have seen that and moved in.



At the start of the video the white line is solid, it becomes broken but there is an oncoming vehicle preventing a (safe) overtake. Once the oncoming vehicle has passed the van driver moves to overtake and can do so quite safely and without issue wherever the cyclist is in the lane. The cyclist does not delay the van driver at all, it should make no difference whatsoever to the driver if he had moved in quickly after the oncoming traffic stopped or took a little time (or indeed decided not to for various reasons - eg can't see any potholes or kerbside hazards on the video but speaking more generally these exist anywhere and are reason to stay away from the edges of roads).


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 9, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Overtaking safely would mean crossing/straddling the white lines (even if the cyclist was in secondary position not primary). The cyclist is clearly going to be going more than 10mph. Overtaking in such a situation is illegal.



As per rule 169, the cyclist should slow down to less than 10mph. No wonder drivers who have have had their competence tested get the hump with these fuckers.


----------



## Spymaster (May 9, 2017)

BigTom said:


> At the start of the video the white line is solid, it becomes broken but there is an oncoming vehicle preventing a (safe) overtake. Once the oncoming vehicle has passed the van driver moves to overtake and can do so quite safely and without issue wherever the cyclist is in the lane. The cyclist does not delay the van driver at all, it should make no difference whatsoever to the driver if he had moved in quickly after the oncoming traffic stopped or took a little time (or indeed decided not to for various reasons - eg can't see any potholes or kerbside hazards on the video but speaking more generally these exist anywhere and are reason to stay away from the edges of roads).


The cyclist was very clearly stoned and almost certainly a UKIP supporter.


----------



## sleaterkinney (May 10, 2017)

Who's in the wrong here?


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> Who's in the wrong here?



The cyclist. Obvs.


----------



## sealion (May 10, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> The cyclist. Obvs.


Yep, he clearly never indicated the left turn.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 10, 2017)

No hi-viz, no helmet.


----------



## Spymaster (May 10, 2017)

Sea Lion said:


> Yep, he clearly never indicated the left turn.





Bahnhof Strasse said:


> No hi-viz, no helmet.



I'm sure you're both right. I haven't watched the video.


----------



## High Voltage (May 10, 2017)

And no rear light showing. The car driver never stood a chance


----------



## Artaxerxes (May 10, 2017)

Way over the line but apparently the cyclist told her off and kicked a wing mirror after she told him to mind his own beeswax driving dangerously.


Lucky she didn't reverse over him tbh.


----------



## T & P (May 10, 2017)

Driver has been sent down for three years. Good to see an appropriate sentence for once.


----------



## Santino (May 11, 2017)

Yesterday watched a cyclist mount the pavement, then cycle on the pedestrian crossing area, and finally cut across the road in order to continue his journey without the inconvenience of stopping at a red light.


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 11, 2017)

Confirmation bias and shit, you always remember the twattish ones


----------



## Private Storm (May 11, 2017)

Santino said:


> Yesterday watched a cyclist mount the pavement, then cycle on the pedestrian crossing area, and finally cut across the road in order to continue his journey without the inconvenience of stopping at a red light.



I can't believe I missed this in the news. How many deaths? Did you manage to finally catch up with him and gently explain the error of his ways with the front end of your car?


----------



## Santino (May 11, 2017)

Private Storm said:


> I can't believe I missed this in the news. How many deaths? Did you manage to finally catch up with him and gently explain the error of his ways with the front end of your car?


I often do them the courtesy of pointing out the red light that they have ignored or the pedestrians whom they have narrowly missed in their impatience to further their journey, but I am rarely met with anything except a blank stare or an expletive.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (May 11, 2017)

That footage is so mad, it looks like she's (the now convicted car driver) actually going to crash into the tree. She's obviously seeing red so badly she doens't care. Anyway she's been sent down for a few years.


----------



## hash tag (May 11, 2017)

Surprisingly, it is not only in the UK where car drivers chase cyclists on to the pavements to try and kill them, it also happens in France
Defending Tour de France champion Chris Froome 'rammed' off bike while training


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 11, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Surprisingly, it is not only in the UK where car drivers chase cyclists on to the pavements to try and kill them, it also happens in France
> Defending Tour de France champion Chris Froome 'rammed' off bike while training
> 
> View attachment 106465



Tax-dodger. Uses roads he's not paid for and now he expects the police and medical services he's also not paid for to swing in to action for him.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 11, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Surprisingly, it is not only in the UK where car drivers chase cyclists on to the pavements to try and kill them, it also happens in France
> Defending Tour de France champion Chris Froome 'rammed' off bike while training
> 
> View attachment 106465


Malaysian betting syndicate


----------



## emanymton (May 11, 2017)

Private Storm said:


> I can't believe I missed this in the news. How many deaths? Did you manage to finally catch up with him and gently explain the error of his ways with the front end of your car?


This post is an excellent answer to the thread title.


----------



## hash tag (May 12, 2017)

This has caused a bit of a storm locally


----------



## fredfelt (May 12, 2017)

I find the gleeful obsession with the allocation of fault, which is prevalent in this thread, saddening and rather pathetic.  

An acquaintance, and a friend of my partners was killed in a road accident this week.  She was 31.  She was killed while riding her bike.


----------



## Artaxerxes (May 12, 2017)




----------



## Teaboy (May 12, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


>




Fucking hell.  I used to live minutes from there.  What the video doesn't show is that there is a footbridge immediately to the left of the camera.  It was only put in a few years ago after local residents kicked off.  As with this guy, the prospect of climbing a few steps is just too horrifying for most.


----------



## Artaxerxes (May 12, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Fucking hell.  I used to live minutes from there.  What the video doesn't show is that there is a footbridge immediately to the left of the camera.  It was only put in a few years ago after local residents kicked off.  As with this guy, the prospect of climbing a few steps is just too horrifying for most.



I just... he's so fucking angry at the crossing trying to stop him being turn in to meat paste, I just don't understand how you can be that angry. 


Read about the crossing, and happily the train apparently stopped in the platform meaning he was waiting behind it for even longer.


----------



## Teaboy (May 12, 2017)

Here's the footbridge. The cameraman must have been stood where that bike tyre is.







That being said, the guy does seem to be having a proper bad day. Probably won't improve when he get's a knock on the door from transport plod either.


----------



## Spymaster (May 12, 2017)

fredfelt said:


> I find the gleeful obsession with the allocation of fault, which is prevalent in this thread, saddening and rather pathetic.


Then you're on the wrong thread. Fred.


----------



## hash tag (May 12, 2017)

That being said, the guy does seem to be having a proper bad day. Probably won't improve when he get's a knock on the door from transport plod either.[/QUOTE]

A bad day  there was very nearly little left of him, turning from a bad day for him into nightmares for the train driver.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 12, 2017)

hash tag said:


> That being said, the guy does seem to be having a proper bad day. Probably won't improve when he get's a knock on the door from transport plod either.



A bad day  there was very nearly little left of him, turning from a bad day for him into nightmares for the train driver.[/QUOTE]
nearly a portion of cyclist tartare


----------



## Teaboy (May 12, 2017)

I'm a bit disappointed I didn't recognise him. I lived in the immediate area for 5 years and thought I knew all the angry mad fuckers.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 12, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> I'm a bit disappointed I didn't recognise him. I lived in the immediate area for 5 years and thought I knew all the angry mad fuckers.



I'm upset that upon seeing the picture of him hoofing his bike over the railing I instantly knew where that was. I was once pretty damn cool. Now this


----------



## hash tag (May 12, 2017)

It doesn't matter where it is, it's still just a brainless thing to do (and yes, I know it quite well, I have looked at buying nearby, it's close to where my baby goes for check ups and also not far from the overpriced showroom that is classic chrome).


----------



## Orang Utan (May 12, 2017)

hash tag said:


> It doesn't matter where it is, it's still just a brainless thing to do (and yes, I know it quite well, I have looked at buying nearby, it's close to where my baby goes for check ups and also not far from the overpriced showroom that is classic chrome).


Your baby?


----------



## hash tag (May 12, 2017)

Ask Bahnhof Strasse, they understand and could explain


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 12, 2017)

Orang Utan, hashers  drives an Alfa, a car which, like a baby looks lovely, but is ultimately a useless pain in the arse.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 12, 2017)

Only babies should be called babies. Anyone who calls their car their baby is crying out for it to be keyed.


----------



## hash tag (May 12, 2017)

And cared for and pampered. She's family.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 12, 2017)

hash tag said:


> And cared for and pampered. She's family.


It's a car. IT.


----------



## hash tag (May 12, 2017)

She is very safely tucked up at nights


----------



## Orang Utan (May 12, 2017)

Fucking weirdo


----------



## Pickman's model (May 12, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Only babies should be called babies.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 12, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> It's a car. IT.


You clearly saw none of the herbie films as a child


----------



## Orang Utan (May 12, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> You clearly saw none of the herbie films as a child


I did see those fictional films


----------



## Pickman's model (May 12, 2017)

Orang Utan it is traditional when replying to add something of your own


----------



## hash tag (May 12, 2017)

A much better film about a car with a personality was of course Christine


----------



## hash tag (May 14, 2017)

And here is Christine, a late 50's Plymouth Fury (she's evil)


----------



## High Voltage (May 14, 2017)

And bad to the bone


----------



## nuffsaid (May 16, 2017)




----------



## T & P (May 16, 2017)

Cyclist's fault, he was on the wrong lane.

[/spymaster]


----------



## High Voltage (May 17, 2017)

in


----------



## High Voltage (May 17, 2017)

and yes, he was in the wrong lane


----------



## Spymaster (May 17, 2017)

Very poor hazard perception on the part of the cyclist there.


----------



## High Voltage (May 17, 2017)

He's quickly back up on his feet, no harm done


----------



## High Voltage (May 17, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Very poor hazard perception on the part of the cyclist there.



Yep, couldn't agree more, he was simply swanning along without a care in the world, expecting everyone else to make allowances for him


----------



## Mumbles274 (May 17, 2017)

probably still looking for his shoe


----------



## gentlegreen (May 17, 2017)

That was a spectacularly incompetent driver - needs to be encouraged to use a different mode of transport.


----------



## mojo pixy (May 17, 2017)

Contextually, he's not really_ in the wrong lane_; if he'd been intending to turn right, he'd have been over to the right of that lane. He's almost certainly on the left of the right lane so that overtaking traffic will have space to pass him on the left.

IMO what happened is that the two car drivers were eyeing each other up, wondering who would move first, and when the first one moved he (or she) just failed to see the cyclist. It kind of looks deliberate because of the long pause, but the fact the car then stops shows it probably wasn't.

Whatever. bloke gets knocked off bike, it's hilarious obviously.


----------



## Leo2 (May 18, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> Contextually, he's not really_ in the wrong lane_; if he'd been intending to turn right, he'd have been over to the right of that lane. He's almost certainly on the left of the right lane so that overtaking traffic will have space to pass him on the left.
> 
> IMO what happened is that the two car drivers were eyeing each other up, wondering who would move first, and when the first one moved he (or she) just failed to see the cyclist. It kind of looks deliberate because of the long pause, but the fact the car then stops shows it probably wasn't.
> 
> Whatever. bloke gets knocked off bike, it's hilarious obviously.



Two things - I've been knocked off my bike a couple of times (once was my fault - riding in the dusk without lights) and had to go to hospital both times - so, to me, it's never hilarious when someone is knocked off his bike. He was just lucky.

The second being that the bike rider was clearly in the wrong lane. He was barreling along in the 'turn-right' lane, and no one could anticipate his crossing the intersection. I have ridden bikes long enough to know that you must give other road users clear indication of your intentions, otherwise *you* pay the price.


----------



## mojo pixy (May 18, 2017)

No, I was being sarcastic with the 'hilarious', apologies it it failed to show. This is why I tend to avoid sarcasm online, I just can't make it work.

But my long and varied experience of cycling and of seeing cyclists move around says he's on the outside of that lane so traffic can pass him in the actual outside lane, and if he was going to turn he'd have
a) signalled his intention to turn
b) been on the inside of the inside lane, and
c) been slowing down a bit (maybe)


----------



## gentlegreen (May 18, 2017)

Leo2 said:


> Two things - I've been knocked off my bike a couple of times (once was my fault - riding in the dusk without lights) and had to go to hospital both times - so, to me, it's never hilarious when someone is knocked off his bike. He was just lucky.
> 
> The second being that the bike rider was clearly in the wrong lane. He was barreling along in the 'turn-right' lane, and no one could anticipate his crossing the intersection. I have ridden bikes long enough to know that you must give other road users clear indication of your intentions, otherwise *you* pay the price.


But the driver would have needed to give way even if he had been turning right.
In many states in the USA he would by law have had to ride up against the kerb.


----------



## Winot (May 18, 2017)

gentlegreen said:


> But the driver would have needed to give way even if he had been turning right.



Good point.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Very poor hazard perception on the part of the cyclist there.



When the cyclist sees the car turning he swerves in to the path of the car, a simple swerve to the left and the car's paintwork would be unblemished. A lifetime's Lycra ban is in order here.


----------



## High Voltage (May 18, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> When the cyclist sees the car turning *he swerves in to the path of the car* . . .



Thus ensuring he's going to be hit - looks like this is some form of insurance scam


----------



## Pickman's model (May 18, 2017)

High Voltage said:


> Thus ensuring he's going to be hit - looks like this is some form of insurance scam


yeh yer man's going to claim whiplash etc


----------



## nuffsaid (May 18, 2017)

As the poster of that gif, my initial thoughts when I saw it were that the driver was a total idiot.

There's plenty of time to turn before the cyclist even appears in shot! It's ludicrous! And when the driver does turn it should be blatantly obvious the cyclist is there. Twat.


----------



## Spymaster (May 18, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> It kind of looks deliberate because of the long pause, but the fact the car then stops shows it probably wasn't.


The car driver's obviously some kind of bleeding heart lefty. He actually stops after the collision when it's very clear that the cyclist is still moving. Usually a quick glance in the mirror is enough to reassure me that there are visual signs of life, so I can get on with my day. If they fail to move, I _*always*_ stop at the next town and report it.

The driver in this case was clearly some liberal do-gooder.


----------



## Spymaster (May 18, 2017)

nuffsaid said:


> As the poster of that gif, my initial thoughts when I saw it were that the driver was a total idiot.
> 
> There's plenty of time to turn before the cyclist even appears in shot! It's ludicrous! And when the driver does turn it should be blatantly obvious the cyclist is there. Twat.


----------



## nuffsaid (May 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


>



? - I can see the sarcasm in other comments.


----------



## Spymaster (May 18, 2017)

It's not sarcasm


----------



## nuffsaid (May 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> It's not sarcasm



Well crikey, the driver obviously has time to turn...shouldn't affect the cyclist at all.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> If they fail to move, I _*always*_ stop at the next town and report it.


and that time in australia, pa? when the next town was 18 hours drive away?


----------



## Spymaster (May 18, 2017)

nuffsaid said:


> Well crikey, the driver obviously has time to turn...shouldn't affect the cyclist at all.


But we don't know what the driver was doing that caused them to delay the turn. I often stop at junctions like that and pause whilst I pour myself another Macallan.


----------



## Spymaster (May 18, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> and that time in australia, pa? when the next town was 18 hours drive away?


If the cyclist is 18 hours drive from the nearest town, he's dead anyway, son. No need to dwell on it.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> If the cyclist is 18 hours drive from the nearest town, he's dead anyway, son. No need to dwell on it.


yeh. but you were only 20 miles outside the last town.


----------



## Spymaster (May 18, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. but you were only 20 miles outside the last town.


Yes but I had some haemorrhoid cream for your mum and had to get home asap. All the cyclists in the world aren't worth spending a night with your mum when her farmers are on a flare up.


----------



## Leo2 (May 18, 2017)

Well, I would have thought blame could be apportioned pretty equally in that incident. The driver for turning in the face of oncoming traffic, and the cyclist for using the wrong lane - thereby confusing other road users as to his intentions. My concern is for the cyclist because he is the vulnerable party in that interaction.

As both a driver and a cyclist (I'm a full time uni student, and can't always afford to use the old car my mum gave me,) I am also concerned at the attitudes displayed by both cyclists and drivers of motor vehicles.

Car drivers are often unaware of the existence of both cyclists and motor bikes - and this down to just carelessness on their part. Situational awareness should be a part of every driver's training, and I think a lack of situational awareness was a big part of the collision we witnessed. The car driver simply didn't see the cyclist - a relatively small object in comparison to the motorised transport around him. That is no excuse - but it is a reason.

Cyclists, on the other hand, often get around with the entitled attitude that they have an equal right to the Queen's highway. This may be so in law, but on the practical level, the speed at which a bicycle customarily travels ensures that it constitutes a moving chicane on any major highway. Cyclists also often ignore traffic lights and other road rules, thereby infuriating drivers of motor vehicles, and promoting a lack of cooperation from them. As a cyclist, I know how tempting it is to nip across a relatively deserted intersection on the red - thereby saving having to stop, and spend the energy getting up to speed on a hill.

A little bit of thought and recognition on the part of both motorists and cyclists would obviate many frustrations and may avoid some collisions.


----------



## Spymaster (May 18, 2017)

Leo2 said:


> Well, I would have thought blame could be apportioned pretty equally in that incident. The driver for turning in the face of oncoming traffic, and the cyclist for using the wrong lane - thereby confusing other road users as to his intentions. My concern is for the cyclist because he is the vulnerable party in that interaction.
> 
> As both a driver and a cyclist (I'm a full time uni student, and can't always afford to use the old car my mum gave me,) I am also concerned at the attitudes displayed by both cyclists and drivers of motor vehicles.
> 
> ...


If you take the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th paragraphs out of that, it's not a bad post.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> The car driver's obviously some kind of bleeding heart lefty. He actually stops after the collision when it's very clear that the cyclist is still moving. Usually a quick glance in the mirror is enough to reassure me that there are visual signs of life, so I can get on with my day. If they fail to move, I _*always*_ stop at the next town and report it.
> 
> The driver in this case was clearly some liberal do-gooder.


----------



## Leo2 (May 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> If you take the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th paragraphs out of that, it's not a bad post.



Lol, you are too kind. Or as a friend often says "You are all heart - no brains, but all ..."

But being a well brought up sort of lad - I wouldn't dream of saying any such thing.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 18, 2017)

Leo2 said:


> Lol, you are too kind. Or as a friend often says "You are all heart - no brains, but all ..."
> 
> But being a well brought up sort of lad - I wouldn't dream of saying any such thing.


you left out that pa is right


----------



## Leo2 (May 18, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> you left out that pa is right



To quote the infamous Francis Urqhart (affectionately known as 'FU',) from the TV series 'House of Cards': "You may very well think so, I couldn't possibly comment!"


----------



## mojo pixy (May 18, 2017)

As ever, the point isn't who is the more wankish; cyclists are wankers, drivers are wankers. You couldn't get a rizla between the wankishness of the two groups, as groups. The same person can be a bike wanker and a car wanker, sometimes even on the same day.

Cyclists are _more vulnerable_, that's the main difference. Cyclists don't have half a ton of plastic and metal around them, and that's why drivers need to be more careful, just like cyclists need to be more careful around pedestrians, who aren't gliding along at chest height astride a metal frame. We know this and I'm failing to have a sense of humour but every day random people behave wankly and frankly it gets me down.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 18, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> As ever, the point isn't who is the more wankish; cyclists are wankers, drivers are wankers. You couldn't get a rizla between the wankishness of the two groups, as groups. The same person can be a bike wanker and a car wanker, sometimes even on the same day.
> 
> Cyclists are _more vulnerable_, that's the main difference. Cyclists don't have half a ton of plastic and metal around them, and that's why drivers need to be more careful, just like cyclists need to be more careful around pedestrians, who aren't gliding along at chest height astride a metal frame. We know this and I'm failing to have a sense of humour but every day random people behave wankly and frankly it gets me down.


The question at hand is not who the bigger wankers are, nor who is more vulnerable but what do people have against cyclists.


----------



## lefteri (May 18, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> As ever, the point isn't who is the more wankish; cyclists are wankers, drivers are wankers. You couldn't get a rizla between the wankishness of the two groups, as groups. The same person can be a bike wanker and a car wanker, sometimes even on the same day.
> 
> Cyclists are _more vulnerable_, that's the main difference. Cyclists don't have half a ton of plastic and metal around them, and that's why drivers need to be more careful, just like cyclists need to be more careful around pedestrians, who aren't gliding along at chest height astride a metal frame. We know this and I'm failing to have a sense of humour but every day random people behave wankly and frankly it gets me down.



Spot on

Apart from misspelling wankily


----------



## mojo pixy (May 18, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> The question at hand is not who the bigger wankers are, nor who is more vulnerable but what do people have against cyclists.



True.

On that, I really think it's mostly envy that cyclists get to skip through congestion and take mad shortcuts, and don't have to pay any insurance or _Vehicle Excise Duty_ (ladida) while using all the same roads and often behaving like arseholes too. Drivers would love to be able to do all that stuff for free and unobstructed but they can't and cyclists can, hence the scorn. _If you can't beat them, hate them_ or something.


----------



## mojo pixy (May 18, 2017)

lefteri said:


> Apart from misspelling wankily



I did it because wankly looks good with frankly.


----------



## emanymton (May 18, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> The question at hand is not who the bigger wankers are, nor who is more vulnerable but what do people have against cyclists.


Actally the question bothering me right now is how come Leo2 has as many follows as me despite have only been here for 5 minutes. 

Eta - I now seem to have acquired a few new followers now.


----------



## lefteri (May 18, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> I did it because wankly looks good with frankly.



I know but it was still wrong

Licenses can be revoked


----------



## mojo pixy (May 18, 2017)

Not this one


----------



## Pickman's model (May 18, 2017)

emanymton said:


> Actally the question bothering me right now is how come Leo2 has as many follows as me despite have only been here for 5 minutes.


the question that should REALLY be bothering you is, why did you bother to look at yer man's profile?


----------



## emanymton (May 18, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> the question that should REALLY be bothering you is, why did you bother to look at yer man's profile?


Good point. I don't usally bother.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 18, 2017)

emanymton said:


> Good point. I don't usally bother.


i've started 'following' you to cheer you up


----------



## Leo2 (May 18, 2017)

emanymton said:


> Actally the question bothering me right now is how come Leo2 has as many follows as me despite have only been here for 5 minutes.



Thanks for that - I didn't realise there were followers listed in our profiles. I'm dead chuffed at that. 

But I've actually been here just over a month. 

And yeh, yeh, I see from your profile that you've been a member from when I was like seven - _ Ich gebe auf, du gewinnst_ - I can't compete with that!


----------



## Orang Utan (May 18, 2017)

emanymton said:


> Actally the question bothering me right now is how come Leo2 has as many follows as me despite have only been here for 5 minutes.


people only ever press that button by mistake


----------



## Crispy (May 18, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> people only ever press that button by mistake


If you want to filter who can send you PMs, it's useful.


----------



## T & P (May 18, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> True.
> 
> On that, I really think it's mostly envy that cyclists get to skip through congestion and take mad shortcuts, and don't have to pay any insurance or _Vehicle Excise Duty_ (ladida) while using all the same roads and often behaving like arseholes too. Drivers would love to be able to do all that stuff for free and unobstructed but they can't and cyclists can, hence the scorn. _If you can't beat them, hate them_ or something.


Yes to a degree, but while some drivers and Daily Mai sub editors toe that line, I reckon that's not the main problem with *those* drivers who are properly hostile towards cyclists

I think the main issue is the very suggestion that motor vehicles should reduce their speed to the lowest common denominator on the road (i.e. cyclists) until it's safe to pass them, instead of the old-fashioned 'cyclists belong on the edge of the road and should not slow down cars by riding in the middle of the lane' mentality. It seems to me that most of the worst incidents that you see in the news involve car drivers ramming cyclists taking the recommended assertive position and 'blocking' the car driver, which apparently is enough to send some over the edge.


----------



## Artaxerxes (May 19, 2017)

Theres that level crossing again...


----------



## Santino (May 19, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> As ever, the point isn't who is the more wankish; cyclists are wankers, drivers are wankers. You couldn't get a rizla between the wankishness of the two groups, as groups. The same person can be a bike wanker and a car wanker, sometimes even on the same day.
> 
> Cyclists are _more vulnerable_, that's the main difference. Cyclists don't have half a ton of plastic and metal around them, and that's why drivers need to be more careful, just like cyclists need to be more careful around pedestrians, who aren't gliding along at chest height astride a metal frame. We know this and I'm failing to have a sense of humour but every day random people behave wankly and frankly it gets me down.


As a pedestrian, often crossing the road with a small child or an elderly man with mobility difficulties, it is overwhelmingly cyclists who cause me extra grief and whose decision to ignore traffic lights and other road safety rules increase the risk of someone getting hurt.


----------



## gentlegreen (May 19, 2017)

T & P said:


> It seems to me that most of the worst incidents that you see in the news involve car drivers ramming cyclists taking the recommended assertive position and 'blocking' the car driver, which apparently is enough to send some over the edge.



That's very rare in my experience - in fact I can't think of a documented case.
Most of the ones I notice involve timid riders squeezing down the inside of lorries.

For myself I always ride assertively -  and it works.


----------



## BigTom (May 26, 2017)

Survey reveals worrying statistics surrounding cyclist misinformation

quite a lot of drivers hate cyclists as a result of drivers not knowing the highway code.



> The survey of 1,000 drivers from across the UK found that they regularly lose their temper with cyclists under the belief that they’re breaking the law or cycling without due care and attention. As a result, 39 per cent of drivers surveyed confess to having got angry with a cyclist.



Not sure the stats actually work like that but I can't see the breakdown so maybe 39% of drivers have got angry with a cyclist who was following the highway code because the driver thought they were breaking it, rather than 39% getting angry with cyclists and the journalist placing that as a direct connection.
I find it quite depressing that so many drivers have the highway code rules about riding two abreast and using cycle lanes backwards. At least with stuff like primary position and filtering on the left of traffic these aren't in the highway code itself (national standards for cycling, I call it the section of the highway code that gives specific directions to cyclists, which is what it effectively is but techincally isn't) so expecting a driver to know/understand those rules is a bit more of an ask, whereas the highway code itself is what drivers are tested on to get their licence.


----------



## Santino (May 26, 2017)

Yesterday I watched a cyclist riding along the pavement, then swerve onto the road, across the lane of incoming traffic, then get into the centre lane (intended for vehicles turning right at the upcoming junction), then proceed straight ahead, ignoring the red traffic lights in order to cross the junction, and then proceed on his merry way.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 26, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> people only ever press that button by mistake



sure one of your twenty-four must have meant to follow you


----------



## Sue (May 26, 2017)

This morning. Busy crossroads, red lights on all roads. Cyclist comes round the corner at top speed, through a red light, straight through a load of people crossing on a green man. So far, so common alas.

This guy was, however, blowing a fucking whistle vigorously. The implication to my mind being that if you didn't get out the way in time/got hit by him, it was all your own fault. Because he was blowing a fucking whistle which obviously trumps the right of pedestrians to cross safely at a green man. FFS, what an absolute twat.


----------



## Winot (May 26, 2017)

Santino said:


> Yesterday I watched a cyclist riding along the pavement, then swerve onto the road, across the lane of incoming traffic, then get into the centre lane (intended for vehicles turning right at the upcoming junction), then proceed straight ahead, ignoring the red traffic lights in order to cross the junction, and then proceed on his merry way.





Sue said:


> This morning. Busy crossroads, red lights on all roads. Cyclist comes round the corner at top speed, through a red light, straight through a load of people crossing on a green man. So far, so common alas.
> 
> This guy was, however, blowing a fucking whistle vigorously. The implication to my mind being that if you didn't get out the way in time/got hit by him, it was all your own fault. Because he was blowing a fucking whistle which obviously trumps the right of pedestrians to cross safely at a green man. FFS, what an absolute twat.



I'm not really sure why you're posting these anecdotes - it's really fucking tedious. What would you like cyclists who cycle responsibly to do? Do we need to wait until every cyclist behaves responsibly before we deserve safe treatment?


----------



## Santino (May 26, 2017)

I'm just repeatedly answering the question stated in the OP.


----------



## Winot (May 26, 2017)

Santino said:


> I'm just repeatedly answering the question stated in the OP.



So you brand all cyclists based on the bad behaviour of the ones you witness?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 26, 2017)

Santino said:


> I'm just repeatedly answering the question stated in the OP.


don't baffle winot with your intricate arguments.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 26, 2017)

Winot said:


> So you brand all cyclists based on the bad behaviour of the ones you witness?


where has Santino or Sue extrapolated from the pisspoor behaviour they've observed to damn all cyclists?


----------



## Santino (May 26, 2017)

Winot said:


> So you brand all cyclists based on the bad behaviour of the ones you witness?


No.


----------



## Sue (May 26, 2017)

Winot said:


> I'm not really sure why you're posting these anecdotes - it's really fucking tedious. What would you like cyclists who cycle responsibly to do? Do we need to wait until every cyclist behaves responsibly before we deserve safe treatment?



Well the title of the thread *is* 'what have people got against cyclists?' so giving the odd example seems a reasonable enough thing to do.

And most cyclists behaving responsibly would be an excellent start. Alas, we're very far away from that at the monent.  

Fwiw, I strongly support cyclists getting 'safe treatment'. 

I also strongly support pedestrians not having to dodge pavement cyclists or having to jump out of the way when crossing at a green man because some wanker can't be arsed to wait at a red light and all the rest of it but hey.


----------



## Winot (May 26, 2017)

Santino said:


> No.



Right, so how about you grow up and have a think about the bigger picture. The UK's got a obesity problem and London's got a congestion and pollution problem. If more people can be persuaded to take up cycling then it will help enormously. Acting like a dick (whether as a cyclist or a keyboard warrior) doesn't help anyone.


----------



## Sue (May 26, 2017)

Winot said:


> Right, so how about you grow up and have a think about the bigger picture. The UK's got a obesity problem and London's got a congestion and pollution problem. If more people can be persuaded to take up cycling then it will help enormously. Acting like a dick (whether as a cyclist or a keyboard warrior) doesn't help anyone.


In principle, i think more people taking up cycling is a great idea. If it makes life more difficult for pedestrians, not so keen. 

(Believe there's been a big increase in cycling in the last few years where I live -- Hackney. I've also noticed a big increase in pavement cyclists, for example. As a pedestrian, this is a bad thing. I won't walk along the local canals now, for example, as cyclists seem to pay very little heed to pedestrians even though cyclists are meant to give way to pedestrians.)


----------



## Winot (May 26, 2017)

Sue said:


> In principle, i think more people taking up cycling is a great idea. If it makes life more difficult for pedestrians, not so keen.
> 
> (Believe there's been a big increase in cycling in the last few years where I live -- Hackney. I've also noticed a big increase in pavement cyclists, for example. As a pedestrian, this is a bad thing. I won't walk along the local canals now, for example, as cyclists seem to pay very little heed to pedestrians even though cyclists are meant to give way to pedestrians.)



Pedestrians deserve to be able to walk without being intimidated or endangered. If the provision for cyclists is got right then it shouldn't make life difficult for pedestrians. The new segregated cycle tracks going through Blackfriars for example have resulted in cyclists behaving better (not my observation - my non-cycling colleague).


----------



## mojo pixy (May 26, 2017)

Sue said:


> This morning. Busy crossroads, red lights on all roads. Cyclist comes round the corner at top speed, through a red light, straight through a load of people crossing on a green man. So far, so common alas.
> 
> This guy was, however, blowing a fucking whistle vigorously. The implication to my mind being that if you didn't get out the way in time/got hit by him, it was all your own fault. Because he was blowing a fucking whistle which obviously trumps the right of pedestrians to cross safely at a green man.



This is the kind of moment where I just get deliberately in the way. Amazingly, no cyclist has ever actually run into me when I do this. They always manage to stop in time, and usually follow up by sharing some invective with the back of my head.


----------



## Spymaster (May 26, 2017)

Winot said:


> I'm not really sure why you're posting these anecdotes - it's really fucking tedious.


No it's not. It's the whole point of the thread.


> What would you like cyclists who cycle responsibly to do?


There's no such thing. 

Take you for example. Just from your posting style it's evident that you ride an insufficiently illuminated bike, whilst wearing headphones.


----------



## Spymaster (May 26, 2017)

Winot said:


> Acting like a dick (whether as a cyclist or a keyboard warrior) doesn't help anyone.


We're not trying to help anyone. We just want to slag off cyclists


----------



## Pickman's model (May 26, 2017)

Sue said:


> In principle, i think more people taking up cycling is a great idea. If it makes life more difficult for pedestrians, not so keen.
> 
> (Believe there's been a big increase in cycling in the last few years where I live -- Hackney. I've also noticed a big increase in pavement cyclists, for example. As a pedestrian, this is a bad thing. I won't walk along the local canals now, for example, as cyclists seem to pay very little heed to pedestrians even though cyclists are meant to give way to pedestrians.)


last year i walked back along the canal, the first time for ages because of the cyclists, and it was actually much better than i remembered.


----------



## Sue (May 26, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> last year i walked back along the canal, the first time for ages because of the cyclists, and it was actually much better than i remembered.


Hmm, should maybe give it another go. Was really unpleasant the last few times though.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 26, 2017)

Sue said:


> Hmm, should maybe give it another go. Was really unpleasant the last few times though.


Yeh I quite expected it to be horrid, but apart from a couple of arsy twats very nice walk back on a day much like today.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 26, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> We're not trying to help anyone. We just want to slag off cyclists


And cyclists keep giving us ammunition, pa


----------



## mojo pixy (May 26, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> ... ammunition ...



I get mine at the beach.


----------



## Spymaster (May 26, 2017)

It's surprisingly easy to nudge cyclists into the water on tow paths. I've even perfected a teqhnique which makes them think it was their own fault.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 26, 2017)

Winot said:


> I'm not really sure why you're posting these anecdotes - it's really fucking tedious. What would you like cyclists who cycle responsibly to do? Do we need to wait until every cyclist behaves responsibly before we deserve safe treatment?


I dunno, seems fair enough.

Christ, if I saw some cunt blowing a whistle while riding through a red light I'd be tempted to get off my bike and put a stick through his spokes.


----------



## PursuedByBears (May 26, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I dunno, seems fair enough.
> 
> Christ, if I saw some cunt blowing a whistle while riding through a red light I'd be tempted to get off my bike and put a stick through his spokes.


----------



## Santino (May 26, 2017)

I decided to look out of the window and see how long it took before a cyclist did something objectionable at the crossing near our flat. It was 44 seconds.


----------



## Winot (May 26, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I dunno, seems fair enough.
> 
> Christ, if I saw some cunt blowing a whistle while riding through a red light I'd be tempted to get off my bike and put a stick through his spokes.



I was hoping that we could move the conversation on a bit. I guess I was wrong


----------



## Spymaster (May 26, 2017)

Winot said:


> I was hoping that we could move the conversation on a bit. I guess I was wrong


What would you like to discuss?


----------



## hash tag (May 28, 2017)

There is of course the issue of delaying emergency services...

*"Bristol's segregated cycle lanes putting ambulance patients' lives at risk, paramedics claim"*

*Cycle lanes put ambulance patients lives at risk, paramedics say*


----------



## Pickman's model (May 28, 2017)

Winot said:


> I was hoping that we could move the conversation on a bit. I guess I was wrong


Maybe you're on the wrong thread here chuck


----------



## BigTom (May 28, 2017)

hash tag said:


> There is of course the issue of delaying emergency services...
> 
> *"Bristol's segregated cycle lanes putting ambulance patients' lives at risk, paramedics claim"*
> 
> *Cycle lanes put ambulance patients lives at risk, paramedics say*



That's a really weird article, it started life as a Telegraph article: Cycle lanes putting patients' lives at risk by delaying ambulances, College of Paramedics warn
I thought it was specific to London but actually the comment was about the UK, but definitely not specifically about Bristol.

Anyway, this is the College of Paramedic's response to the original telegraph article:



> The College of Paramedics seems to have been somewhat embarrassed at the way the Telegraph reported this story and the reception on Twitter from cycling advocates.
> 
> It tweeted: “Point made to @Telegraph: Segregated cycle lanes save lives, however 'raised curbs' can obstruct drivers from allowing ambulances to pass.
> 
> “We are disappointed with how these comments have been reported and request that emergency vehicles are considered when planning highways.”



More rubbish about cycleways as the Telegraph manufactures a story from a paramedic's evidence-free 'feeling'

(emergency services are heavily consulted on these schemes)

worth pointing out that there is no NHS data but the Fire Brigade data has shown no change in emergency response times in Waltham Forest, where roads were closed entirely, and there's also loads of videos of police/ambulances using the cycle superhighways to move along roads which were previously two lanes of traffic jam, are now one lane of traffic jam + cycle route, and bikes can get out of emergency service vehicles more easily than cars, so the route is clearer now than previously.
Also given how many drivers park on pavements and get up on curbs without apparent issue, are the curbs protecting the cyclists really difficult/impossible to go over in emergency?

idk but I'm skeptical of this story, it's certainly not based on data, and I've seen london paramedics tweeting in disagreement with the person interviewed.


----------



## hash tag (May 28, 2017)

Obviously, a bit of paint at the side of the road is never going to be an issue, but those lanes which are segregated by a kerb could prove an issue
for motorists


----------



## BigTom (May 28, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Obviously, a bit of paint at the side of the road is never going to be an issue, but those lanes which are segregated by a kerb could prove an issue
> for motorists
> 
> View attachment 107857



That's an odd layout though, most segregated lanes are bi-directional like the first bit of the photo (although that looks pretty narrow anyway), and wide enough to drive down, driving down the second section of that could be an issue depending on the actual kerb height / vehicle clearance though the kerb doesn't look very high, but what I meant was that I didn't really understand why it was a problem for drivers to mount the curb to create space let emergency services vehicles through. There's a fair section of space to move onto at the start of that photo and drivers on the other side can do the same, so why is it an issue? Most cars would have enough clearance to drop down the other side to move across and then go back over it I reckon. The cycle lanes I've seen in Manchester don't have especially high kerbs, some cars wouldn't be able to do it but most would, so if it's not happening I'm curious as to why/where?


----------



## hash tag (May 29, 2017)

At the Elephant and Castle, they have many new segregated cycle lanes and the raised kerb bits are wider than those shown in the earlier picture.
I would imagine they would be quite risky to mount without damaging tyres or maybe even getting stuck.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 31, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Obviously, a bit of paint at the side of the road is never going to be an issue, but those lanes which are segregated by a kerb could prove an issue
> for motorists
> 
> View attachment 107857



FWIW, that particular one in the picture has been redone with lanes on both sides of the road now, the other side has armadillos rather than a kerb, but I think this is just temporary. It's also proposed to be one way.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 31, 2017)

(I'm not a big fan of kerbs as it's a barrier to rejoining traffic to turn, or in some cases if you miss the 'entry' to the cycle lane, for example turning onto the road, you can't get in the lane without stopping and clambering over)


----------



## DownwardDog (May 31, 2017)

I'm having a passbox installed on one of my bikes next week as part of a research project. It uses ultrasound to measure if cars come too close and then automatically videos them and uploads it the Internet. 






I'm not sure what it will make of my RLJ antics and other misdemeanours.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 31, 2017)

DownwardDog said:


> I'm having a passbox installed on one of my bikes next week as part of a research project. It uses ultrasound to measure if cars come too close and then automatically videos them and uploads it the Internet.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



^^^ This answers the thread question


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2017)

DownwardDog said:


> I'm having a passbox installed on one of my bikes next week as part of a research project. It uses ultrasound to measure if cars come too close and then automatically videos them and uploads it the Internet.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


how does it differentiate between cars coming too close to you, and you going too close to cars?


----------



## Crispy (May 31, 2017)

hash tag said:


> View attachment 107857


what the fuck is that accident factory?


----------



## Orang Utan (May 31, 2017)

I tell you what irks me about other cyclists - was just reminded about this as I was at King's Cross, where there's loads of bike racks - people who don't take their locks with them when they take their bike from the rack. Cunts. Hanging's too good etc.


----------



## plurker (May 31, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> in some cases if you miss the 'entry' to the cycle lane, for example turning onto the road, you can't get in the lane without stopping and clambering over)


This happenes to me quite regularly (maybe once every couple of weeks) on the section as you come out of Kennington Road, turning Right/south towards Brixton/Stockwell.
Generally, when it happens, it's because another cylcist has jumped the red light as they come straight down from E&C. I have a lot against those bloody cyclists, I can tell you.


----------



## hash tag (May 31, 2017)

Saves the poor things having to drag their big heavy lock home with them every day AND it reserves them a space!


----------



## Orang Utan (May 31, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Saves the poor things having to drag their big heavy lock home with them every day AND it reserves them a space!


well out of order. it's such an eyesore.


----------



## hash tag (May 31, 2017)

Bleedin cyclists


----------



## Orang Utan (May 31, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Bleedin cyclists


Not as much as an eyesore as a bunch of cars at a red light spouting fumes, mind


----------



## hash tag (May 31, 2017)

so what would cyclists know about red lights?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> I tell you what irks me about other cyclists - was just reminded about this as I was at King's Cross, where there's loads of bike racks - people who don't take their locks with them when they take their bike from the rack. Cunts. Hanging's too good etc.


you get outraged by the most ludicrous things.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2017)

hash tag said:


> so what would cyclists know about red lights?


green for cyclists


----------



## Orang Utan (May 31, 2017)

hash tag said:


> so what would cyclists know about red lights?


Plenty of us stop at them.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Plenty of us stop at them.


only at junctions, rarely at crossings


----------



## hash tag (May 31, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Plenty of us stop at them.



and plenty ignore them


----------



## hash tag (May 31, 2017)

All because of a cyclist Double-decker buses queue the whole length of Waterloo Bridge


----------



## BigTom (May 31, 2017)

hash tag said:


> and plenty ignore them



as do plenty of drivers. Cyclists though don't usually get blocked by other cyclists in front of them at the lights and there's essentially zero chance of being caught/stopped (not that there's much chance of that in a car either, apart from red light cameras).


----------



## Orang Utan (May 31, 2017)

hash tag said:


> All because of a cyclist Double-decker buses queue the whole length of Waterloo Bridge


fuck off, someone got hurt.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 31, 2017)

hash tag said:


> All because of a cyclist Double-decker buses queue the whole length of Waterloo Bridge



That happens every time the Strand underpass is closed cos a car stacks it down there. Obviously the Standard doesn't report on that, cos cyclists are scum.


----------



## BigTom (May 31, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> fuck off, someone got hurt.



this.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 31, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> fuck off, someone got hurt.





BigTom said:


> this.



Meh, people get hurt all the time, doesn't mean we can't comment on it. Besides, let's have a look at who was to blame for the hurt: The male cyclist is believed to have *collided with the rear of a van*, police said.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 31, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Not as much as an eyesore as a bunch of cars at a red light spouting fumes, mind


Which isn't a patch on a bunch of Lycra-clad cyclists, running red lights in order to catch a glimpse of the Lycra-clad bottoms attached to the serial red light runners in front of them.


----------



## hash tag (May 31, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> fuck off, someone got hurt.



The inferral is the cyclist rode into the back of a van, if so, whose fault?
ALSO, reports say injuries are not life threatening!
I have been into a police station once, pouring blood, so not my fault. What did the police do? Take this form away with you to fill out!


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2017)

hash tag said:


> All because of a cyclist Double-decker buses queue the whole length of Waterloo Bridge


and you know for a fact that cyclists were hopping onto the pavement and cycling past all that


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> fuck off, someone got hurt.


oh noes 

someone's been hurt


----------



## cyril_smear (May 31, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> *What have people got against cyclists?*
> ...



The nearside usually.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 31, 2017)

Ironically the crash happened right outside Cycle Surgery


----------



## BigTom (May 31, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Meh, people get hurt all the time, doesn't mean we can't comment on it. Besides, let's have a look at who was to blame for the hurt: The male cyclist is believed to have *collided with the rear of a van*, police said.



of course we can comment on it - it's the crassness of the comment, about the delay caused to other people because of treatment to someone who is injured. Doesn't matter that it's almost certain he was to blame, it's not right to complain about other people being delayed because someone has been hurt.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 31, 2017)

BigTom said:


> it's not right to complain about other people being delayed because someone has been hurt.



Yes it is, if someone's incompetence delays hundreds, possibly thousands of people then there is every right to complain.


----------



## cyril_smear (May 31, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yes it is, if someone's incompetence delays hundreds, possibly thousands of people then there is every right to complain.



Exactly, if white van man had had his foot down like usual none of this would have happened. C U N T.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2017)

BigTom said:


> of course we can comment on it - it's the crassness of the comment, about the delay caused to other people because of treatment to someone who is injured. Doesn't matter that it's almost certain he was to blame, it's not right to complain about other people being delayed because someone has been hurt.


yeh. well i bet you'd find, if statistics were kept, that roads are closed longer now than they used to be when there's any sort of incident. 

closing the bridge for at least 45 minutes? why so long?


----------



## Artaxerxes (May 31, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Ironically the crash happened right outside Cycle Surgery




Maybe they should live up to the name and offer bikes and medical assistance in one shop?


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 31, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> closing the bridge for at least 45 minutes? why so long?



The cyclist probably spent that long trying to convince the old bill it was someone else's fault.


----------



## BigTom (May 31, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. well i bet you'd find, if statistics were kept, that roads are closed longer now than they used to be when there's any sort of incident.
> 
> closing the bridge for at least 45 minutes? why so long?



That doesn't really have any relevance to what I've said does it? It's not the cyclist's decision to keep the bridge closed for 45 minutes, so that's the police/ambulance that should be getting the complaints, right?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2017)

BigTom said:


> That doesn't really have any relevance to what I've said does it? It's not the cyclist's decision to keep the bridge closed for 45 minutes, so that's the police/ambulance that should be getting the complaints, right?


yeh. well, in the meantime you'll have to act _in loco vigili_


----------



## joustmaster (May 31, 2017)

people trying to have a laugh on this thread (or maybe even meaning it) is really fuking horrible. 
shitcunts of the year


----------



## Orang Utan (May 31, 2017)

joustmaster said:


> people trying to have a laugh on this thread (or maybe even meaning it) is really fuking horrible.
> shitcunts of the year


This thread has been taken over by them.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 31, 2017)

joustmaster said:


> people trying to have a laugh on this thread (or maybe even meaning it) is really fuking horrible.
> shitcunts of the year



Yeah, real shitty...



joustmaster said:


> and what's with all the stupid lycra that they wear?


----------



## hash tag (May 31, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> This thread has been taken over by them.



The OP asks what have people got against cyclists - just saying like.


----------



## hash tag (May 31, 2017)

BigTom said:


> That doesn't really have any relevance to what I've said does it? It's not the cyclist's decision to keep the bridge closed for 45 minutes, so that's the police/ambulance that should be getting the complaints, right?



It has never been know for a cyclist to lay it on thick in order to apportion blame or increase the claim?


----------



## Orang Utan (May 31, 2017)

hash tag said:


> The OP asks what have people got against cyclists - just saying like.


And the answer appears to be 'nothing but blind prejudice'


----------



## hash tag (May 31, 2017)

I think you will find more peds than cyclists get killed and/or injured on the roads every year; where is their voice?
Besides if cyclists and everyone come to that, had a bit more respect for each other and the law, our world would be a slightly better place.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> And the answer appears to be 'nothing but blind prejudice'


yeh cos OBVIOUSLY only the most blinkered prejudice could object to cyclists on the footway, cyclists going through red lights, cyclists going the wrong way down one way streets etc. you show your true colours here. only a wanker's wanker could reduce all the answers to this thread to 'nothing but blind prejudice'.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2017)

hash tag said:


> I think you will find more peds than cyclists get killed and/or injured on the roads every year; where is their voice?
> Besides if cyclists and everyone come to that, had a bit more respect for each other and the law, our world would be a slightly better place.


yeh but you have nothing but blind prejudice, hashie. nothing but blind prejudice


----------



## cyril_smear (May 31, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> The cyclist probably spent that long trying to convince the old bill it was someone else's fault.



Doubt it would have taken long, cyclist would have had it all on his helmet cam.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 31, 2017)

hash tag said:


> I think you will find more peds than cyclists get killed and/or injured on the roads every year; where is their voice?
> Besides if cyclists and everyone come to that, had a bit more respect for each other and the law, our world would be a slightly better place.


Well yes, which is why such shitcuntery of guffawing at injured people and blatant anti-cyclist bigotry needs to fuck off out of this thread


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 31, 2017)

Anyways, having spent years working around Aldwych and commuting in to Waterloo I saw numerous cyclists come a cropper at the north end of Waterloo Bridge. What they do is tailgate vans and buses to reduce drag like some kind of record breaker twat, but fail to stop quickly enough once the vehicle in front stops for the lights with the Strand.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 31, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Well yes, which is why such shitcuntery of guffawing at injured people and blatant anti-cyclist bigotry needs to fuck off out of this thread



You started it.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 31, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You started it.


The thread, not the nastiness


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Well yes, which is why such shitcuntery of guffawing at injured people and blatant anti-cyclist bigotry needs to fuck off out of this thread


yeh it's always someone else and never you  you need to start taking responsibilities for your own actions, chuck


----------



## Orang Utan (May 31, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Anyways, having spent years working around Aldwych and commuting in to Waterloo I saw numerous cyclists come a cropper at the north end of Waterloo Bridge. What they do is tailgate vans and buses to reduce drag like some kind of record breaker twat, but fail to stop quickly enough once the vehicle in front stops for the lights with the Strand.


I agree that catching the drift of large vehicles is fuckwittery of the highest order


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 31, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> The thread, not the nastiness



So you're absolving yourself of any responsibility? Just light the touch paper and slink off?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Well yes, which is why such shitcuntery of guffawing at injured people and blatant anti-cyclist bigotry needs to fuck off out of this thread


if you desire mod powers, please apply to editor, who i am sure will treat your approach with the attention it deserves


----------



## Orang Utan (May 31, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So you're absolving yourself of any responsibility? Just light the touch paper and slink off?


Yes, entirely. I started it cos I was genuinely bemused by the hate, and still am.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So you're absolving yourself of any responsibility? Just light the touch paper and slink off?


no, it's worse: he lights the blue touch paper and stands by smirking


----------



## Orang Utan (May 31, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> if you desire mod powers, please apply to editor, who i am sure will treat your approach with the attention it deserves


I don't desire mod powers. What on earth make you think that? Being critical doesn't mean you want to be a mod, otherwise that would make you a prime candidate


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> I don't desire mod powers. What on earth make you think that? Being critical doesn't mean you want to be a mod, otherwise that would make you a prime candidate


yet you want people to do what you tell them. why should they? it's not like you've status here, or authority, or influence.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 31, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yet you want people to do what you tell them. why should they? it's not like you've status here, or authority, or influence.


Eh? Don't know wtf you're on about. Now you're just being unpleasant


----------



## BigTom (May 31, 2017)

hash tag said:


> I think you will find more peds than cyclists get killed and/or injured on the roads every year; where is their voice?
> Besides if cyclists and everyone come to that, had a bit more respect for each other and the law, our world would be a slightly better place.



Stop Killing Cyclists:



> What:  Stop Killing Cyclists are staging 2 protests and Die-Ins outside the Headquarters of the Labour & Tory Parties, demanding that they increase investment in the UK’s national protected cycling infrastructure and walking to 10% of the transport budget by 2020.



Sustrans too. ime cycling groups tend to see the interests of cyclists and pedestrians being aligned, and increasingly any demands are for budget increases for cycling and walking, not just cycling.
And whilst the absolute numbers have more peds killed/injured, the rate of death is pretty much the same, and the rate of serious and slight injuries is much higher for cycling.

I totally agree that pedestrians get the least attention (although at least there's a largely continuous network of pavements in towns/cities, and always protected diversions when pavements are closed for works, and there'd never be a question of whether to build a pavement or not) but whatever voices there are out there for pedestrians, it's nominally or formerly cycling organisations/pressure groups that I see.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Well yes, which is why such shitcuntery [...] needs to fuck off out of this thread


that's unpleasant.


----------



## hash tag (May 31, 2017)

As someone who has seen London from most sides of the transport coin, I see cyclists as sanctimonious law breakers who have massive chips on their shoulders and because of the various campaign groups get their voices heard more than anyone else. It wouldn't be so bad if they respected the law as much as they would have us believe they did. It is time they took more responsibilty for their actions! This simply causes massive frustrations from both peds and car drivers alike. We should all try and get along in order to try and make the roads and enviroment a better place instead of trying to wind each other up!


----------



## BigTom (May 31, 2017)

hash tag said:


> As someone who has seen London from most sides of the transport coin, I see cyclists as sanctimonious law breakers who have massive chips on their shoulders and because of the various campaign groups get their voices heard more than anyone else. It wouldn't be so bad if they respected the law as much as they would have us believe they did. *It is time they took more responsibilty for their actions!* This simply causes massive frustrations from both peds and car drivers alike. We should all try and get along in order to try and make the roads and enviroment a better place instead of trying to wind each other up!



It's not fair to place some kind of collective responsibility on a group of people just because they happen to have the same transport choices. Why should I take any responsibility for another cyclist's action, and how would that happen anyway? What would it look like? This cyclist who ran into the back of the van, I live over 100 miles from the incident, I have never and will never interact with the person - do I have some kind of responsibility for his actions because I happen to have ridden a bike today?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2017)

BigTom said:


> It's not fair to place some kind of collective responsibility on a group of people just because they happen to have the same transport choices. Why should I take any responsibility for another cyclist's action, and how would that happen anyway? What would it look like? This cyclist who ran into the back of the van, I live over 100 miles from the incident, I have never and will never interact with the person - do I have some kind of responsibility for his actions because I happen to have ridden a bike today?


i took hash tag to mean they individually should take more responsibility for their actions.


----------



## hash tag (May 31, 2017)

As individuals and as groups, I see/hear cyclists as both sanctimonious and law breakers. 
As individuals, perhaps they should take a little more responsibility for their actions.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 31, 2017)

Yeah!

But BigTom could still show some remorse for this Waterloo Bridge twat's actions.


----------



## BigTom (May 31, 2017)

hash tag said:


> As individuals and as groups, I see/hear cyclists as both sanctimonious and law breakers.
> As individuals, perhaps they should take a little more responsibility for their actions.



fair enough as I misread that.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yeah!
> 
> But BigTom could still show some remorse for this Waterloo Bridge twat's actions.


yeh it would show a nice spirit.


----------



## Winot (May 31, 2017)

hash tag said:


> As someone who has seen London from most sides of the transport coin, I see cyclists as sanctimonious law breakers who have massive chips on their shoulders and because of the various campaign groups get their voices heard more than anyone else. It wouldn't be so bad if they respected the law as much as they would have us believe they did. It is time they took more responsibilty for their actions! This simply causes massive frustrations from both peds and car drivers alike. We should all try and get along in order to try and make the roads and enviroment a better place instead of trying to wind each other up!



Yeah why aren't moderate Muslims cyclists condemning this latest outrage?


----------



## hash tag (May 31, 2017)

AND another thing. Many people associate cyclists as being drug takers ala Armstrong Et al.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2017)

hash tag said:


> AND another thing. Many people associate cyclists as being drug takers ala Armstrong Et al.


and rightly so. who can forget the thread "armstrong tests positive"?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 31, 2017)

hash tag said:


> AND another thing. Many people associate cyclists as being drug takers ala Armstrong Et al.



Yeah, and not even the fun drugs, the bounders.


----------



## hash tag (May 31, 2017)

As an excyclist, as a cancer sufferer, as a human being, what that Bastard did was, on so many levels, offensive, but that's mainly for a different thread. Saying that, I did get tarred by his brush a bit and cyclists still do.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 31, 2017)

hash tag said:


> As individuals and as groups, I see/hear cyclists as both sanctimonious and law breakers.
> As individuals, perhaps they should take a little more responsibility for their actions.


but what you say about cyclists applies equally to other road users. you've got a bee in your bonnet about one particular kind.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 31, 2017)

hash tag said:


> AND another thing. Many people associate cyclists as being drug takers ala Armstrong Et al.


no, you just did by spewing onto your keyboard


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 31, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> but what you say about cyclists applies equally to other road users. you've got a bee in your bonnet about one particular kind.



Car drivers aren't sanctimonious, they're awesome. Especially the chosen few who drive Audis.


----------



## BigTom (May 31, 2017)

Armstrong is to my cycling as Ben Johnson is to my walking or Michael Schumacher is to my driving.


----------



## joustmaster (May 31, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yeah, real shitty...


Something a bit different between mocking their clothes and taking joy in people being injured


----------



## xenon (May 31, 2017)

Loads of cyclists go on the pavement round here.  The fucking pricks.  One went by me this morning.  On the other hand, one stopped in the middle of the road to let me cross today. So 50 50 today.

 They quite often jump the red light by Templemeeds  and I like to shout wanker at them when  so.


----------



## xenon (May 31, 2017)

Actually we've got one of those shared surface things nearby as well.  No one takes any fucking notice.  The pedestrians are supposed to walk off to the side and then rejoin the pavement further  along.   Now, I can't see the signs indicating this of course. But no one else takes any notice anyway.  That's just a stupid design  though. I wouldn't blame cyclists for that.  They seem to realise that they cant to follow the designated cycle path as laid out.


----------



## tim (May 31, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> The cyclist probably spent that long trying to convince the old bill it was someone else's fault.



I saw him. He wasn't in a position to conviv e anyone of anything. When I we t past he was lying seemingly unconscious with paramedics trying to insert some kind of tube in his mouth. The Standard says his injuries are not life threatening which is good news, because last night I feared I was looking at a corpse.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 1, 2017)

BigTom said:


> ... or Michael Schumacher is to my driving.


That's a terrible thing to do, dragging Schumacher into this. 
I would have thought even the most self-righteous cyclists, with a hatred of all things that aren't themselves, would have the decency not to use a brain damaged car driver to bolster their argument.


----------



## Winot (Jun 1, 2017)

joustmaster said:


> Something a bit different between mocking their clothes and taking joy in people being injured



Lots of wanna be shock jocks on this thread who think they're HILARIOUS.


----------



## hash tag (Jun 1, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> but what you say about cyclists applies equally to other road users. you've got a bee in your bonnet about one particular kind.



Really? After all the ranting and raging and you can't see why. That's part of the issue!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 1, 2017)

Winot said:


> Lots of wanna be shock jocks on this thread who think they're HILARIOUS.


something you could never be accused of being, hilarious


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 1, 2017)

hash tag said:


> The inferral is the cyclist rode into the back of a van, if so, whose fault?
> ALSO, reports say injuries are not life threatening!
> I have been into a police station once, pouring blood, so not my fault. What did the police do? Take this form away with you to fill out!


The van probably cut in front.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 1, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Yes, entirely. I started it cos I was genuinely bemused by the hate, and still am.


it's just like the cars they drive to make up for their own inadequacies.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 1, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> That's a terrible thing to do, dragging Schumacher into this.
> I would have thought even the most self-righteous cyclists, with a hatred of all things that aren't themselves, would have the decency not to use a brain damaged car driver to bolster their argument.



tbf fair he should have put "or Michael Schumacher is to my skiing"


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 1, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> The van probably cut in front.


that may well be true... but invokes a massive concern that I have with cyclists. Vehicles in slow moving traffic  may change lanes, having checked it is safe to do so by observing carriageways, cycle lanes, checking for anything overtaking on the right, and pedestrian hazards.  But if the traffic is slow you could think you are safe to change lanes without accounting for bikes travelling at speed wherever they see a gap between vehicles.  Carving out their own unpredictable carriageways.  Undertaking one car, weaving through, squeezing between lanes, crossing onto and off the pavement... If freaks me out no end.  It must be even worse in a van where your peripheral vision is just reduced to your wing mirrors.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 1, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> that may well be true... but invokes a massive concern that I have with cyclists. Vehicles in slow moving traffic  may change lanes, having checked it is safe to do so by observing carriageways, cycle lanes, checking for anything overtaking on the right, and pedestrian hazards.  But if the traffic is slow you could think you are safe to change lanes without accounting for bikes travelling at speed wherever they see a gap between vehicles.  Carving out their own unpredictable carriageways.  Undertaking one car, weaving through, squeezing between lanes, crossing onto and off the pavement... If freaks me out no end.  It must be even worse in a van where your peripheral vision is just reduced to your wing mirrors.


and that there isn't a greater slaughter of cyclists most likely down to good fortune than anything else.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 1, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> that may well be true... but invokes a massive concern that I have with cyclists. Vehicles in slow moving traffic  may change lanes, having checked it is safe to do so by observing carriageways, cycle lanes, checking for anything overtaking on the right, and pedestrian hazards.  But if the traffic is slow you could think you are safe to change lanes without accounting for bikes travelling at speed wherever they see a gap between vehicles.  Carving out their own unpredictable carriageways.  Undertaking one car, weaving through, squeezing between lanes, crossing onto and off the pavement... If freaks me out no end.  It must be even worse in a van where your peripheral vision is just reduced to your wing mirrors.


The reality is though that some car and van drivers do not look or that they do look and pull out anyway, it genuinely surprised me when I started cycling (I can drive too) and a part of it is due to the attitudes on this thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 1, 2017)

i've noticed pavement cyclists in their helmets and that don't take kindly to being asked whether they're too scared to mix it on the carriageway


----------



## mojo pixy (Jun 1, 2017)

They don't like it much when you won't get out of their way, neither.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 1, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> that may well be true... but invokes a massive concern that I have with cyclists. Vehicles in slow moving traffic  may change lanes, having checked it is safe to do so by observing carriageways, cycle lanes, checking for anything overtaking on the right, and pedestrian hazards.  But if the traffic is slow you could think you are safe to change lanes without accounting for bikes travelling at speed wherever they see a gap between vehicles.  Carving out their own unpredictable carriageways.  Undertaking one car, weaving through, squeezing between lanes, crossing onto and off the pavement... If freaks me out no end.  It must be even worse in a van where your peripheral vision is just reduced to your wing mirrors.



I drive vans regularly and no it's not worse - the mirrors are bigger, blind spot mirrors work 100% (the only way you get a blind spot is if you don't line yourself up properly at a t-junction, there's none if you are in a queue of traffic looking down the side of your vehicle). Any decent van driver uses their mirrors a lot more than you would in a car to keep track of what is coming up behind, and it's not like being in an articulated lorry where turns will produce crazy large blind spots. 

I will also take this moment to say / remind people that when filtering past traffic cyclists can:

Filter on the left (being semantically pedantic, this is not "undertaking", it's "filtering" and it's passing slow moving traffic so allowed in the highway code even if it was "undertaking" although checking the highway code the undertaking rule may only apply on motorways anyway). filtering on the left is explicitly allowed for cyclists in the national standards for cycling. It is not allowed for motorcyclists.
Lane split - going in the middle of two lanes of traffic. This is also allowed for motorcyclists and afaik is their recommended position on multi-lane roads
Filter on the right - also allowed for motorcyclists.

THere is no set recommendation for which of these positions cyclists should use - it depends on the circumstances of the road and the cyclist's preferences.

They shouldn't be jumping on/off pavements (although if it's a shared pavement, this would be legal).
Weaving through, we'll I'm never quite sure what is meant here - cyclists should generally not start filtering on the left, then switch over to the right, then back etc. but there are circumstances where this is the correct thing to do, eg: if you are filtering on the left but there's a large vehicle ahead, you should come out to the right to pass the large vehicle than may return to the left, or on my journey home, I'm filtering on the left on a 2-lane roundabout (because the next entrance gets left clear for drivers to enter the roundabout and if I lane split I would not be so visible to those drivers cos of the row of traffic between us), then as I exit the roundabout I move across to lane-split the two lanes before moving again to the right as the two lanes become one. I expect many drivers see what I'm doing and think I'm weaving through the traffic dangerously when in fact I'm moving from (imo) the safest filtering position on the roundabout to the safest filtering position on the next stretch of road.

Generally when filtering through traffic being predictable is important so usually choosing left/lane split/right and staying with that would be correct but that's not always the case. 
When filtering cyclists need to be cautious about drivers changing lane/pulling u-turns/opening passenger doors without looking but it's legally the driver's responsibility to look and ime it's the illegal driver behaviour of not looking before maneouvering that needs to be called out, not cyclists filtering in perfectly legal if sometimes not the best manner.


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 1, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I drive vans regularly and no it's not worse - the mirrors are bigger, blind spot mirrors work 100% (the only way you get a blind spot is if you don't line yourself up properly at a t-junction, there's none if you are in a queue of traffic looking down the side of your vehicle). Any decent van driver uses their mirrors a lot more than you would in a car to keep track of what is coming up behind, and it's not like being in an articulated lorry where turns will produce crazy large blind spots.
> 
> I will also take this moment to say / remind people that when filtering past traffic cyclists can:
> 
> ...


Well I'll admit I'm surprised that all of that movement on all sides of moving traffic and even weaving to get a faster through line, is legal. I stand corrected.   Is there any guidance or law for cyclists on how much space/clearance they should give other road users when filtering?


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jun 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> i've noticed pavement cyclists in their helmets and that don't take kindly to being asked whether they're too scared to mix it on the carriageway




I'll freely admit to being fucking terrified of cycling on the road.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 1, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> Well I'll admit I'm surprised that all of that movement on all sides of moving traffic and even weaving to get a faster through line, is legal. I stand corrected.   Is there any guidance or law for cyclists on how much space/clearance they should give other road users when filtering?



Yep, and in many cases being on the left is the safest place to be due to visibility at side roads & potential to dive on the pavement in an emergency, it's also where any painted cycle lane will be (for the most part, there are a few cycle lanes in between two lanes of general traffic).
Weaving to get a faster line is not recommended at all, but weaving to switch filtering positions to be in the safest position most definitely is (although it's to be avoided - usually you can pick the safer side down a stretch of road and not need to move from that).

There's nothing in the national standards for cycling or highway code about how much space to leave when filtering. One of the advantages stated to filtering on the right of traffic is that you can get out wide away from traffic so if someone does do a u-turn without looking/indicating or a passenger gets out of the rear, it's not so much of a problem. Generally speaking leaving at least a doors width when passing cars is advised due to the potential of someone opening a door without looking, but there's nothing in the national standards for cycling which says anything about how much space to leave between yourself and a car when filtering, and this wouldn't usually be possible when filtering on the left or lane splitting.


----------



## hash tag (Jun 1, 2017)

hash tag said:


> As individuals and as groups, I see/hear cyclists as both sanctimonious and law breakers.
> As individuals, perhaps they should take a little more responsibility for their actions.





Orang Utan said:


> but what you say about cyclists applies equally to other road users. you've got a bee in your bonnet about one particular kind.



When riding, I did lots of vol work for both LCC and their Croydon branch and ridden with lots of people unconnected with theses groups.
People at these campaign groups are quick to blame motorists for everything, regardless of blame. This attitude has pissed many cyclists I knew off (yet alone motorists) and they would not go near LCC.

When riding I have kissed death. I reckoned on a visit to hospital once a year to be patched up and that was partly down to the irresponsibility of youth, arrogance and testosterone. I slip streamed buses and lorries at 30MPH+, I have been stopped by police for racing past slow moving traffic and it was partly my fault if anything went wrong! Generally, this was not an attitude shared with other hardened cyclists.

Since then, I have grown up a bit and as an essential driver, I have learnt to take a bit more responsibility in respect of accident prevention. Also, as a pedestrian/runner, I have been hit by a cyclist once or twice. See my post #1719. This action would not be necessary if cyclists acted more responsibly. I walked past this on my way to work this morning. There have been more obstructions put up to slow cyclists down yet they still race along the footpath at 20+. 

We all have to learn to live together and take responsibility for our own actions and to not always blame others when something goes wrong, which cyclists are quick to do, even if they are at fault.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 1, 2017)

What's an essential driver?
But again, you're lumping all cyclists together and saying something that applies to all road users


----------



## hash tag (Jun 1, 2017)

I like cars but I have to drive because of work, it is a requirement. I would not and could not do my job without a car.


----------



## hash tag (Jun 1, 2017)

Dear OU, your opening post does not mention ALL cyclists, the paper headline does not mention ALL cyclists. I don't recall mentioning ALL cyclists.
Its what it is with many things in life. It is a case of one or two rotten apples I am afraid and people are quick to taint a large group of people with the same stigma of one or two, it's easily done. All coppers are bastards. All football supporters are hooligans two name but many instances.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 1, 2017)

But all coppers ARE bastards


----------



## hash tag (Jun 1, 2017)

Thats exactly the attitude you are using against people that knock cyclists.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 1, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Thats exactly the attitude you are using against people that knock cyclists.


no, it isn't. Being a copper is a job. a job that requires you to be a bastard. A cyclist is just someone who rides a bike and a whole cross section of society from bastard to wally to saint is represented there.


----------



## hash tag (Jun 1, 2017)

Dear Orang Utan, for you, with peace, love and tree hugs.





PS for all you know I might be a bastard copper


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 1, 2017)

i wouldn't be surprised


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 1, 2017)




----------



## hash tag (Jun 1, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse I am shocked at you! This is far more my style



Orang Utan 1. for sweeping generalisations, see what car drivers say about (a) Audi Drivers (b) BMW drivers or (c) white van man.
And for the record, the closest I have ever got to a copper is trying to date one back home in Croydon and another in Amsterdam! x


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 1, 2017)




----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 1, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> I'll freely admit to being fucking terrified of cycling on the road.


Most roads are fine, but I'm never going to ride in city centre/rush hour traffic.


----------



## hash tag (Jun 1, 2017)

I used to do the majority of my riding in the city, where cars generally move quite slowly, even more so now with the 20 MPH limits being rolled out.
It was the speeding motorists on narrowish country lanes that terrified me.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 1, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Most roads are fine, but I'm never going to ride in city centre/rush hour traffic.


It's a thrill! Why pay £40 to go to Alton Towers when you can get the rush of riding fast in traffic?


----------



## spanglechick (Jun 1, 2017)

hash tag said:


> I used to do the majority of my riding in the city, where cars generally move quite slowly, even more so now with the 20 MPH limits being rolled out.
> It was the speeding motorists on narrowish country lanes that terrified me.


As a motorist I feel the same.  Driving in town is a leisurely practice.  But narrow, winding lanes with no streetlights and impatient locals tailgating you because you're doing a little less than the maximum speed limit (in the dark, with blind turns and narrow roads...) it's the worst.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 1, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> It's a thrill! Why pay £40 to go to Alton Towers when you can get the rush of riding fast in traffic?


It's one thrill I can manage without. I'd quite like to see my children grow up.

Fast (30mph+) riding, in a group, on quiet roads, with pretty scenery to look at and fresh air to breathe. Much better


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 1, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Most roads are fine, but I'm never going to ride in city centre/rush hour traffic.



It's exhilarating, once you learn to control traffic and mark out the space you need. There's a buzz when you time things right, pull off that perfect merge, skin the lights at just the right moment, shoot through a gap etc., when you get to know the light phasings off by heart, when you get to know when to hold off.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 1, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> It's exhilarating, once you learn to control traffic and mark out the space you need. There's a buzz when you time things right, pull off that perfect merge, skin the lights at just the right moment, shoot through a gap etc., when you get to know the light phasings off by heart, when you get to know when to hold off.


Fuck that.


----------



## Winot (Jun 1, 2017)

hash tag said:


> When riding, I did lots of vol work for both LCC and their Croydon branch and ridden with lots of people unconnected with theses groups.
> People at these campaign groups are quick to blame motorists for everything, regardless of blame. This attitude has pissed many cyclists I knew off (yet alone motorists) and they would not go near LCC.
> 
> When riding I have kissed death. I reckoned on a visit to hospital once a year to be patched up and that was partly down to the irresponsibility of youth, arrogance and testosterone. I slip streamed buses and lorries at 30MPH+, I have been stopped by police for racing past slow moving traffic and it was partly my fault if anything went wrong! Generally, this was not an attitude shared with other hardened cyclists.
> ...



You sound like someone who used to smoke and is now a virulent anti-smoker.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 1, 2017)

Winot said:


> You sound like someone who used to smoke and is now a virulent anti-smoker.


He seems, to me, like a competent and responsible road user who realises that a not insignificant percentage of a certain subsection of road users don't like to take responsibility for their own actions.
Seems like a very reasonable person, to me.


----------



## T & P (Jun 1, 2017)

Pedestrians on the whole are by far the worst group at ignoring any notion of responsibility and self awareness IME. But for as long as the law of the land grants peds a de facto immunity from fault, little will change there.


----------



## hash tag (Jun 2, 2017)

Winot said:


> You sound like someone who used to smoke and is now a virulent anti-smoker.



I am not keen on the hyprocrisy that comes from sanctimonious cyclists. They seem to want everything without any resposability and then are clueless as to why they (some, not all) are despised by other road users.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jun 2, 2017)

On that note, today something happened that illustrates exactly what people have against cyclists.

I was driving the work van up a busy road behind a cyclist who was riding slowly in the middle of the lane, not keeping left at all. That's OK, it was his legal right and I was patiently dawdling along looking for the right moment to pass. When I passed I left a good metre between us but that didn't stop the guy from yelling at me for passing too close .. fair enough I guess, it should've been 1.5 but given the width of the van I was driving and how far into the lane he was riding there was no way of leaving a full 1.5m without hitting the cars parked opposite.

Obviously there was no way I could explain all this as I passed so I contented myself with feeling a bit guilty and not yelling back.

So then we come to a junction and of course our bike man jumps the red lights. Again I thought fair enough, it's a steep hill and a busy junction.

I passed him again this time leaving a bigger gap, he glared as I passed but said nothing so it must've been enough .. then about 500yards further on, this time at a quiet t-junction on flat road, he jumps _another_ red light, taking time to flick a v at a pedestrian who called out at him.

So basically, there are a lot of cyclists who want to be treated equally on the road and demand other road users follow the safety rules, but then flout the rules themselves quite shamelessly, when it suits them.

It's been said already I think, but what happened this morning was a great illustration of the point.

/ramble


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 2, 2017)

Winot said:


> You sound like someone who used to smoke and is now a virulent anti-smoker.


you sound like someone who used to think and is now a virulent anti-thinker.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 8, 2017)

Cyclists claim security barriers on London bridges are 'unsafe'


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 8, 2017)

Cyclists/ISIS/Al Qaeda; three cheeks of the same arse.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 8, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 108786
> 
> Cyclists claim security barriers on London bridges are 'unsafe'



The ES reports on this have been awful. Is it really so bad to ask for the barriers to be put up a few feet to the right so the both the cycle lane and pavement is protected, rather than putting them in the cycle lane, blocking it and putting cyclists at greater risk of being hit by drivers?
Similarly, the ones on blackfriar bridge that went up overnight, cyclists have been asking for the barriers on the entry to be shifted around slightly to give better traffic flow but the ES report has been written like cyclists are complaining that they are there at all.
It's fucking atrocious clickbait nonsense.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 8, 2017)

BigTom said:


> The ES reports on this have been awful. Is it really so bad to ask for the barriers to be put up a few feet to the right so the both the cycle lane and pavement is protected, rather than putting them in the cycle lane, blocking it and putting cyclists at greater risk of being hit by drivers?
> Similarly, the ones on blackfriar bridge that went up overnight, cyclists have been asking for the barriers on the entry to be shifted around slightly to give better traffic flow but the ES report has been written like cyclists are complaining that they are there at all.
> It's fucking atrocious clickbait nonsense.


so no dispute that cyclists have complained.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 8, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> so no dispute that cyclists have complained.



about the positioning of the barriers, yes. Not about their existence. What's your problem with their complaint? Do you think it would be an issue if the barriers were a couple of feet further to the right? Do you think cyclists are wrong to want the same protection against motor vehicle driving terrorists as pedestrians? Do you think cyclists are wrong to complain about the increased danger to them which could so easily be fixed? Or do you think people should just stfu and accept their lives being put at risk for fuck all reason?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 8, 2017)

BigTom said:


> about the positioning of the barriers, yes. Not about their existence. What's your problem with their complaint? Do you think it would be an issue if the barriers were a couple of feet further to the right? Do you think cyclists are wrong to want the same protection against motor vehicle driving terrorists as pedestrians? Do you think cyclists are wrong to complain about the increased danger to them which could so easily be fixed? Or do you think people should just stfu and accept their lives being put at risk for fuck all reason?


obviously it would solve problems on one carriageway if the barriers were reinstalled a couple of feet to the right, but it would clearly exacerbate problems on the other side.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 8, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> On that note, today something happened that illustrates exactly what people have against cyclists.
> 
> I was driving the work van up a busy road behind a cyclist who was riding slowly in the middle of the lane, not keeping left at all. That's OK, it was his legal right and I was patiently dawdling along looking for the right moment to pass. When I passed I left a good metre between us but that didn't stop the guy from yelling at me for passing too close .. fair enough I guess, it should've been 1.5 but given the width of the van I was driving and how far into the lane he was riding there was no way of leaving a full 1.5m without hitting the cars parked opposite.
> 
> ...



You seem surprised. They're all like this. The ped he flicked the v's at should've kicked his spokes in.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 8, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> obviously it would solve problems on one carriageway if the barriers were reinstalled a couple of feet to the right, but it would clearly exacerbate problems on the other side.



How? You are the first person who has said this. I don't know the bridges but if you are saying that having /pavement, cycling lane, barrier, general lane, general lane, barrier, cycle lane, pavement/ would not fit, then how come all the cycling groups/campaigners are calling for that layout and nobody - except you - has objected saying it won't fit? If I've misunderstood what you are saying then please explain further.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 8, 2017)

BigTom said:


> How? You are the first person who has said this. I don't know the bridges but if you are saying that having /pavement, cycling lane, barrier, general lane, general lane, barrier, cycle lane, pavement/ would not fit, then how come all the cycling groups/campaigners are calling for that layout and nobody - except you - has objected saying it won't fit? If I've misunderstood what you are saying then please explain further.


imagine you're standing at the south end of london bridge looking north. in front of you are the two carriageways, each with barriers on which people are complaining about. you are directing the work party to move each barrier two feet to the right. but what's this? everyone's happy on the northbound carriageway but no one's happy on the southbound one. whatever can have happened? the barriers have been moved to the right, as per instructions. can you see the issue?


----------



## BigTom (Jun 8, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> imagine you're standing at the south end of london bridge looking north. in front of you are the two carriageways, each with barriers on which people are complaining about. you are directing the work party to move each barrier two feet to the right. but what's this? everyone's happy on the northbound carriageway but no one's happy on the southbound one. whatever can have happened? the barriers have been moved to the right, as per instructions. can you see the issue?



 oh right. ok ffs. from the pov of the road user using the road, the barrier you are are concerned about will move right. from the pov of someone standing at one end, one barrier will move right, one will move left. you knew that so are you going to continue being a pedantic cunt now or do you actually want a conversation? Or just pissed that you got duped by the ES reportage and now can't admit that the cyclists are right/have a point?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 8, 2017)

BigTom said:


> oh right. ok ffs. from the pov of the road user using the road, the barrier you are are concerned about will move right. from the pov of someone standing at one end, one barrier will move right, one will move left. you knew that so are you going to continue being a pedantic cunt now or do you actually want a conversation? Or just pissed that you got duped by the ES reportage and now can't admit that the cyclists are right/have a point?


neither, i'm just bored.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 8, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> neither, i'm just bored.



ah, fair enough.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 8, 2017)

The solution to the London bridges bike-lane issue:



Spoiler: Solution








Bet they still fucking moan.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 8, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The solution to the London bridges bike-lane issue:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That could quite easily be turned into a revenue generator, to help pay for itself. Kinda like a toll bridge, but more fun.


----------



## hash tag (Jun 13, 2017)

One of the many cyclists that I saw run a red light today (I am not talking about gambling with amber) rode straight through a group of pedestrians crossing the road.

Of course, bike racing is not exactly a clean green sport is it?


----------



## J.C.Decaux (Jun 13, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> So basically, there are a lot of cyclists who want to be treated equally on the road and demand other road users follow the safety rules, but then flout the rules themselves quite shamelessly, when it suits them



count me in there bruv, I've been jumping red lights as well as going up one way streets in C Ldn for year's,  I have never been involved or caused any problems and have actually only gotta tug off of OB (City of Ldn) once, yep for going through a pedestrian red on a Sunday afternoon when there was no other road user's there except for me and a big CofL Police van behind me which I obviously was not aware of.

Yes, whilst cycling from Victoria to Dalston via Holborn and Old St, I do from time to time witness as to what I regard as soppy behavior, i.e. not looking over the shoulder to make sure it's safe to move out and lack of hand signaling, that said, more often than not, I usually tell the person (if i can) that if there was a heavy goods vehicle passing, then their wing mirror would have smacked the back of their head and that there was a very high risk of serious injury or even death.

I am also astounded to watch cyclist's dressed in black clothing on winter nights without rear light's or any reflective clothing and wotnot,  maybe it cramps their style.

.


----------



## J.C.Decaux (Jun 13, 2017)

.

additum to the above post, did anyone on here attend the WNBR this year?.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 13, 2017)

J.C.Decaux said:


> ... for going through a pedestrian red on a Sunday afternoon when there was no other road user's there except for me and a big CofL Police van behind me which I obviously was not aware of.


Well there's a surprise. A cyclist who doesn't know what's happening on the road behind him.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 13, 2017)

J.C.Decaux said:


> except for me and a big CofL Police van behind me which I obviously was not aware of.
> I do from time to time witness as to what I regard as soppy behavior, i.e. not looking over the shoulder to make sure it's safe to move out



Cyclist who doesn't look over his shoulder admonishes other cyclists for not looking over their shoulders


----------



## hash tag (Jun 15, 2017)

I don't know how it got there ( he was 7 times over the limit), he is 67 years old, he has been banned before. Arrogant or stupid?

Canadian Cyclist - Daily News


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 15, 2017)

J.C.Decaux said:


> I've been jumping red lights as well as going up one way streets in C Ldn for year's


Well, you're a fucking twat then.


----------



## hash tag (Jun 22, 2017)

(sorry, im in a rush for an appointment and cant find the original post) I see there is a £2K reward for this 

£2k reward to catch cyclist who barged through level crossing


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 22, 2017)

hash tag said:


> (sorry, im in a rush for an appointment and cant find the original post) I see there is a £2K reward for this
> 
> £2k reward to catch cyclist who barged through level crossing



What's the penalty for jumping the barriers? Less than £2k and he should grass himself up.


----------



## OzT (Jun 22, 2017)

It's a fine of £1,000 but also a criminal record for jumping barriers

Level crossing misuse


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 22, 2017)

A cool grand in his hand then, touch.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 22, 2017)

Its my local area so I reckon I can track him down if I crawl enough pubs.  That being said with the cost of a pint round here I'd still probably end up out of pocket even with the reward.

Watching the video again though it does seem like the guy says something along the line of 'I don't care, I feel like jump....' then the train whizzes past.   Guy probably needs some help really.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 22, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Its my local area so I reckon I can track him down if I crawl enough pubs.  That being said with the cost of a pint round here I'd still probably end up out of pocket even with the reward.
> 
> Watching the video again though it does seem like the guy says something along the line of 'I don't care, I feel like jump....' then the train whizzes past.   Guy probably needs some help really.


a boost over the gate next time you see him perhaps


----------



## hash tag (Jun 22, 2017)

"What have people got against cyclists". I'm walking and lunching in the Surrey Hills and a short walk down these roads and you will see grass verges littered with the rubbish discarded by cyclists....drink bottles, gel wrappers etc.


----------



## Santino (Jun 22, 2017)

The other day I saw a cyclist ignore a red light, general road usage rules and the direction of traffic in a way too complicated to explain here without drawing a diagram.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 23, 2017)

hash tag said:


> "What have people got against cyclists". I'm walking and lunching in the Surrey Hills and a short walk down these roads and you will see grass verges littered with the rubbish discarded by cyclists....drink bottles, gel wrappers etc.



When I was up in Leeds, if you cycled out of the city on Otley Road there was a boundary somewhere around Weetwood where it switched from there being discarded nitrous oxide cartridges on the road to there being discarded carbon dioxide cartridges. The student/MAMIL frontier.


----------



## OzT (Jun 23, 2017)

help, what's MAMIL please?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 23, 2017)

OzT said:


> help, what's MAMIL please?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 23, 2017)

hash tag said:


> "What have people got against cyclists". I'm walking and lunching in the Surrey Hills and a short walk down these roads and you will see grass verges littered with the rubbish discarded by cyclists....drink bottles, gel wrappers etc.



Not to mention the day that the residents of the hills are held hostage by the scum-fuckers on their annual pretend to be Bradley Wiggins day


----------



## hash tag (Jun 23, 2017)

There was something happening down at West Humble/Box Hill yesterday. Despite verbal instructions from a marshall to walk, they were still cycling at speed under the A24.
yet again this morning I had words with a cyclist who went to jump a red light at the end of my road. Nearly every time I go out, this happens 

On top of that there were all these lycra clad individuals walking into the pub while I was trying to have a pleasant lunch with Mrs Tag. It is not very pleasent seeing  their bits trying to burst out of their shorts


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 23, 2017)

hash tag said:


> On top of that there were all these lycra clad individuals walking into the pub while I was trying to have a pleasant lunch with Mrs Tag. It is not very pleasent seeing  their bits trying to burst out of their shorts



Oh yeah. They've gotta make certain everyone in the pub gets an eyeful of their junk whilst they ponce about on their clickety-click shoes ordering sparkling waters and ciabatta bollocks, invariably paying with a fucking card


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jun 23, 2017)

Its all fun and games till someone loses an eye.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 23, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> When I was up in Leeds, if you cycled out of the city on Otley Road there was a boundary somewhere around Weetwood where it switched from there being discarded nitrous oxide cartridges on the road to there being *discarded carbon dioxide cartridges*. The student/MAMIL frontier.


What are those for? I live almost exactly where you describe and have never seen any


----------



## DownwardDog (Jun 23, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> What are those for? I live almost exactly where you describe and have never seen any



Reinflating tyres after changing a tube due to puncture. They are less heavy and bulky than a pump.


----------



## hash tag (Jun 23, 2017)

A new one on me  Cyclist switches off bus engine as ‘revenge’ for ‘aggressive pass'


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 23, 2017)

hash tag said:


> A new one on me  Cyclist switches off bus engine as ‘revenge’ for ‘aggressive pass'



heh, fair play


----------



## Santino (Jun 23, 2017)

Brilliant! I hope one of the passengers was late for a job interview.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 23, 2017)

Santino said:


> Brilliant! I hope one of the passengers was late for a job interview.


Why?


----------



## Santino (Jun 23, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Why?


It's what they deserve.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 23, 2017)

Santino said:


> It's what they deserve.




(there's a distinct lack of suitable smileys available)


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 23, 2017)

Santino said:


> Brilliant! I hope one of the passengers was late for a job interview.


doubt it, the bus is going away from town


----------



## Santino (Jun 23, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> doubt it, the bus is going away from town


Back towards where their sick children are waiting for them then. Either way. As long as someone was given additional stress, that's the main thing.


----------



## hash tag (Jun 23, 2017)

People go to work and get interviewed in Streatham.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 23, 2017)

Santino said:


> Back towards where their sick children are waiting for them then. Either way. As long as someone was given additional stress, that's the main thing.


it's all on the bus driver imo


----------



## mojo pixy (Jun 23, 2017)

Better revenge would have been to film his face as part of that bit of filming, and email it to the personnel dept at the bus company. Then it's _all _on the driver.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jun 23, 2017)

Santino said:


> As long as someone was given additional stress, that's the main thing.



That's how it works these days innit; Feel the rage, then pass it on. 
_Let it stop with me? Why the fuck should I? Eh? EH?_


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 23, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> it's all on the bus driver imo


What if the cyclist got so enraged he set fire to the bus and killed everyone on board? Would it be the bus driver's fault?
Two wrongs don't make a right. Unfortunately cyclists are always wrong, so the rest of us always have to be right to balance the scales


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 23, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> it's all on the bus driver imo



Yeah, two wrongs make a right, as my old nan used to say


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 23, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> heh, fair play


So he fucks over an entire bus full of passengers and causes a potential congestion hazard on the road, just because he was pissed off with the driver. 

He should have his spokes kicked-in, tyres punctured, and be forced to ride on a spike instead of a saddle in future.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 23, 2017)

hash tag said:


> People go to work and get interviewed in Streatham.


yeh. but it seems they shouldn't. they shouldn't have the gall, the sheer bloody gall, to travel to work or interview by omnibus  the bicyclist is well within his rights to hinder their journey to work, to disrupt the service, to dissuade others from similar acts of folly.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 23, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> So he fucks over an entire bus full of passengers and causes a potential congestion hazard on the road, just because he was pissed off with the driver.
> 
> He should have his spokes kicked-in, tyres punctured, and be forced to ride on a spike instead of a saddle in future.


impaled on his seat-pipe.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 23, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> So he fucks over an entire bus full of passengers and causes a potential congestion hazard on the road, just because he was pissed off with the driver.
> 
> He should have his spokes kicked-in, tyres punctured, and be forced to ride on a spike instead of a saddle in future.


it's at the bus stop and it would only have take a minute or two to sort out. bus driver shouldn't have passed him like that. fuck him.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 23, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> it's at the bus stop and it would only have take a minute or two to sort out. bus driver shouldn't have passed him like that. fuck him.




tell you what, next time a cyclist passes me dangerously, i'll be sure to be ready to push him - or her - over. after all, i'll only delay them a minute or two, barring broken bones or whatnot, and as you say it's all on them.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 23, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> it's at the bus stop and it would only have take a minute or two to sort out. bus driver shouldn't have passed him like that.


So bus driver's passengers should be punished for his mistakes. What other forms of collective punishment do you support?


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 23, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> tell you what, next time a cyclist passes me dangerously, i'll be sure to be ready to push him - or her - over.


No son, you push _the next_ cyclist over, and the one after that, and the one after that. That's what OU believes in; punishing people who've done nothing wrong.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 23, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> No son, you push _the next_ cyclist over, and the one after that, and the one after that. That's what OU believes in.


sooner or later i'll get round to him, pa.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 23, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> So bus driver's passengers should be punished for his mistakes. What other forms of collective punishment do you support?




OU supports the Three Generations of Punishment favoured by North Korea.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 23, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> OU supports the Three Generations of Punishment favoured by North Korea.


He devised it.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 23, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> He devised it.




Kim-Jong-Ou


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 23, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> He devised it.


yeh but it does have its good points, pa, you'd not get many cyclists pissing about on the pavement or speeding through red lights if they saw offenders shredded by anti-aircraft gun.

there are NO pavement cyclists in north korea: nor do cyclists go through red lights there.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jun 23, 2017)

Exodus 20:5. 

...for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 23, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> Exodus 20:5.
> 
> ...for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me


from the great rock n roll swindle (v. 3)


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 23, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> Exodus 20:5.
> 
> ...for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me



That's OU is it? Thought he was a Taurus.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jun 23, 2017)

He's not the messiah he's a very naughty boy etc


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 23, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Kim-Jong-Ou


----------



## hash tag (Jun 23, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yeah, two wrongs make a right, as my old nan used to say



An eye for an eye.......makes us all blind.

They had just left traffic lights, the bus would be close. The bus started out in the next lane and closed in a bit


----------



## mojo pixy (Jun 23, 2017)

What can you say? Drivers are wankers.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jun 23, 2017)

He probably couldn't help it. Red mist, total loss of control, temporary state of psychopathy.

Wait, which one am I on about now?


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 23, 2017)

The bus didn't pass too close anyway. The cyclists moved towards it as it passed.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 23, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> The bus didn't pass too close anyway. The cyclists moved towards it as it passed.


in an attempt to stop him passing


----------



## sealion (Jun 23, 2017)

hash tag said:


> People go to work and get interviewed in Streatham.


I heard it will be happening everywhere soon.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 23, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> in an attempt to stop him passing


No. As the pass was initiated the cyclist moved towards the bus to make it seem closer than it actually was and get some pictures for his video.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 23, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> it's at the bus stop and it would only have take a minute or two to sort out. bus driver shouldn't have passed him like that. fuck him.


Are you sure the driver is trained to reset the emergency stop? Maybe a technician had to be called.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 23, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> No. As the pass was initiated the cyclist moved towards the bus to make it seem closer than it actually was and get some pictures for his video.


to relieve the boredom of his intolerably dull life


----------



## sealion (Jun 23, 2017)

hash tag said:


> yet again this morning I had words with a cyclist who went to jump a red light at the end of my road. Nearly every time I go out, this happens


Have you tried violence ? small talk is obviously not working.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 23, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Are you sure the driver is trained to reset the emergency stop? Maybe a technician had to be called.



Probably was on his way to the hospital to see his wife give birth, which he missed, leading to the break-up of his marriage and the child turning to delinquency etc.


Still, that bus will be handy for visiting him in Brixton nick...


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 23, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> in an attempt to stop him passing


Why would he want to stop the bus passing? 
It's quite obvious the bike rider is a twat. He's deliberately taking up the whole road so he can get more likes from other wankers on YouTube.


----------



## hash tag (Jun 23, 2017)

sealion said:


> Have you tried violence ? small talk is obviously not working.



Well, I could have killed him but just seems a pointless waste of my time.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 23, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Why would he want to stop the bus passing?
> It's quite obvious the bike rider is a twat. He's deliberately taking up the whole road so he can get more likes from other wankers on YouTube.


And here.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jun 23, 2017)

He may not yet realise that a bloke on a bike can't actually stop a bus. One day, he may learn. He may even survive. He may cycle less aggressively afterwards.


----------



## sealion (Jun 23, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Well, I could have killed him but just seems a pointless waste of my time.


Time maybe, if the bike and regalia are worth a few quid (my mate dave will buy them ) then you could have a holiday on the proceeds.


----------



## hash tag (Jun 23, 2017)

They are (make themselves) worthless, inconsequential beings


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 23, 2017)

hash tag said:


> They are (make themselves) worthless, inconsequential beings


who are?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 23, 2017)

I rode a push bike 15 miles to work for three years, until I could afford a motorbike. Not once did anyone have to blow their horn at me, because I was a considerate rider. I never held up traffic just to annoy others, because that would be a cunt's trick, but it seems there's a new phenomena that happened to coincide with the invention of the GoPro and is facilitated by YouTube. It seems a lot of cyclists now want their 15 mins of fame, so they buy a GoPro, strap it to their oversized head, then proceed to annoy the shite out of as many other road (and pavement) users as possible, then rush home to upload the footage of their faux-conquest to youtube, whilst rubbing one out to the latest Lycra-clad Bradley Wiggins wannabe centrefold in Lycra Weekly.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 23, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> who are?


Cyclists. Obvs.


----------



## Sue (Jun 23, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh but it does have its good points, pa, you'd not get many cyclists pissing about on the pavement or speeding through red lights if they saw offenders shredded by anti-aircraft gun.
> 
> there are NO pavement cyclists in north korea: nor do cyclists go through red lights there.


A pedestrian's paradise indeed.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 23, 2017)

Sue said:


> A pedestrian's paradise indeed.



No buskers on the Pyongyang tube neither. Ed Sheeren used to busk. No Ed in DPRK


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 23, 2017)

Motorbike riders are just as vulnerable as push bike riders, and most motorbike riders started off riding push bikes, so you'd expect some sort of solidarity, yet, ironically, if you go on any motorbike forum, you'll find loads of threads that clearly show that most push bike riders are not only hated by car drivers, but by motorcyclists, too.
It's a funny old world.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 23, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Motorbike riders are just as vulnerable as push bike riders, and most motorbike riders started off riding push bikes, so you'd expect some sort of solidarity, yet, ironically, if you go on any motorbike forum, you'll find loads of threads that clearly show that most push bike riders are not only hated by car drivers, but by motorcyclists, too.
> It's a funny old world.


The same sort of inadequacies that leads people to getting bmw or audi or some other car will lead others to get a motorcycle. It's no surprise.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 23, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> The same sort of inadequacies that leads people to getting bmw or audi or some other car will lead others to get a motorcycle. It's no surprise.


The need to get to work is an inadequacy?


----------



## souljacker (Jun 23, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> it's at the bus stop and it would only have take a minute or two to sort out. bus driver shouldn't have passed him like that. fuck him.



I was on a bus once where some drunk tit had pressed the emergency stop button. Took ages to sort out. I can't remember why and someone with some bus knowledge might know. But it was a massive pain in the arse for everyone on the bus.

I usually side with the cyclists on this thread but that was a cunts trick.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 23, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> The need to get to work is an inadequacy?



Sleaterkinney cruises along at 70mph for hours on end in his Reebok classics, the rest of us are just inadequate beings


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 23, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Sleaterkinney cruises along at 70mph for hours on end in his Reebok classics, the rest of us are just inadequate beings


I didn't mind riding the 15 miles to work, but the ride home was excruciating after a hard day's graft. I could have kept it up but the company moved to a new premises, which meant a 45 mile ride, and there's no way I was doing that on a push bike. 
I guess not riding 90 miles a day on a push bike must be an inadequacy.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 23, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Motorbike riders are just as vulnerable as push bike riders, and most motorbike riders started off riding push bikes, so you'd expect some sort of solidarity, yet, ironically, if you go on any motorbike forum, you'll find loads of threads that clearly show that most push bike riders are not only hated by car drivers, but by motorcyclists, too.
> It's a funny old world.


Cyclists are hated by everyone except cyclists (and deep down they all think they're cunts too). Paedophiles are only marginally less popular and quite a few paedophiles _are also_ cyclists.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 23, 2017)




----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 23, 2017)

Spymaster said:


>


That explains things better than words possibly could.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 23, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Why would he want to stop the bus passing?
> It's quite obvious the bike rider is a twat. He's deliberately taking up the whole road so he can get more likes from other wankers on YouTube.



He wants to stop the bus passing in the same lane as him, not stop it passing full stop. He's taking up one lane, not the whole road and there's another lane on that road that drivers can use to pass him safely, but if he wasn't in the middle of the left hand lane, drivers would pass him in the same lane or just on/over the line alongside another driver which would not be safe, especially when there is a bus. The driver should also not be overtaking at a junction.
This positioning is exactly what the national standards for cycling directs cyclists to do in this kind of circumstance / junction. The purpose is to discourage drivers from overtaking dangerously, and making them wait until it is safe to overtake.

I don't think it's clear he moved towards the bus as it came behind him (there's no markings across the junction and the cyclist is bearing right anyway so you can't tell if he really moves or if it's deliberate rather than just not sticking to an exact line in the absence of any markings to guide you). In any case the driver should not have used their horn and pulls in too early on the cyclist. It's a poor overtake and the cyclist should send the video to TfL (it was London I think? whatever bus company/local authority anyway).

Perhaps this cyclist is a twat playing up for likes on youtube, they do exist. But perhaps they aren't. If they are it doesn't change the fact that the cyclist's positioning was correct, and the position any trained cyclist would take, and whilst we have such shittily designed roads it's generally considered the safest position to be in, as well as the legally correct one.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jun 23, 2017)

yeah but


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 23, 2017)

BigTom said:


> He wants to stop the bus passing in the same lane as him, not stop it passing full stop. He's taking up one lane, not the whole road and there's another lane on that road that drivers can use to pass him safely, but if he wasn't in the middle of the left hand lane, drivers would pass him in the same lane or just on/over the line alongside another driver which would not be safe, especially when there is a bus. The driver should also not be overtaking at a junction.
> This positioning is exactly what the national standards for cycling directs cyclists to do in this kind of circumstance / junction. The purpose is to discourage drivers from overtaking dangerously, and making them wait until it is safe to overtake.
> 
> I don't think it's clear he moved towards the bus as it came behind him (there's no markings across the junction and the cyclist is bearing right anyway so you can't tell if he really moves or if it's deliberate rather than just not sticking to an exact line in the absence of any markings to guide you). In any case the driver should not have used their horn and pulls in too early on the cyclist. It's a poor overtake and the cyclist should send the video to TfL (it was London I think? whatever bus company/local authority anyway).
> ...


I completely agree, Tom.


----------



## hash tag (Jun 23, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Motorbike riders are just as vulnerable as push bike riders, and most motorbike riders started off riding push bikes, so you'd expect some sort of solidarity, yet, ironically, if you go on any motorbike forum, you'll find loads of threads that clearly show that most push bike riders are not only hated by car drivers, but by motorcyclists, too.
> It's a funny old world.



Of course they are with their big powerful engines, fairings, leathers, crash helmets, kevlar etc.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 23, 2017)

BigTom said:


> He wants to stop the bus passing in the same lane as him


Why? If he'd moved left a bit, to maybe a couple of feet from the kerb, the bus would have moved partially into the right hand lane, passed the cyclist and we wouldn't be here discussing it. But that wouldn't make for YouTube 'likes', would it?

The National Standards for Cyclists also state that you shouldn't go through red lights, or ride on the pavement, or ride like a twat. It's funny how cyclists get to choose which rules are relevant to them.

Also, the National Standards for Cyclists is run by and for cyclists, and as everyone is well aware, cyclists really aren't the best people to be charged with making rules for other road users.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 23, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Of course they are with their big powerful engines, fairings, leathers, crash helmets, kevlar etc.







Cycling UK's Cycling Statistics


----------



## BigTom (Jun 23, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Why? If he'd moved left a bit, to maybe a couple of feet from the kerb, the bus would have moved partially into the right hand lane, passed the cyclist and we wouldn't be here discussing it. But that wouldn't make for YouTube 'likes', would it?
> 
> The National Standards for Cyclists also state that you shouldn't go through red lights, or ride on the pavement, or ride like a twat. It's funny how cyclists get to choose which rules are relevant to them.
> 
> Also, the National Standards for Cyclists is run by and for cyclists, and as everyone is well aware, cyclists really aren't the best people to be charged with making rules for other road users.



If he was a couple of feet left from the kerb, and there was another driver in the right hand lane, there would physically be enough space for the bus to pass but not leaving 1.5m gap which would be the minimum safe gap as defined by police. Many drivers will pass unsafely in these circumstances (charged as driving without due care and attention) and the fact that the bus driver used their horn demonstrates that it's highly likely they would have done in this instance. This is why the national standards for cycling direct cyclists to take primary position in the left hand lane on a multi-lane road.

The National Standards for Cycling is a Department of Transport document. It's not an organisation that can be run and doesn't set any rules for other road users, just cyclists. The National Standard for cycle training - GOV.UK I know you troll this thread mostly but assuming this isn't, you clearly don't know anything about this and should learn before commenting, or you are just trolling, which I imagine your next reply will make obvious.

And no, cyclists do not get to choose which rules are relevant to them. They follow the national standards for cycling and relevant rules of the highway code. Or they should, some/many don't, but that's true of any group of road users. The cyclist in the video here stopped for a red light and was riding on the road so as far as we know follows the rules.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 23, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Cycling UK's Cycling Statistics



iirc horse riders are marginally more at risk that motorcyclists but yes, they are vulnerable road users and classed as such by dft. In the Safe Urban Driving course we do with bus/lorry drivers, motorcyclists, pedestrians, horse riders and cyclists are all included, although horse riders only as a mention since it is focused on urban driving. Much higher rate of KSIs than cyclists or pedestrians. I guess the increased speeds more than outweigh the benefits of body armour.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 23, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Perhaps this cyclist is a twat playing up for likes on youtube, they do exist. But perhaps they aren't. If they are it doesn't change the fact that the cyclist's positioning was correct, and the position any trained cyclist would take, and whilst we have such shittily designed roads it's generally considered the safest position to be in, as well as the legally correct one.



He's a cunt. 

The bus driver made a marginal error, when he realised his error he correctly used his horn to alert the cyclist that a sodding great bus was passing close by. 

The rage then decends on our lycra-clad hero and he sets off to teach the bus driver a lesson.

In direct contraction to TfL's instructions:


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 23, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


>


Conclusion: Never give a cyclist a lift in your car.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 23, 2017)

i didnt see that as an aggressive pass by the bus....


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 23, 2017)

I know that junction well and it's scary getting into the right lane if you want to go up Brixton Hill instead of taking the left hand lane up Effra Road. Defensive riding is essential here.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 23, 2017)

i cycle to work. i cycle back
 40 minutes ago - i went to shops in car and sitting at red light on crossing on way back
cyclist comes speeding down the outside stationary line and piles across crossing totally blind
i shout out of car "red light cunty" and get lip curling outrage aggression back - he pulls up as if to come back and get me but reconsiders and fucks off.
now 20 drivers think all cyclists are cunts


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 23, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> i didnt see that as an aggressive pass by the bus....


But the cyclist did.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 23, 2017)

BigTom said:


> The National Standards for Cycling is a Department of Transport document. It's not an organisation that can be run and doesn't set any rules for other road users, just cyclists. The National Standard for cycle training - GOV.UK I know you troll this thread mostly but assuming this isn't, you clearly don't know anything about this and should learn before commenting, or you are just trolling, which I imagine your next reply will make obvious.



I'll admit, I know nothing about the NSC. I stopped cycling about 25 years ago. 
Is the training mandatory or optional?
If optional, what percentage of cyclists avail of the service?
Are the courses teaching mandatory or optional behaviour?




BigTom said:


> And no, cyclists do not get to choose which rules are relevant to them. *They follow the national standards for cycling and relevant rules of the highway code.*



This clearly isn't the case.



> Penalty on persons committing nuisances by riding on footpaths, &c.
> 
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F1 If any person shall wilfully ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot passengers; or shall wilfully lead or drive any horse, ass, sheep, mule, swine, or cattle or carriage of any description, or any truck or sledge, upon any such footpath or causeway; or shall tether any horse, ass, mule, swine, or cattle, on any highway, so as to suffer or permit the tethered animal to be thereon;. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F2; every person so offending in any of the cases aforesaid shall for each and every such offence forfeit and pay any sum not exceeding [F3level 2 on the standard scale], over and above the damages occasioned thereby.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 23, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> But the cyclist did.


Yes, but we've already established that the cyclist in this case was a snot-gobbling wankturd.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 23, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> But the cyclist did.



i have watched it again -possibly slightly close as the bus overtook and pulled in but nothing spectacular. bit of a cunty thing to do turning off a bus engine


----------



## BigTom (Jun 23, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> I'll admit, I know nothing about the NSC. I stopped cycling about 25 years ago.
> Is the training mandatory or optional?



optional, no training is required or test need to be passed to ride a push bike or e-bike on the road.



> If optional, what percentage of cyclists avail of the service?



No statistics are available to answer this question properly. I think that funding for child training covers about 60% of school places and that is rising. 2million children were trained in the 10 years up to 2016 (the national standards was created in 2005 and I guess delivery implemented in schools in 2006). Most councils offer free or subsidised adult cycle training but there's no way of knowing how many cyclists have had training unless someone were to FoI all the councils and add it up, and I'm not aware of anyone doing that, nor am I aware of surveys but there must be some and I'll see if I can find anything out at work next week.



> Are the courses teaching mandatory or optional behaviour?



Both. Some things are required, some are advised just like in the highway code (must/should). Some things, like filtering, are pure choices - here are your options (left, right, lane split or don't filter), you decide. Some are hard, like filtering past large vehicles - never on the left, only on the right and only if you are certain traffic is not about to start moving. Some are situational.

before the next paragraph just to explain two terms: Secondary Position - police defined as 75cm, NSC says 50cm-1m from the kerb. Default riding position when it is safe for drivers to overtake, no parked cars or side roads (or other surface/road hazards in that position). Primary position - in the middle or to the right hand side of the lane. Despite secondary position being the default, the fact is that in cities, primary position is the correct position much of the time because of parked cars, side roads, pedestrian refuges and oncoming traffic effectively narrowing roads.

The uses of primary position are very clear but they are sometimes situational. Usually the only places that would be seriously considered is a left turn from major to minor road where the purpose of primary position is to deter drivers from turning left onto you ("left hook" in cyclist's parlance) and if there's a stream of traffic, moving out into primary may be more difficult/risky than the risk of a left turning driver. Similarly, when passing a side road, primary position is taught and recommended both to deter the left turning driver but mostly to increase visibility to drivers turning into/out of the side road and if eg you have a situation where there's a steady traffic flow and there's a queue on the side road, those risks are minimised by the situation and trying to move out into the traffic flow may be more dangerous.
The other places you'd use primary position are hard rules because secondary position doesn't make sense eg to turn right.
The rule about primary position in the left hand lane of a multi-lane rule is a hard rule really. In theory they could be a road which had lanes wide enough for a wide vehicle to pass in lane leaving 1.5m to the cyclist (but more if it's a fast road) plus the 1m or so the cyclist needs but you'd need around 4.5m to do that for a car, let alone a bus and I don't think lanes tend to be that wide, they certainly aren't in cities, perhaps on national speed limit dual carriageways but then at those speeds you'd need to leave more than 1.5m anyway. So I don't think the situation would occur where secondary position would make sense.

e2a: I am a qualified national standards cycling instructor, I teach adults and drivers occasionally but mostly work in-office organising lessons



> This clearly isn't the case.



As I said in the sentence you decided to cut off, some/many don't. As is the case with any group of road users.


----------



## sealion (Jun 23, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> it's scary getting into the right lane


 So you cycle whilst scared. I bet it does wonders for your confidence and decision making.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 23, 2017)

sealion said:


> So you cycle whilst scared. I bet it does wonders for your confidence and decision making.


Like driving while angry just cos you've been forced to slow down by a cyclist in front of you taking the primary position.


----------



## sealion (Jun 23, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Like driving while angry just cos you've been forced to slow down by a cyclist in front of you taking the primary position.


Not at all. why would you be angry ffs ? slowing down for any fucker is part and parcel of being a road user.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 23, 2017)

sealion said:


> slowing down for any fucker is part and parcel of being a road user.


Unless, of course, you're a cyclist approaching a pedestrian crossing


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 23, 2017)

sealion said:


> Not at all. why would you be angry ffs ? slowing down for any fucker is part and parcel of being a road user.


It certainly should be but experience contradicts this. There's a lot of angry road users out there. 
Just think about how much people use horns to display their anger rather than to prevent an accident.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 23, 2017)

souljacker said:


> I was on a bus once where some drunk tit had pressed the emergency stop button. Took ages to sort out. I can't remember why and someone with some bus knowledge might know. But it was a massive pain in the arse for everyone on the bus.
> 
> I usually side with the cyclists on this thread but that was a cunts trick.



wasnt outside the astoria was it ? late one night...


----------



## sealion (Jun 23, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> It certainly should be but experience contradicts this. There's a lot of angry road users out there.
> Just think about how much people use horns to display their anger rather than to prevent an accident.


I am not a motorist but do cycle. Most of the cyclists i have witnessed are dangerous, foolish ,selfish and fucking self righteous. Look at me im a good person, i care you don't because you have a nasty polluter. What fucking loon passed a law to let people out on the road alongside heavy vehicles without having to take any sort of test ? At minimum a cyclist should have passed a basic test on the highway code before they can use the roads.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 23, 2017)

BigTom said:


> before the next paragraph just to explain two terms: Secondary Position - police defined as 75cm, NSC says 50cm-1m from the kerb. Default riding position when it is safe for drivers to overtake, no parked cars or side roads (or other surface/road hazards in that position). Primary position - in the middle or to the right hand side of the lane. Despite secondary position being the default, the fact is that in cities, primary position is the correct position much of the time because of parked cars, side roads, pedestrian refuges and oncoming traffic effectively narrowing roads.


In your opinion, was the cyclist in the video in the correct position for the road conditions? Taking into consideration there were no obstacles/hazards ahead?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 23, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Just think about how much people use horns to display their anger rather than to prevent an accident.


I think you'll find those people *are *using their horns to prevent an 'accident'.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 23, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> In your opinion, was the cyclist in the video in the correct position for the road conditions? Taking into consideration there were no obstacles/hazards ahead?


It's more about hazards behind


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 23, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> I think you'll find those people *are *using their horns to prevent an 'accident'.


Nope.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 23, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> It's more about hazards behind


But the vast majority of cyclists are completely shit, and unqualified to make the judgement as to what position they should be riding in. They are a menace to decent people and are therefore, rightly, reviled.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 23, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> But the vast majority of cyclists are completely shit, and unqualified to make the judgement as to what position they should be riding in. They are a menace to decent people and are therefore, rightly, reviled.


As are most motorists, most pedestrians, most road users. Scum of the earth


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 23, 2017)

interestingly i was speaking to a fellow cyclist at work today and i remarked that i had not seen him of late - he has taken a month of as the roads are full of arsehole cyclists- his words


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 23, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> As are most motorists, most pedestrians, most road users. Scum of the earth


Not true. All motorists have at least a modicum of training. Cyclists are the only road users with absolutely none. That's why a much higher percentage of them (about 98.9%) are dangerous fucknuts.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 23, 2017)

The cyclist started off in the centre of the lane (actually just to the right of centre). He then sets off as soon as the lights change to amber, causing the pedestrian to have to run. He then proceeds to move even further right, and this is where he was when the bus driver blew his horn.







He was already heading into the far right lane, and if the bus driver hadn't blown his horn and woken him up, who knows what might have happened.
Granted, the road layout isn't great, but the cyclist should have been moving left as soon as he moved off... AFTER the lights had changed to GREEN!

*Red traffic light*
A vehicle must stop just behind the white stop line at traffic light.
*Red and amber traffic lights*
Also means stop but can prepare to go.
*Green traffic light*
When the light turns green, you may proceed *providing the way is clear*.


Maybe the bus driver was just blowing his horn because the cyclist jumped the lights and nearly mowed down a pedestrian?


----------



## souljacker (Jun 23, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> wasnt outside the astoria was it ? late one night...



No, it was a Reading Transport bus taking a load of us to Cardiff to watch Reading in the playoffs. We'd stopped at those services the other side of the bridge. There were a load of massive cunts on the bus, one of which thought it would be funny if he pressed the button. Three quarters of an hour later, we finally got the bus going.

The rest of the day went on in a similar manner. Reading lost and then these cunts abused every fucker from the centre of cardiff to the centre of Reading, including the majority of the M4. Racism, sexism, bottles being thrown, wetting themselves, racially abusing the driver. One of the worst days of my life.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 23, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> In your opinion, was the cyclist in the video in the correct position for the road conditions? Taking into consideration there were no obstacles/hazards ahead?



Yes, definitely. It is a multi-lane road/junction so they should be in primary position, in the centre of the left hand lane. As OU says, it's not about the hazards ahead, it's about the hazards behind.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 23, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Yes, definitely. It is a multi-lane road/junction so they should be in primary position, in the centre of the left hand lane. As OU says, it's not about the hazards ahead, it's about the hazards behind.


What about him jumping the lights and causing a pedestrian to run?
What about the fact he was veering into the right lane when the bus driver blew his horn?


----------



## BigTom (Jun 23, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Not true. All motorists have at least a modicum of training.* Cyclists are the only road users with absolutely none*. That's why a much higher percentage of them (about 98.9%) are dangerous fucknuts.



Wrong. Pedestrians, any human powered vehicle, mobility scooter users and horse riders are not required to have training to use roads. Users of motorised vehicles are but there are other road users who are not.

afaik all children get pedestrian training at school, most get cycling training, Also 80% of cyclists hold a driving licence so most will have some training on using roads.
There are also unlicensed drivers on the road but I can't find any vaguely recent figure for it - 2.5% in 1999 and over 70,000 people without licences issued who received penalty points in 2016 so whilst the vast majority have had some training not all of them have and for many drivers it's been so long since they even glanced at the highway code they don't know or wrongly believe things about it. I thought the figure would be higher (uninsured is closer to 10%) tbh. Anyway, drivers are so shit that west midlands police do not look at safety operations focused on pedestrians or cyclists at all anymore because drivers cause the vast, vast majority of collisions being caused by drivers - 98% of collisions between cyclists and drivers at junctions were the drivers fault. That's not to say there's not a lot of shit cycling, but there's also a lot of shit driving.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 23, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Wrong. Pedestrians, any human powered vehicle, mobility scooter users and horse riders are not required to have training to use roads. Users of motorised vehicles are but there are other road users who are not.


Peds don't count and the rest are so infrequently encountered as to be of no consequence. It's cyclists and cyclists alone that are the scourge of the roads. You at least have had some training and I'm prepared to accept that you're probably not a total penis when you ride. People like Orang Utan though, are extremely dangerous, and should be kept off the roads for everyone's safety. He uses in-ear phones when he's cycling.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 23, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Also 80% of cyclists hold a driving licence so most will have some training on using roads.


That figure is useless, when maybe only 1% (or much less) of that 80% regularly ride, and of that fraction of a %, how many of the licence holder cyclists do you think are the ones we see regularly flaunting the rules of the road?


----------



## BigTom (Jun 23, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> What about him jumping the lights and causing a pedestrian to run?
> What about the fact he was veering into the right lane when the bus driver blew his horn?



Looking again yes he started to move slightly too early in terms of the lights and should have been clear he was going to wait for the pedestrian but the pedestrian was starting to run before the cyclist and ran faster after them, and they would have been running to get past the next lane of traffic anyway had the cyclist been clear he was going to wait for him to pass, I think the moped rider is more of a concern to the pedestrian tbh.

I don't think they are veering into the right lane, there's no road markings so it's hard to tell, the camera is handlebar mounted and they're rocking the bike left/right as they get up speed plus it's a forked junction so you can't draw a line like that and think it shows where they are heading. This is taken from where the horn is beeped, probably a moment before the screengrab you took and the line from the middle of the bike puts them heading into the right hand lane of the left fork  If you watch their general line they are heading for the centre of the left hand lane of the right fork and without marking across the junction you can't tell on the video exactly where they are in the unmarked lane.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 23, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Peds don't count and the rest are so infrequently encountered as to be of no consequence. It's cyclists and cyclists alone that are the scourge of the roads. You at least have had some training and I'm prepared to accept that you're probably not a total penis when you ride. People like Orang Utan though, are extremely dangerous, and should be kept off the roads for everyone's safety. He uses in-ear phones when he's cycling.



Why don't pedestrians count? They are road users.



Saul Goodman said:


> That figure is useless, when maybe only 1% (or much less) of that 80% regularly ride, and of that fraction of a %, how many of the licence holder cyclists do you think are the ones we see regularly flaunting the rules of the road?



wrt to the 80% figure, generally "cyclists" are defined as people who cycle at least 3 days per week, I don't know what the definition is for this as the figure comes from the AA and I can't find the original study anywhere but with most studies, "cyclists" are regular cyclists, and the people you see cycling probably have a driving licence - I'm pretty sure you'd be wrong more often than not if you assumed they didn't.

wrt the question, I have no idea but given how many drivers I regularly see flaunting rules of the road I would say that you'll probably find that you're as likely to do so as a driving licence holder as not. 

edited because I thought Spy made both posts and realised I didn't answer the question here.


----------



## sealion (Jun 23, 2017)

A set of wing mirrors instead of filming equipment would be a solution.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 23, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Why don't pedestrians count? They are road users.


Because the amount of trouble they cause on roads is negligible by comparison to that caused by cyclists. Cyclists are the route of all evil.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 23, 2017)

sealion said:


> A set of wing mirrors instead of filming equipment would be a solution.



please explain.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 23, 2017)

sealion said:


> A set of wing mirrors instead of filming equipment would be a solution.


Wouldn't be a bad start would it?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 23, 2017)

the gopro probably exaggerated this outcome of this happening, to a dangerous degree.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 23, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Because the amount of trouble they cause on roads is negligible by comparison to that caused by cyclists. Cyclists are the route of all evil.



right, I was only talking about them in the context of you saying cyclists are the *only *road users without training. Pedestrians are also road users who do not require training. If you speak to the west midlands police, they will tell you cyclists cause very little trouble on the roads, hence 100% of their focus is on drivers.
*puts highway to hell on* *starts cycling the route to all evil*


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 23, 2017)

BigTom said:


> If you speak to the west midlands police, they will tell you cyclists cause very little trouble on the roads ...


They're lying.


----------



## sealion (Jun 23, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Wouldn't be a bad start would it?


Should be a minimum requirement. I use them and feel safer plus i can concentrate on whats in front of me.


----------



## sealion (Jun 23, 2017)

BigTom said:


> please explain.


Does it need explaining ?


----------



## BigTom (Jun 23, 2017)

sealion said:


> Should be a minimum requirement. I use them and feel safer plus i can concentrate on whats in front of me.



I've tried using mirrors on my bike and they were awful, there was too much vibration to see effectively, over the shoulder looks worked far better and are - for me - totally effective in keeping tabs on what is behind me and looking behind when I need to specifically for maneouvres. Someone with mobility issues may find over shoulder looks too difficult but for most people they work and if mirrors were generally better, they'd be used by many more cyclists.
They also fulfill a totally different purpose to cameras so the comparison seems bizarre and I really don't understand why you think having mirrors would mean you wouldn't need a camera.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 23, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> They're lying.



Coppers? lying? c'mon! 
tbh my ACAB tendencies want to totally agree with you but the statistics are very clear.


----------



## sealion (Jun 23, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Pedestrians are also road users who do not require training.


Pedestrians dont weave in and out of traffic at speed, jump lights, bunny hop across pavements etc.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 23, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I've tried using mirrors on my bike and they were awful, there was too much vibration to see effectively, over the shoulder looks worked far better and are - for me - totally effective in keeping tabs on what is behind me and looking behind when I need to specifically for maneouvres. Someone with mobility issues may find over shoulder looks too difficult but for most people they work and if mirrors were generally better, they'd be used by many more cyclists.
> They also fulfill a totally different purpose to cameras so the comparison seems bizarre and I really don't understand why you think having mirrors would mean you wouldn't need a camera.


I can count on one hand the number of cyclists who I've been behind that have a fucking clue what's going on back there. Orang Utan's neck doesn't even swivel round that far.


----------



## sealion (Jun 23, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I've tried using mirrors on my bike and they were awful, there was too much vibration to see effectively, over the shoulder looks worked far better and are - for me - totally effective in keeping tabs on what is behind me and looking behind when I need to specifically for maneouvres. Someone with mobility issues may find over shoulder looks too difficult but for most people they work and if mirrors were generally better, they'd be used by many more cyclists.
> They also fulfill a totally different purpose to cameras so the comparison seems bizarre and I really don't understand why you think having mirrors would mean you wouldn't need a camera.


 I can see ahead of me with or without a camera. I can see whats coming from behind or either side of me without looking over my shoulder/ taking my eye off the road. Should we take all the mirrors off a car and just stick a helmet cam on the driver ?


----------



## sealion (Jun 23, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I've tried using mirrors on my bike and they were awful, there was too much vibration to see effectively,


I don't belive that. Unless you ride down flights of stairs your view won't be that distorted.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 23, 2017)

sealion said:


> Pedestrians dont weave in and out of traffic at speed, jump lights, bunny hop across pavements etc.



I'm not sure what you think I was saying there? My point was very literal. Pedestrians don't require training to use roads.
Since you brought it up though, pedestrians totally cross on red lights, not illegal of course as there's no jaywalking laws in this country, but even in the video that has just started this bit of discussion, that pedestrian must have started crossing when the pedestrian light was red, as the carriageway lights were on amber or virtually so when they started crossing. I cross on red pedestrian lights at crossings all the time when they are clear or traffic jammed and so does everyone I know, except when children are present. Pedestrians do other stupid/dangerous things - mobile phone zombies & stepping out into roads without looking being the ones that spring to mind.
But then I've absolutely no idea why you said that in response to what I said.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 23, 2017)

sealion said:


> I can see ahead of me with or without a camera. I can't see whats coming from behind or either side of me without looking over my shoulder/ taking my eye off the road. Should we take all the mirrors off a car and just stick a helmet cam on the driver ?



Do you think the cyclist is watching the camera live or something? The recording is there in case of incident (or possibly for the youtube wankery). It's not there to see what is in front or behind them. It serves a totally different purpose.

You'd have to take your eyes off the road to look in a mirror anyway unless you are just glancing and as I said the mirror I used I couldn't glance at it to get a good picture of what's behind you, it's just as quick to do a shoulder check. You can believe me or not, there's no way I can prove it. Absolutely no-one I know rides with mirrors because everyone has tried them and finds shoulder checks more effective. If you find otherwise, great but ime you are in the minority (unless you are riding with suspension which would obviously make a difference).


----------



## BigTom (Jun 23, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> I can count on one hand the number of cyclists who I've been behind that have a fucking clue what's going on back there. Orang Utan's neck doesn't even swivel round that far.



They probably wouldn't look in mirrors either.


----------



## sealion (Jun 23, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I'm not sure what you think I was saying there? My point was very literal. Pedestrians don't require training to use roads.
> Since you brought it up though, pedestrians totally cross on red lights, not illegal of course as there's no jaywalking laws in this country, but even in the video that has just started this bit of discussion, that pedestrian must have started crossing when the pedestrian light was red, as the carriageway lights were on amber or virtually so when they started crossing. I cross on red pedestrian lights at crossings all the time when they are clear or traffic jammed and so does everyone I know, except when children are present. Pedestrians do other stupid/dangerous things - mobile phone zombies & stepping out into roads without looking being the ones that spring to mind.
> But then I've absolutely no idea why you said that in response to what I said.


My point is that cyclists should be trained before they use roads. They are using the same space as qualified drivers and  travelling at similar speeds. Why would a pedestrian need training to use roads ? They are not riding or driving on it.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 23, 2017)

sealion said:


> My point is that cyclists should be trained before they use roads. They are using the same space as qualified drivers and  travelling at similar speeds. Why would a pedestrian need training to use roads ? They are not riding or driving on it.


It doesn't stop drivers driving badly and breaking the rules does it?


----------



## sealion (Jun 23, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Do you think the cyclist is watching the camera live or something?


No. That's why it serves no purpose.


BigTom said:


> You'd have to take your eyes off the road to look in a mirror anyway


Or you could use just one and use the other to look ahead of you.


BigTom said:


> as I said the mirror I used I couldn't glance at it to get a good picture of what's behind you,


I use one on each side and the view is perfect.


BigTom said:


> it's just as quick to do a shoulder check.


I have seen that move go wrong so many times in London. You need eyes in the back of your head or mirrors.


BigTom said:


> Absolutely no-one I know rides with mirrors because everyone has tried them and finds shoulder checks more effective.


More effective in what way ? I can see in front of me and behind on both sides without taking my eye off the road. 


BigTom said:


> (unless you are riding with suspension which would obviously make a difference).


No suspension on my bike and the mirrors work clearly thanks.


----------



## sealion (Jun 23, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> It doesn't stop drivers driving badly and breaking the rules does it?


It stops a lot worse.


----------



## Shechemite (Jun 23, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Why would he want to stop the bus passing?
> It's quite obvious the bike rider is a twat. He's deliberately taking up the whole road so he can get more likes from other wankers on YouTube.



Quite. Cycling in the middle of the road


----------



## Shechemite (Jun 23, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> I know that junction well and it's scary getting into the right lane if you want to go up Brixton Hill instead of taking the left hand lane up Effra Road. Defensive riding is essential here.



Why don't you just take the bus?


----------



## joustmaster (Jun 23, 2017)

I would move to the right hand side of that lane, too.
The police even teach you to do that.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 24, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Why don't you just take the bus?


Cos riding is normally fun, cheap and healthy


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 24, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Quite. Cycling in the middle of the road


Just like cars do.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 24, 2017)

> *The primary and secondary positions*
> An effective rider always occupies the moving traffic lane, *either in its left hand third, roughly in line with the near-side of a car in the same place *– thus ensuring that she/he can be seen and that drivers have to manoeuvre to overtake – or, *if need be*, the middle of the lane – thus preventing being overtaken and leaving themselves free to turn, overtake, change lanes etc. These riding positions are variously known as ‘normal’ and ‘taking the lane’ or, technically, ‘secondary’ and ‘primary’.
> 
> 
> Read more at Effective traffic riding - correct road positioning









There was no *need* for that rider to be in the primary position. The road ahead was clear, and all the other traffic was faster than he was.


> They need to act in a way that's respectful of the Highway Code *and other road users*.


That's the bit cyclists seem to think doesn't apply to them.

Read more at Effective traffic riding - correct road positioning


----------



## joustmaster (Jun 24, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> There was no *need* for that rider to be in the primary position. The road ahead was clear, and all the other traffic was faster than he was.
> 
> That's the bit cyclists seem to think doesn't apply to them.
> 
> Read more at Effective traffic riding - correct road positioning


Literally every need to be in that position. 
The most frequent immediate threat I've faced on a road is a car overtaking me and deciding to turn left at the same time.

Move as far right as you can and block traffic.
the words of a policeman on a training course


----------



## Calamity1971 (Jun 24, 2017)

I've gave it up. The amount of times a car has overtaken me and taken a left immediately. If you ride near the gutter the more they will push you into it, resulting in pedal off the kerb disaster. Too many people are in a hurry and need to chill the fuck out. Blame on both sides ime.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jun 24, 2017)

hash tag said:


> A new one on me  Cyclist switches off bus engine as ‘revenge’ for ‘aggressive pass'




What a stupid cunt. Nobody with that little self-control should be on the road at all, never mind cycling in London.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 24, 2017)

sealion said:


> No. That's why it serves no purpose.
> 
> Or you could use just one and use the other to look ahead of you.
> 
> ...



The purpose of the camera is to record incident so you have evidence in case of collision or to report bad driving or as visibly mounted as a deterrent to drivers. It's got nothing to do with live awareness but it definitely serves a purpose.

Everyone I know finds shoulder checks more effective than mirrors for staying aware of what is behind you whilst using roads. If mirrors work for you, great. The vast majority of cyclists disagree with you and shoulder checks are taught and recommended anyway, just as with motorcyclists (live saver checks they are called, I hope you do them along with mirror checks before manoeuvres).


----------



## BigTom (Jun 24, 2017)

sealion said:


> My point is that cyclists should be trained before they use roads. They are using the same space as qualified drivers and  travelling at similar speeds. Why would a pedestrian need training to use roads ? They are not riding or driving on it.



I agree about training cyclists but you know everyone gets pedestrian training at schools these days and you probably did too. Was the green cross code when I was a child and pedestrians walk on roads all the time and imo we should teach children how to do this safely.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 24, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> There was no *need* for that rider to be in the primary position. The road ahead was clear, and all the other traffic was faster than he was.
> 
> That's the bit cyclists seem to think doesn't apply to them.
> 
> Read more at Effective traffic riding - correct road positioning



You are 100% wrong. The danger is behind not in front. The purpose is to stop close passes by ensuring there is only space for one vehicle alongside the cyclist, which can use the second lane to overtake. This is done for safety reasons and it's not being inconsiderate.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jun 24, 2017)

BigTom said:


> You are 100% wrong. The danger is behind not in front. The purpose is to stop close passes by ensuring there is only space for one vehicle alongside the cyclist, which can use the second lane to overtake. This is done for safety reasons and it's not being inconsiderate.


Are you suggesting the cyclist should stay in the middle of the lane until he reaches his destination, regardless of the 10 mile tailback behind him?


----------



## BigTom (Jun 24, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Are you suggesting the cyclist should stay in the middle of the lane until he reaches his destination, regardless of the 10 mile tailback behind him?



The cyclist should stay in the middle of the lane until it is safe for a driver to overtake them. Are you suggesting that drivers should overtake dangerously because there is a tailback behind them?
Do you really imagine that on a multi lane road a cyclist is going to build up a big queue behind them? There's also the simple fact that in this case the cyclist averages as fast a speed as the bus due to congestion, traffic lights or whatever (I haven't watched the whole video), as they are able to catch up the bus further along the road so they won't get any tailback building up let alone 10 miles which is a ludicrous distance in an urban environment - that's basically one end of Birmingham to the other.

If a slow cyclist is building up a serious queue behind them (which can happen on rural roads but not really on urban roads where there are usually plenty of opportunities to safely overtake a cyclist in primary, regular traffic lights and more turnings drivers or cyclists might take) they should stop at a safe place and let the traffic pass, just the same as tractor drivers do (and I know that cyclists never do this). They should not put themselves in danger because they are holding up other road users.

Furthermore on a multi lane road they do not hold up traffic being in the middle of the lane compared to being in secondary position. Being 75cm from kerb + handlebars + 1.5m gap + car/van/bus width means any driver passing safely must use lane 2 partly and therefore cannot pass safely if there is another vehicle in lane 2. If the cyclist is in primary they need to be mostly or entirely in lane 2 and therefore cannot pass safely if there is another vehicle in lane 2. Unfortunately many drivers do not understand or care about leaving a safe distance from cyclists and if you are in secondary leaving physically enough space for drivers to pass with another vehicle in lane 2, someone will overtake dangerously.

Just to be clear, this is the text from outcome 3.10 of the national standards for cycling:


> 10 How to use multi-lane roads
> 10.1 Where the trainee can match the speed of the traffic flow they should take the lane that will facilitate the manoeuvre they intend to carry out.
> 10.2 Where there is a long length of multi-lane carriageway before a turning that the trainee wishes to take and the traffic speed is faster, they can choose to stay in the left hand lane until nearing the point where lane selection is necessary and then move across making appropriate observations and signals (see other outcomes for appropriate methods).
> 10.3 When turning into a multi-lane road the same will apply. If they can match the speed of the traffic then they should take the lane appropriate to the manoeuvre they intend to carry out ahead. If not, they should use the left hand lane until they need to move across.
> ...



So it's not as hard as I remember (We've basically no roads above 30mph in Birmingham and I've never taught anyone to use the ones that do still exist, there are always better alternatives) but quite clear they should take the lane using primary position. I very much doubt that road in question is above 30mph and even if it was, primary is the "other appropriate position" that can be used.


----------



## hash tag (Jun 24, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I've tried using mirrors on my bike and they were awful, there was too much vibration to see effectively, over the shoulder looks worked far better and are - for me - totally effective in keeping tabs on what is behind me and looking behind when I need to specifically for maneouvres. Someone with mobility issues may find over shoulder looks too difficult but for most people they work and if mirrors were generally better, they'd be used by many more cyclists.
> They also fulfill a totally different purpose to cameras so the comparison seems bizarre and I really don't understand why you think having mirrors would mean you wouldn't need a camera.



To be able to see anything in mirrors they would have to be very wide to see past the cyclists body.
One of the most effective things while riding a bike in traffic when looking over your shoulder is to make eye contact with the motorist. That way you know he is there and he knows that you know he has seen you.


----------



## sealion (Jun 24, 2017)

hash tag said:


> To be able to see anything in mirrors they would have to be very wide to see past the cyclists body.


Why do cars and motorbikes have mirrors ?


----------



## sealion (Jun 24, 2017)

hash tag said:


> One of the most effective things while riding a bike in traffic when looking over your shoulder is to make eye contact with the motorist.



Do you blow them a kiss too ?


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 24, 2017)

I always know they're there whenever I'm necessarily controlling the lane - even wearing headphones.
I habitually turn around when giving my very assertive hand signals - I find it tends to make most tailgaters back off - I think knowing I can see them makes them feel embarassed / guilty.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 24, 2017)

BigTom said:


> The cyclist should stay in the middle of the lane until it is safe for a driver to overtake them. Are you suggesting that drivers should overtake dangerously because there is a tailback behind them?
> Do you really imagine that on a multi lane road a cyclist is going to build up a big queue behind them? There's also the simple fact that in this case the cyclist averages as fast a speed as the bus due to congestion, traffic lights or whatever (I haven't watched the whole video), as they are able to catch up the bus further along the road so they won't get any tailback building up let alone 10 miles which is a ludicrous distance in an urban environment - that's basically one end of Birmingham to the other.
> 
> If a slow cyclist is building up a serious queue behind them (which can happen on rural roads but not really on urban roads where there are usually plenty of opportunities to safely overtake a cyclist in primary, regular traffic lights and more turnings drivers or cyclists might take) they should stop at a safe place and let the traffic pass, just the same as tractor drivers do (and I know that cyclists never do this). They should not put themselves in danger because they are holding up other road users.
> ...



He catches up with the bus cos it pulls in to a bus stop


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 24, 2017)

sealion said:


> Do you blow them a kiss too ?


Amuses drivers with obscene gestures no doubt


----------



## hash tag (Jun 24, 2017)

sealion said:


> Do you blow them a kiss too ?



I have been known to blow big kisses at male drives who are very angry. It helps to push them ott.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 24, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> He catches up with the bus cos it pulls in to a bus stop


Which the bus driver knows is going to happen.

I can't recall whether this bus immediately pulled in at the stop just after the mini roundabout ...
But the company apologised and assured me the driver would be getting remedial training.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 24, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> He catches up with the bus cos it pulls in to a bus stop



yeah. Buses tend to do that. So the cyclist is moving as fast/faster than the bus, on average. It's a bus lane so shouldn't be anyone other than buses, cyclists and probably taxis in there but regardless, a stopped bus blocks the lane and the cyclist can filter past whilst other drivers cannot pass in that lane. The bus would generate traffic queues here, not the cyclist.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 24, 2017)

sealion said:


> Why do cars and motorbikes have mirrors ?




looking back is more effective as it show the people following you that you are planning a move- you lose that with mirrors on a bike


----------



## hash tag (Jun 24, 2017)

I am sat, having lunch looking at quadrophenia alley. I did not know this existed until now and this seems entirely appropriate


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 24, 2017)

BigTom said:


> yeah. Buses tend to do that. So the cyclist is moving as fast/faster than the bus, on average. It's a bus lane so shouldn't be anyone other than buses, cyclists and probably taxis in there but regardless, a stopped bus blocks the lane and the cyclist can filter past whilst other drivers cannot pass in that lane. The bus would generate traffic queues here, not the cyclist.




It's clear that we need to rethink allowing these people to use bus lanes if they can't  control their rage to such an extent that they express it by holding up the journeys of 50+ people.


----------



## T & P (Jun 24, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I agree about training cyclists but you know everyone gets pedestrian training at schools these days and you probably did too. Was the green cross code when I was a child and pedestrians walk on roads all the time and imo we should teach children how to do this safely.


 It's the adult pedestrians who should get training, or at the very least the subject of TV/ printed ad safety campaigns, regarding their habits and behaviour. A disturbing percentage of peds appear to automatically assume that if there there is stationary four-wheeled traffic on the street, they do not need to look right at all and can just cross the road in zero-fucks-given fashion and without checking for motorbikes, or cyclists for that matter, who have every legal right to be overtaking or undertaking the non-moving cars. As a m/b rider and sick to death of the lemming nature of some peds. Perhaps it's a London thing...


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 24, 2017)

sealion said:


> Why do cars and motorbikes have mirrors ?



Audis don't really need them. Mine has indicators on the mirrors too, double waste of time.


----------



## sealion (Jun 24, 2017)

hash tag said:


> It helps to push them ott.


And you complain about angry aggressive drivers


----------



## sealion (Jun 24, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> looking back is more effective as it show the people following you that you are planning a move- you lose that with mirrors on a bike


Hand signals usually work well enough.


----------



## sealion (Jun 24, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Audis don't really need them. Mine has indicators on the mirrors too, double waste of time.


You only need a neck and shoulder anyway. Just break them off and bin them.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 24, 2017)

gentlegreen said:


>



Sounds like you still need to replace your wooden tyres with rubber ones.


----------



## hash tag (Jun 24, 2017)

sealion said:


> And you complain about angry aggressive drivers



One takes ones amusement where one can get it


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 27, 2017)

Cyclist 'repeatedly attacked' by Staffordshire bird of prey - BBC News

in some sick hitchcockian ,manner, even birds now hate cyclists.


----------



## hash tag (Jun 28, 2017)

A ped fights back: I am considering walking in cycle lanes from now on. If I get shouted at, I shall reply that I will vacate cycle lanes when bikes give the pavements back to pedestrians!


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 28, 2017)

T & P said:


> It's the adult pedestrians who should get training, or at the very least the subject of TV/ printed ad safety campaigns, regarding their habits and behaviour. A disturbing percentage of peds appear to automatically assume that if there there is stationary four-wheeled traffic on the street, they do not need to look right at all and can just cross the road in zero-fucks-given fashion and without checking for motorbikes, or cyclists for that matter, who have every legal right to be overtaking or undertaking the non-moving cars. As a m/b rider and sick to death of the lemming nature of some peds. Perhaps it's a London thing...


I could have a go at least 4 pedos a day who walk out in front of me, sometimes looking first, sometimes not. 
What really winds me up is the ones who walk more than halfway across the road and stand there leaving a tiny space for you to get through. 

If there's traffic on the road, don't get on it!


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 28, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> I could have a go at least 4 pedos a day who walk out in front of me, sometimes looking first, sometimes not.
> What really winds me up is the ones who walk more than halfway across the road and stand there leaving a tiny space for you to get through.
> 
> If there's traffic on the road, don't get on it!



Yeah but there are quite a few circumstances where the pedestrian has right of way as soon as they step onto the road. Its not a bright thing to do but the highway code is kinda of on their side I believe. I thought cyclists were hot on this sort of thing.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 28, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Yeah but there are quite a few circumstances where the pedestrian has right of way as soon as they step onto the road. Its not a bright thing to do but the highway code is kinda of on their side I believe. I thought cyclists were hot on this sort of thing.



I'm not sure they have right of way when there is already traffic on the road?. What are these circumstances then?


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 28, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'm not sure they have right of way when there is already traffic on the road?. What are these circumstances then?


Depends. But yes there are circumstances where pedestrians have rights of way, for good reason as well.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 28, 2017)

You have to give way to peds who are already crossing a road that you are turning into. 

Doesn't really matter though. You have a duty of care not to hit someone if at all possible whatever the circumstances.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 28, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Depends. But yes there are circumstances where pedestrians have rights of way, for good reason as well.


And they are?


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 28, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> And they are?


As above. If peds are already on a road that you are turning in to, they have right of way.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 28, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> As above. If peds are already on a road that you are turning in to, they have right of way.


Thanks, that's not what I described though, is it?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 28, 2017)

.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 28, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> Thanks, that's not what I described though, is it?


No. But Teaboy was half right.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 28, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> No. But Teaboy was half right.


About there being quite a few circumstances?.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 28, 2017)

Pedestrians have the right to walk on the road, unless otherwise specified (in which case cycles will usually be banned too). 

This kind of belligerent shit from cyclists is the exact attitude that they complain of car drivers having.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 28, 2017)

...


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 28, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Pedestrians have the right to walk on the road, unless otherwise specified (in which case cycles will usually be banned too).
> 
> This kind of belligerent shit from cyclists is the exact attitude that they complain of car drivers having.


Nope.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 28, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> I could have a go at least 4 pedos a day who walk out in front of me, sometimes looking first, sometimes not.
> What really winds me up is the ones who walk more than halfway across the road and stand there leaving a tiny space for you to get through.
> 
> If there's traffic on the road, don't get on it!



At least cyclists pay VAT on their bikes, peds with size 4 or under shoes pay NO VAT on their fucking shoes. the skum.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jun 28, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Pedestrians have the right to walk on the road, unless otherwise specified (in which case cycles will usually be banned too).
> 
> This kind of belligerent shit from cyclists is the exact attitude that they complain of car drivers having.




Pedestrians also need to fucking look where they are going rather than cluster around like a bunch of twats or hold phones in front of the faces. 

Cunts.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 28, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> Pedestrians also need to fucking look where they are going rather than cluster around like a bunch of twats or hold phones in front of the faces.
> 
> Cunts.


unlike the cyclist i saw yesterday riding while eating a burger with both hands with his mobile between his head and shoulder.

i admired his multitasking skills but not the safety of his trajectory.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jun 28, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> unlike the cyclist i saw yesterday riding while eating a burger with both hands with his mobile between his head and shoulder.
> 
> i admired his multitasking skills but not the safety of his trajectory.




Oh he's a cunt as well, every time I see a guy on a Boris bike one handed and checking his phone I want to give him a push.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 28, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> As above. If peds are already on a road that you are turning in to, they have right of way.



for the sake of completeness, also on a zebra crossing.
Otherwise afaik it's like you said in the previous post - there's a general responsibility towards more vulnerable road users from less vulnerable road users so if a pedestrian is on / steps into the carriageway and it's reasonable for a cyclist/driver to stop and give way, they should, but there's no absolute right of way like at side roads or zebra crossings, and there's definitely an expectation that pedestrians will look before stepping off pavements and not step out into the path of a vehicle already using the carriageway.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 28, 2017)

hash tag said:


> A ped fights back: I am considering walking in cycle lanes from now on. If I get shouted at, I shall reply that I will vacate cycle lanes when bikes give the pavements back to pedestrians!



So you are going to annoy individuals who are using cycle lanes and not using pavements (ok they might in other places but the only thing you know for sure is that they aren't at that point and you've no evidence those individuals ever do) because some other people, who have nothing to do with these individuals, cycle on pavements? How is that going to help? Do you think those cyclists you will be annoying have influence over pavement cyclists, who they've probably never met and never will?

Cyclists get this collective responsibility/collective punishment crap in a way pedestrians and drivers do not. It's fucked up nonsense. I am not responsible for other cyclist's behaviour, I can't actually stop people cycling on the pavement, I am already doing everything that I can to reduce it (in that I happen to work training people to ride on the road and I actively campaign for segregated cycle lanes which would provide a safe place for people to cycle other than the pavements they currently use). And now, when I'm cycling in a cycle lane and not on the pavement, you are going to walk in front of me just to piss me off because you are pissed off about pavement cycling? in which case you can fuck off.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jun 28, 2017)

This thread is definitely bringing out the best in us all


----------



## Sea Star (Jun 28, 2017)

The most that this thread proves is that twats sometimes ride bikes, nothing more.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 28, 2017)

BigTom said:


> So you are going to annoy individuals who are using cycle lanes and not using pavements (ok they might in other places but the only thing you know for sure is that they aren't at that point and you've no evidence those individuals ever do) because some other people, who have nothing to do with these individuals, cycle on pavements? How is that going to help? Do you think those cyclists you will be annoying have influence over pavement cyclists, who they've probably never met and never will?
> 
> Cyclists get this collective responsibility/collective punishment crap in a way pedestrians and drivers do not. It's fucked up nonsense. I am not responsible for other cyclist's behaviour, I can't actually stop people cycling on the pavement, I am already doing everything that I can to reduce it (in that I happen to work training people to ride on the road and I actively campaign for segregated cycle lanes which would provide a safe place for people to cycle other than the pavements they currently use). And now, when I'm cycling in a cycle lane and not on the pavement, you are going to walk in front of me just to piss me off because you are pissed off about pavement cycling? in which case you can fuck off.


----------



## hash tag (Jun 28, 2017)

BigTom said:


> So you are going to annoy individuals who are using cycle lanes and not using pavements (ok they might in other places but the only thing you know for sure is that they aren't at that point and you've no evidence those individuals ever do) because some other people, who have nothing to do with these individuals, cycle on pavements? How is that going to help? Do you think those cyclists you will be annoying have influence over pavement cyclists, who they've probably never met and never will?
> 
> Cyclists get this collective responsibility/collective punishment crap in a way pedestrians and drivers do not. It's fucked up nonsense. I am not responsible for other cyclist's behaviour, I can't actually stop people cycling on the pavement, I am already doing everything that I can to reduce it (in that I happen to work training people to ride on the road and I actively campaign for segregated cycle lanes which would provide a safe place for people to cycle other than the pavements they currently use). And now, when I'm cycling in a cycle lane and not on the pavement, you are going to walk in front of me just to piss me off because you are pissed off about pavement cycling? in which case you can fuck off.



Why not. I see cyclists behaving recklessly several times a day, most days. On my short genteel walk to work this morning, a cyclist came past me on a towpath path like he was riding a time trial. This is a place where people want to ban cyclists. Seconds later, one nearly went over his handlebars trying to stop himself from hitting me at a right angles corner on same towpath.
Besides, if you look, there are nearly 80 pages to this thread and the majority of posts will be about cyclists. 
Besides, it will make a change for me to give a cyclist something to complain about and in a way that won't hurt them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 28, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> The most that this thread proves is that twats sometimes ride bikes, nothing more.


no one here looks for things threads prove. on the one hand you have the cycle fans and on the other hand you have people who know what they're talking about. and never the twain shall meet.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 28, 2017)

BigTom said:


> for the sake of completeness, also on a zebra crossing.


Also if there is no pavement available.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 28, 2017)

BigTom said:


> for the sake of completeness, also on a zebra crossing.


I didn't think that needed pointing out, Tom, but given this will be read by a number of cyclists you're right to bring it up.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 28, 2017)

So, several basically.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 28, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Why not. I see cyclists behaving recklessly several times a day, most days. On my short genteel walk to work this morning, a cyclist came past me on a towpath path like he was riding a time trial. This is a place where people want to ban cyclists. Seconds later, one nearly went over his handlebars trying to stop himself from hitting me at a right angles corner on same towpath.
> Besides, if you look, there are nearly 80 pages to this thread and the majority of posts will be about cyclists.
> Besides, it will make a change for me to give a cyclist something to complain about and in a way that won't hurt them.



If all you want to do is give some people something to complain about, go ahead. It'll make the general situation worse by antagonising people who are not doing the things you complain about but hey.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 28, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> I didn't think that needed pointing out, Tom, but given this will be read by a number of cyclists you're right to bring it up.



You'd think but given the number of cyclists who ride over zebra crossings and the number of drivers who park on the zig-zag lines and stop on the crossing in traffic, it's quite clear that many road users do not know the rules around zebra crossings.


----------



## hash tag (Jun 28, 2017)

BigTom said:


> If all you want to do is give some people something to complain about, go ahead. It'll make the general situation worse by antagonising people who are not doing the things you complain about but hey.



You serious? Cyclists never stop moaning.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 28, 2017)

AuntiStella said:


> The most that this thread proves is that twats sometimes ride bikes, nothing more.


The world is full of utter twats, basic statistics has them using every form of transport available.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 28, 2017)

hash tag said:


> You serious? Cyclists never stop moaning.



This makes no sense as a response to my post, I don't understand it anyway.


----------



## Santino (Jun 29, 2017)

The social structures that restrict and permit certain cycling behaviours allow twatitude to flourish in a way that doesn't apply (or rather, applies differently) to driving or walking.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 29, 2017)

Santino said:


> The social structures that restrict and permit certain cycling behaviours allow twatitude to flourish in a way that doesn't apply (or rather, applies differently) to driving or walking.


An interesting proposition and almost certainly correct.

Can you elaborate?


----------



## Santino (Jun 29, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> An interesting proposition and almost certainly correct.
> 
> Can you elaborate?


Broadly, one is more likely to be immediately penalised (whether by legal sanction, injury, property damage or death) for twatitudinous driving or walking than for cycling. Or rather, the psychological force of the risks are more effective in moderating driving and walking behaviour than the risks that face cyclists.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 29, 2017)

That's bollocks. Drivers rarely get penalised for going over 20 in a built up area, or running red lights and zebra crossings, or close passing etch


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 29, 2017)

Santino said:


> Broadly, one is more likely to be immediately penalised (whether by legal sanction, injury, property damage or death) for twatitudinous driving or walking than for cycling. Or rather, the psychological force of the risks are more effective in moderating behaviour than the risks that face cyclists.


Excellent. And undeniable. 

Do you think this also reflects on the _type of person_ that would choose to cycle frequently?


----------



## Santino (Jun 29, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> That's bollocks. Drivers rarely get penalised for going over 20 in a built up area, or running red lights and zebra crossings, or close passing etch


I would say that while there are many exceptions, the overall structure of penalties (both legal sanction, and risks to property and body) create a generalised disposition to limit excessively twaterious behaviour. Everyone knows someone who has been fined, had points on their license, or perhaps even gone to court for bad driving. How many cyclists have faced similar penalties?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 29, 2017)

Santino said:


> I would say that while there are many exceptions, the overall structure of penalties (both legal sanction, and risks to property and body) create a generalised disposition to limit excessively twaterious behaviour. Everyone knows someone who has been fined, had points on their license, or perhaps even gone to court for bad driving. How many cyclists have faced similar penalties?


Bad drivers are much more dangerous than bad cyclists, so that's fair enough


----------



## Santino (Jun 29, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Excellent. And undeniable.
> 
> Do you think this also reflects on the _type of person_ that would choose to cycle frequently?


I cannot comment on individual psychology. This is about general socio-legal structures and perceptions of risk leading to statistically significant patterns of behaviour; it says nothing about personal feelings or choices.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 29, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Drivers rarely get penalised for going over 20 in a built up area, or running red lights and zebra crossings ...


Utter dog poo. Cars rarely run red lights. The consequences are so potentially enormous that even the most fuckwitted drivers tend not to do it. Ped crossings you see run slightly more often but it's still a major no-no for pretty much all drivers.  

It's also a proven FACT that all pedestrian crossing run by motorised vehicles are being driven by people whose main form of transport is cycling.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 29, 2017)

Santino said:


> Broadly, one is more likely to be immediately penalised (whether by legal sanction, injury, property damage or death) for twatitudinous driving or walking than for cycling. Or rather, the psychological force of the risks are more effective in moderating driving and walking behaviour than the risks that face cyclists.


If that were true, then you wouldn't see so much bad driving.


----------



## Santino (Jun 29, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> If that were true, then you wouldn't see so much bad driving.


If it weren't true, you would see much more.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 29, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> That's bollocks. Drivers rarely get penalised for going over 20 in a built up area, or running red lights and zebra crossings, or close passing etch


this needs some explanation, which is provided by this article. it's true that motorists are rarely penalised overall across the country, but that - as the article points out - is due to cameras not being ubiquitous at traffic lights etc. in addition, you may not see drivers being penalised where traffic cameras are installed: but that does not in itself mean they aren't punished.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 29, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Utter dog poo. Cars rarely run red lights


Nope, you're talking bollocks here. (though I know you don't mean any of your anti-cyclist rhetoric, some people take you seriously).
I used to see it several times a day in London.


----------



## Winot (Jun 29, 2017)

A thing that doesn't happen is probably worse than a thing that does happen. Therefore I am right.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jun 29, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Utter dog poo. Cars rarely run red lights. The consequences are so potentially enormous that even the most fuckwitted drivers tend not to do it. Ped crossings you see run slightly more often but it's still a major no-no for pretty much all drivers.


 Cars go through reds all the time.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 29, 2017)

Santino said:


> I cannot comment on individual psychology.


Well you can, and should. 

Would you, for example, agree with the general perception that 99.84% of cyclists are braindead dicksplashes?

Personally I think that number may be a trifle high.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 29, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Nope, you're talking bollocks here. (though I know you don't mean any of your anti-cyclist rhetoric, some people take you seriously).
> I used to see it several times a day in London.


yes. but did you also see the automated punishment act?


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 29, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> I used to see it several times a day in London.


No you didn't. You may have seen it happen very occasionally but you are exaggerating in order to bolster your position.


sleaterkinney said:


> Cars go through reds all the time.


No they don't. You're doing the same as Apeface.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 29, 2017)

UK roads where the most drivers are caught running red lights revealed | This is Money


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 29, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 110404
> UK roads where the most drivers are caught running red lights revealed | This is Money


Fake news, son.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 29, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> No you didn't. You may have seen it happen very occasionally but *you are exaggerating in order to bolster your position.*


Says you!

(i'm actually being serious)


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 29, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Says you!


well spotted


----------



## nuffsaid (Jun 30, 2017)

With regard the original thread title -

When they cycle against the flow of traffic on a busy, narrow and pot-holed A-road in the centre of town. Like the one I saw did today in the centre of Guildford. TWAT! (kerbside, in case you were thinking he was in the middle of the road waiting to turn or something - he passed my passenger door..... facing me).


----------



## Winot (Jun 30, 2017)

Someone tweeted this graph yesterday. 53% of drivers exceed 30mph limits; 81% exceed 20mph limits.



ETA - source here


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 30, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> Cars go through reds all the time.



Where there are advanced stop boxes for cyclists, any car that stops in the box has effectively crossed a stop line at a red light. Apprently it's rare for anyone to get done for this because you can argue that the light changed while you were in the box, but if the light is still yellow when you cross a stop line then you keep going past the junction, you don't just wait in front of the stop line.

Hard to tell how many people fail to understand this and how many simply don't care. Either way I'd be in favour of a merciless blitzkrieg of fines and points for drivers stopping in bike boxes. It's not rocket science, there's a picture of a fucking bike. And not, it's not a picture of a motorbike. It's definitely not a picture of a taxi or a white van.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 30, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'd be in favour of a merciless blitzkrieg of fines and points for drivers stopping in bike boxes


They did this in London a few years ago after a spate of particularly nasty cyclist deaths and a call for Something To Be Done. I think it helped. I'm sure there are other factors (eg. the sheer volume of cyclists on the road these days) but I find the boxes are left clear more often.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 30, 2017)

Winot said:


> Someone tweeted this graph yesterday. 53% of drivers exceed 30mph limits; 81% exceed 20mph limits.
> 
> View attachment 110460
> 
> ETA - source here


Wrong thread.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 30, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Where there are advanced stop boxes for cyclists, any car that stops in the box has effectively crossed a stop line at a red light. Apprently it's rare for anyone to get done for this because you can argue that the light changed while you were in the box, but if the light is still yellow when you cross a stop line then you keep going past the junction, you don't just wait in front of the stop line.
> 
> Hard to tell how many people fail to understand this and how many simply don't care. Either way I'd be in favour of a merciless blitzkrieg of fines and points for drivers stopping in bike boxes. It's not rocket science, there's a picture of a fucking bike. And not, it's not a picture of a motorbike. It's definitely not a picture of a taxi or a white van.


Again, 96.56% of cars you see cross the ASL are being driven by cyclists who haven't realised that they are in a car and not on a bike. I agree with you. They are a menace and should have their licences (if indeed they actually have them) revoked.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 30, 2017)

Winot said:


> Someone tweeted this graph yesterday. 53% of drivers exceed 30mph limits; 81% exceed 20mph limits.
> 
> View attachment 110460
> 
> ETA - source here



Goes to show that the speed limits are wrong and need increasing. This is how a democracy functions.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 30, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Where there are advanced stop boxes for cyclists, any car that stops in the box has effectively crossed a stop line at a red light. Apprently it's rare for anyone to get done for this because you can argue that the light changed while you were in the box, but if the light is still yellow when you cross a stop line then you keep going past the junction, you don't just wait in front of the stop line.


This is absolute bollocks, by the way, and a typical misunderstanding of the rules of the road by an untrained menace of a cyclist.

If, when a light changes from green to amber, a vehicle cannot safely stop before the first stop line but can do so before the second, _it should stop in the box_.

NOT continue blasting through the fucking junction!


----------



## antimata (Jun 30, 2017)

assuming this has not been said.

"the entitled cunty attitude that allows them to behave like twats"

2 abreast, so what if its legal its dangerous.

going flat out because you can, f off to a velodrome the road is not a race track.

you are small and dont pay, cycle accordingly or be a victim of your stupidity.

ps. i cycle daily.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 30, 2017)

antimata said:


> assuming this has not been said.
> 
> "the entitled cunty attitude that allows them to behave like twats"
> 
> ...


don't pay what?
and people ride two abreast cos it's safer


----------



## antimata (Jun 30, 2017)

how can 2 abreast be safer?
how are you safer 2 deep?

register your bike pay for the privilege of using the road. 

we are not going to agree. good day sir.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 30, 2017)

piss poor troll - 0/10


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 30, 2017)

antimata said:


> how can 2 abreast be safer?
> how are you safer 2 deep?


to prevent dangerous overtaking



antimata said:


> register your bike pay for the privilege of using the road.


wot? we all pay taxes that pay for the upkeep of the road


----------



## Winot (Jun 30, 2017)

antimata said:


> how can 2 abreast be safer?
> how are you safer 2 deep?
> 
> register your bike pay for the privilege of using the road.
> ...



Wow. Quickest troll and flounce ever.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 30, 2017)

antimata said:


> how can 2 abreast be safer?
> how are you safer 2 deep?



I teach kids to cycle. With groups it's both safer and easier to lead two short lines than one long line.

Cars shouldn't be overtaking even a single cyclist unless the opposite lane is clear anyway, so to a law-abiding driver it will make no difference if cyclists are two abreast, if anything it makes overtaking easier.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 30, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> I teach kids to cycle.


Gawd elpem!

Who taught you!


----------



## antimata (Jun 30, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> I teach kids to cycle. With groups it's both safer and easier to lead two short lines than one long line.
> 
> Cars shouldn't be overtaking even a single cyclist unless the opposite lane is clear anyway, so to a law-abiding driver it will make no difference if cyclists are two abreast, if anything it makes overtaking easier.




no just no. you are wrong.

cars can easily pass a single cyclist but to pass 2 abreast is a lot harder and not reasonable to expect. think parked cars.

you are small and vulnerable act accordingly and teach the next lot to act the same.

might has right its the road when all said and done.


----------



## joustmaster (Jun 30, 2017)

Look at the state of this fucking thread.
It reads like the comments section on the Daily Mail.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 30, 2017)

joustmaster said:


> Look at the state of this fucking thread.
> It reads like the comments section on the Daily Mail.


what else do you expect from cyclists?


----------



## hash tag (Jun 30, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Goes to show that the speed limits are wrong and need increasing. This is how a democracy functions.



You must not try and get speed limits increased by stealth...that way you can end up on a speed awareness course of with points.


----------



## antimata (Jun 30, 2017)

joustmaster said:


> Look at the state of this fucking thread.
> It reads like the comments section on the Daily Mail.



wasnt that the point of this thread...


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 30, 2017)

antimata said:


> no just no. you are wrong.
> 
> cars can easily pass a single cyclist but to pass 2 abreast is a lot harder and not reasonable to expect. think parked cars.


not in the same lane - if you can't overtake a car in the opposite lane, then you shouldn't overtake a cyclist either - you're supposed to give both the same amount of room. cycling two abreast makes any car that wants to overtake either hold back or overtake in the other lane


----------



## hash tag (Jun 30, 2017)

antimata said:


> wasnt that the point of this thread...



Are you saying Orang Utan started this thread because he was trying to copy the mail


----------



## antimata (Jun 30, 2017)

no i sugest it was an easy troll, bunfight, click bait number posted by someone who knew exactly what they were doing.

fair play and all.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jun 30, 2017)

antimata said:


> cars can easily pass a single cyclist but to pass 2 abreast is a lot harder and not reasonable to expect


Cyclist safety > motorist convinence 

HTH, HAND


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 30, 2017)

antimata said:


> no just no. you are wrong.
> 
> cars can easily pass a single cyclist but to pass 2 abreast is a lot harder and not reasonable to expect. think parked cars.
> 
> ...



Bearing in mind this is what I do for a living, I feel pretty comfortable asserting that teaching people to 'act small and vulnerable' goes against all the evidence on what behaviours actually make people safer on the roads.

Might does not have right. Obviously. Your right to get where you're going quickly does not take precedence over someone else's right to keep their bones on the inside, just because you own a large vehicle.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 30, 2017)

antimata said:


> no i sugest it was an easy troll, bunfight, click bait number posted by someone who knew exactly what they were doing.
> 
> fair play and all.


It was started in all sincerity


----------



## antimata (Jun 30, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Bearing in mind this is what I do for a living, I feel pretty comfortable asserting that teaching people to 'act small and vulnerable' goes against all the evidence on what behaviours actually make people safer on the roads.
> 
> Might does not have right. Obviously. Your right to get where you're going quickly does not take precedence over someone else's right to keep their bones on the inside, just because you own a large vehicle.



might has right its physic. 

teaching anything else is foolish.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 30, 2017)

antimata said:


> might has right its physic.
> 
> teaching anything else is foolish.


you're the fool here. you don't know what you're talking about


----------



## antimata (Jun 30, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> It was started in all sincerity



on some level i believe that.

but it has played out well 75 odd pages and all.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 30, 2017)

antimata said:


> might has right its physic.
> 
> teaching anything else is foolish.



Again, this is what I do for a living. I teach according to department of transport standards which are updated regularly to take account of new evidence and best practice. I'm not going to sack all that off because you tell me I'm wrong, and that cyclists should just get out of the way because anyone bigger and faster has a god-given right to mow them down if they become an inconvenience.


----------



## antimata (Jun 30, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> you're the fool here. you don't know what you're talking about



i cycle daily and try to stay safe. 

teach the youngins the same.

just teaching the law will not necessarily keep them safe..

thats what im saying post after post.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 30, 2017)

antimata said:


> i cycle daily and try to stay safe.
> 
> teach the youngins the same.
> 
> ...


wrongly


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 30, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> if you can't overtake a car in the opposite lane


this would be the opposite lane in which vehicles approach you

i've long believed it is impossible to overtake a car which is approaching you


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 30, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> this would be the opposite lane in which vehicles approach you


yes, it would be unwise to overtake if a car was coming towards you in the opposite lane.


----------



## antimata (Jun 30, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Again, this is what I do for a living. I teach according to department of transport standards which are updated regularly to take account of new evidence and best practice. I'm not going to sack all that off because you tell me I'm wrong, and that cyclists should just get out of the way because anyone bigger and faster has a god-given right to mow them down if they become an inconvenience.



allow me or my spawn to ever enjoy the pleasure of your tootilage.

you are a danger.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 30, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> not in the same lane - if you can't overtake a car in the opposite lane, then you shouldn't overtake a cyclist either - you're supposed to give both the same amount of room.


There are often situations where it would be possible to pass a single cyclist perfectly safely while allowing him the same amount of space as one would a car, but not be able to pass a pair riding abreast whilst affording the right hand cyclist the same space.


> cycling two abreast makes any car that wants to overtake either hold back or overtake in the other lane


Or get pissed-off and overtake both dangerously. Any accident would be the driver's fault but at least you'd be the most correct cyclists in the intensive care unit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 30, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> yes, it would be unwise to overtake if a car was coming towards you in the opposite lane.


why don't you say what you mean?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 30, 2017)

Can you imagine the chaos if 'might has right' was a genuine rule of the roads? We've got trams round here, they'd just be able to plough on through cars, bikes, pedestrians and whoever else as they saw fit. HGVs would kill more people than heart disease.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 30, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> why don't you say what you mean?


I do, usually


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 30, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> why don't you say what you mean?



Why are you sock-puppeting for an obvious troll?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 30, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> There are often situations where it would be possible to pass a single cyclist perfectly safely while allowing him the same amount of space as one would a car,


possible, but not legal. and what you think is safe could be way off, so best to err on the side of caution


----------



## antimata (Jun 30, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> wrongly



no


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 30, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Why are you sock-puppeting for an obvious troll?


it's what he does


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 30, 2017)

antimata said:


> allow me or my spawn to ever enjoy the pleasure of your tootilage.
> 
> you are a danger.


no you are if you're advising people that might is right


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 30, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Why are you sock-puppeting for an obvious troll?


i'm not.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 30, 2017)

Whenever some idiot -whether on two wheels or four does something insanely stupid around me - which happens on a daily basis - and/or and is clearly confused by my assertive behaviour - honed over 40 years on the road on two, three and four wheels - the last 30 mostly without an engine I want to patronisingly ask them if they've heard of the Internet ...

i.e just google "why is the cyclist riding in the middle of the road ? "

There are videos on the subject FFS - but then we live in an era where millions with access to the Internet still literally believe bronze age mythology and/or that the world's scientists are all involved in a big conspiracy with regards climate change and GM technology ... and vaccines... and HIV causing AIDS... not to mention chemtrails, homoeopathy and "targeted individuals" being zapped by WIFI


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 30, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> it's what he does


yeh cos me with my first post on this thread in 2015, i'm obviously sock-puppeting for someone who only joined in the thread last year.


----------



## Winot (Jun 30, 2017)

joustmaster said:


> Look at the state of this fucking thread.
> It reads like the comments section on the Daily Mail.



Great #bantz

The age of banter


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 30, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> possible, but not legal.


Of course it's legal


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 30, 2017)

antimata said:


> allow me or my spawn to ever enjoy the pleasure of your tootilage.
> 
> you are a danger.



Again you'll have to forward these complaints to the DfT. I in turn will pass my reservations about your road sense on to your boss, Ronnie Pickering.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 30, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Of course it's legal


Not if you're passing closely and endangering others


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 30, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Not if you're passing closely and endangering others


But you wouldn't be.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 30, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> But you wouldn't be.


believe me, many drivers think they're passing safely when they aren't. i bet you're one of those.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 30, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> believe me, many drivers think they're passing safely when they aren't. i bet you're one of those.


and you'd be wrong, i've seen pa swerve out the way to evade cyclists' kicks enough times to know he gives them a wider berth than they'd give him.


----------



## antimata (Jun 30, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> no you are if you're advising people that might is right



im definitely not advising might is right i just know from experience its the way that roads work.

the ones with bad teaching will pay for their teachers arrogance.

"im teaching the law im right" fuck off you are not realistic.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 30, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> believe me, many drivers think they're passing safely when they aren't. i bet you're one of those.


You'd be surprised. 

Can you honestly not envisage a situation where a car can safely and legally pass one cyclist (giving space for a car) but not two, or were you trained by SpookyFrank ?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 30, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> You'd be surprised.
> 
> Can you honestly not envisage a situation where a car can safely and legally pass one cyclist (giving space for a car) but not two, or were you trained by SpookyFrank ?


If the road is really wide, possibly. But on most city roads, no


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 30, 2017)

I find it makes sense to use my position to point out the bleeding obvious to a motoring public who would be far better off with self-driving cars so they can get on with texting ...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 30, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> and you'd be wrong, i've seen pa swerve out the way to evade cyclists' kicks enough times to know he gives them a wider berth than they'd give him.



If a cyclist can kick your car, you're too close to them.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 30, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> If the road is really wide, possibly. But on most city roads, no


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 30, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> If a cyclist can kick your car, you're too close to them.


yeh. no cyclist has ever laid boot on pa's car, but god knows it's not from want of trying


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 30, 2017)

antimata said:


> im definitely not advising might is right i just know from experience its the way that roads work.
> 
> the ones with bad teaching will pay for their teachers arrogance.
> 
> "im teaching the law im right" fuck off you are not realistic.



Ok you're now accusing me of putting children at risk. Can I ask if you have any basis for doing so besides your own deranged assertion that 'might has right' ?


----------



## antimata (Jun 30, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Again you'll have to forward these complaints to the DfT. I in turn will pass my reservations about your road sense on to your boss, Ronnie Pickering.



what?

complaints forwarded. 

why not, you are irresponsible and need to look at what your teaching will cause...


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 30, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. no cyclist has ever laid boot on pa's car, but god knows it's not from want of trying


Well there was that one guy with the Stretch Armstrong legs, but yer ma got him with the door at the next set of lights.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 30, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> You'd be surprised.
> 
> Can you honestly not envisage a situation where a car can safely and legally pass one cyclist (giving space for a car) but not two, or were you trained by SpookyFrank ?



OU is right.

single file cyclist in secondary position - 75cm from the kerb to wheel + handlebars = 1m15cm (on my bike, handlebar widths vary).
Gap between car and bicycle = 1.5m. Any less at 30mph is driving without due care and attention. Needs to be wider at higher speeds and in large vehicles.
Width of car.. I dunno, 1.5m average?

So to pass in lane, legally, would mean the lane needs to be 4.15m wide - actually a bit more because nobody can judge distances that accurately - I don't think many urban roads have lanes as wide as that, I reckon something around 3m-3.5m is more usual.

Unless the lane is wider than 4.15m you need to be using the oncoming lane to overtake a cyclist in single file, which is the same to legally pass cyclist riding two abreast.

Any other situations you can think of where you could pass two single file cyclists legally where you couldn't pass one?

OTOH, two single file cyclists are twice as long (more actaully due to the gap between them) as two riding two abreast, which means you need a longer distance to overtake, meaning that situation a driver can legally and safely pass cyclists riding two abreast, where they could not if they were riding single file. I reckon that type of situation occurs more often than really wide lanes.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 30, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> You'd be surprised.
> 
> Can you honestly not envisage a situation where a car can safely and legally pass one cyclist (giving space for a car) but not two, or were you trained by SpookyFrank ?



Cyclists are not required to allow other road users to overtake them.


----------



## antimata (Jun 30, 2017)

absolute arrogant thinking


----------



## BigTom (Jun 30, 2017)

antimata said:


> what?
> 
> complaints forwarded.
> 
> why not, you are irresponsible and need to look at what your teaching will cause...



The department for transport has set rules for cyclists, which are taught to children. This is what Spooky does, and what I do as well. It's what every single cycling instructor does across the whole of the UK, and has done since ~2005 when the national standards for cycling were introduced.
The rules are based on best practice developed over many years as to what is the safest way to ride on our roads. They are updated (or rather looked at to see if anything needs updating) on an annual basis.
SpookyFrank is not irresponsible to teach children to ride this way, it is the best, safest and most legal way to ride.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 30, 2017)

antimata said:


> absolute arrogant thinking



It's arrogant to assume that you should always be entitled to overtake even if it's not safe to do so.


----------



## antimata (Jun 30, 2017)

then teaching how the road really works is wrong?


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 30, 2017)

BigTom said:


> OU is right.
> 
> single file cyclist in secondary position - 75cm from the kerb to wheel + handlebars = 1m15cm (on my bike, handlebar widths vary).
> Gap between car and bicycle = 1.5m. Any less at 30mph is driving without due care and attention. Needs to be wider at higher speeds and in large vehicles.
> ...


Nonsense. We're not necessarily talking about passing in lane, we're talking about using the (clear) oncoming lane. Often when they're riding two abreast the right hand cyclist is a meter or more right of primary. One could safely pass the guy in secondary but not have room to pass the chap riding closest to the centre line (safely).

This is not to say that it's _always_ wrong to ride two abreast but most cyclists who do it are unable to make the judgement and are often doing it to make a point and antagonise drivers "because it's legal".


----------



## BigTom (Jun 30, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Nonsense. We're not necessarily talking about passing in lane, we're talking about using the (clear) oncoming lane. Often when they're riding two abreast the right hand cyclist is a meter or more right of primary. One could safely pass the guy in secondary but not have room to pass the the chap riding close to the centre line.



If you're fully in the oncoming lane that should be enough room to pass cyclists riding two abreast, they shouldn't be so far over as to mean you can't overtake if you are fully in the oncoming lane. 75cm to the first one, another metre to the second, should leave 1.5m gap to the oncoming lane. If the road is so narrow as to not allow that, then I reckon the highway code says they should be in single file ("on narrow roads", I don't know if "narrow" is actually defined anywhere).


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 30, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> This is not to say that it's _always_ wrong to ride two abreast but most cyclists who do it are unable to make the judgement and are often doing it to make a point and antagonise drivers "because it's legal".



Now this is arrogance, assuming that cyclists spend all their time plotting against the random stranger in the car behind. Is the car in front of you in a traffic jam out to get you too? Or is it just another person trying to get somewhere?

Bearing in mind antagonised motorists often engage in potentially fatal acts of recrimination against cyclists who assert themselves, why would any cyclist deliberately cause trouble to 'make a point' ?


----------



## Winot (Jun 30, 2017)

BigTom said:


> The department for transport has set rules for cyclists, which are taught to children. This is what Spooky does, and what I do as well. It's what every single cycling instructor does across the whole of the UK, and has done since ~2005 when the national standards for cycling were introduced.
> The rules are based on best practice developed over many years as to what is the safest way to ride on our roads. They are updated (or rather looked at to see if anything needs updating) on an annual basis.
> SpookyFrank is not irresponsible to teach children to ride this way, it is the best, safest and most legal way to ride.



There's quite a crossover between those who rant that cyclists should be forced to do "cycling proficiency" (sic) and those that complain when cyclists follow that guidance.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 30, 2017)

BigTom said:


> If you're fully in the oncoming lane that should be enough room to pass cyclists riding two abreast, they shouldn't be so far over as to mean you can't overtake if you are fully in the oncoming lane.


They _very often_ are.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 30, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Nonsense. We're not necessarily talking about passing in lane, we're talking about using the (clear) oncoming lane. Often when they're riding two abreast the right hand cyclist is a meter or more right of primary. One could safely pass the guy in secondary but not have room to pass the chap riding closest to the centre line (safely).
> 
> This is not to say that it's _always_ wrong to ride two abreast but most cyclists who do it are unable to make the judgement and are often doing it to make a point and antagonise drivers "because it's legal".



think you edited in the second sentence after I replied - ime cyclists are generally riding two abreast for one of two reasons:
1) they are with a friend and want to talk to them whilst riding.
2) they are riding in a bigger group and want to halve the length of overtake required by drivers to make it easier and safer to overtake.


----------



## BigTom (Jun 30, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> They _very often_ are.



not in my experience but we've previously found that London is very different to anywhere else wrt to cyclist behaviour.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 30, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Now this is arrogance, assuming that cyclists spend all their time plotting against the random stranger in the car behind.


Nobody's assuming this though. But you only need to read posts by people like gentlegreen to realise that a fair number of cyclists ride to assert rights rather than travel safely.

Again, it's ok though. At least you can say that you were in the right whilst you're taking your meals through a tube at Stoke Mandeville.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 30, 2017)

antimata said:


> then teaching how the road really works is wrong?



Your provably false version of how the roads work? Yes it's wrong to teach that. It's nearly always wrong to teach complete bullshit IMO.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 30, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Nobody's assuming this though. But you only need to read posts by people like gentlegreen to realise that a fair number of cyclists ride to assert rights rather than travel safely.
> 
> Again, it's ok though. At least you can say that you were in the right whilst you're taking your meals through a tube at Stoke Mandeville.



You know ethereal threats are not a great way to make a point right?


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 30, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> You know ethereal threats are not a great way to make a point right?


Don't be ridiculous.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 30, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Don't be ridiculous.



You're saying if I don't ignore both my training and a large body of evidence and behave as you, our resident pub bore, believe I should then I'll end up in hospital. And a hospital over a hunded miles from where I live at that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 30, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> You're saying if I don't ignore both my training and a large body of evidence and behave as you, our resident pub bore, believe I should then I'll end up in hospital. And a hospital over a hunded miles from where I live at that.


that's not fair to pa. everyone knows teuchter is our resident pub bore.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 30, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> that's not fair to pa. everyone knows teuchter is our resident pub bore.



Then Spymaster is Teuchter after five pints.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 30, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> You're saying if I don't ignore both my training and a large body of evidence and behave as you, our resident pub bore, believe I should then I'll end up in hospital.


Lol!

I'm simply questioning your training, or at least your understanding of it, bearing in mind you're supposedly a cycle trainer who didn't even know the rules regarding stop lines at junctions earlier.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 30, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Then Spymaster is Teuchter after five pints.


pa's anyone's after five pints  it's been a constant embarrassment, i've had to extricate him from all sorts of situations he's got into after just a whiff of the barmaid's apron


----------



## emanymton (Jun 30, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Then Spymaster is Teuchter after five pints.


Woh steady on, there is no need to get nasty.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 30, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> that's not fair to pa. everyone knows teuchter is our resident pub bore.


Bollocks.

I could out-bore Chookers in my sleep.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 30, 2017)

This is why I abandoned the cycle commute thread - I was accused *by fellow cyclists* of "deliberately riding in the middle of a (shared) path (in a park) (and getting in the way of more entitled cyclists.)
(I was attempting to flatten-out the final few metres of the slope leading to the highest point in Bristol ...)


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 30, 2017)

After having a very stressful day driving around London I've come to the conclusion that motorists, cyclists and pedestrians should all unite against the real enemy of the people.  Moped riders.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 30, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Lol!
> 
> I'm simply questioning your training, or at least your understanding of it, bearing in mind you're supposedly a cycle trainer who didn't even know the rules regarding stop lines at junctions earlier!



And your basis for questioning my training and my professional standards is what again?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 30, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> After having a very stressful day driving around London I've come to the conclusion that motorists, cyclists and pedestrians should all unite against the real enemy of the people.  Moped riders.




tbf if everyone else just fucked off, London would be a much more pleasant place for driving and most other activities.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 30, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> And your basis for questioning my training and my professional standards is what again?


Your posts here. Especially this one:



			
				SpookyFrank said:
			
		

> Apprently it's rare for anyone to get done for this because you can argue that the light changed while you were in the box, but if the light is still yellow when you cross a stop line then you keep going past the junction, you don't just wait in front of the stop line.


Given that you used this to bemoan cars stopped in the ASB.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 30, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Your posts here. Especially this one:
> 
> Given that you used this to bemoan cars stopped in the ASB.



The law is unambiguous, cars cannot wait in the box when the light is red. It follows that if the light turns red while your car is in the box, you continue driving. There is only one stop line which applies to motorists, the one before the box. Once you've crossed that line, you don't then stop driving any more than you would at a junction without a box.

In any case the 'light changed while I was in the box' thing is just an excuse. Most drivers pull into the box when the light is already red. This is crossing a stop line, which is an offence.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 30, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> The law is unambiguous, cars cannot wait in the box when the light is red. It follows that if the light turns red while your car is in the box, you continue driving. There is only one stop line which applies to motorists, the one before the box. Once you've crossed that line, you don't then stop driving any more than you would at a junction without a box.


Fuuuuuucking hell 

'Drive through the red light'

Have you considered another career?


----------



## BigTom (Jun 30, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> The law is unambiguous, cars cannot wait in the box when the light is red. It follows that if the light turns red while your car is in the box, you continue driving. There is only one stop line which applies to motorists, the one before the box. Once you've crossed that line, you don't then stop driving any more than you would at a junction without a box.
> 
> In any case the 'light changed while I was in the box' thing is just an excuse. Most drivers pull into the box when the light is already red. This is crossing a stop line, which is an offence.



No:

Rule 178 - the Annotated Highway Code


> *Rule 178*
> *Advanced stop lines.* Some signal-controlled junctions have advanced stop lines to allow cycles to be positioned ahead of other traffic. Motorists, including motorcyclists, *MUST* stop at the first white line reached if the lights are amber or red and should avoid blocking the way or encroaching on the marked area at other times, e.g. if the junction ahead is blocked. If your vehicle has proceeded over the first white line at the time that the signal goes red, you *MUST* stop at the second white line, even if your vehicle is in the marked area. Allow cyclists time and space to move off when the green signal shows.
> *Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD regs 10, 36(1) & 43(2)*


*
*
I've underlined the relevant line because the HC bolds stuff already. It's used as a reason not to prosecute, much like the "it's illegal to drive onto a pavement but not to park on it so unless we actually see them drive onto the pavement we can't do anything", but rarely is the case that that's why a driver is in there ime.


----------



## hash tag (Jun 30, 2017)

This evening, crossing through a crossroads which is controlled by traffic lights, I got most of the way accross the junction and virtually into my road when I had to wait for a cyclist ambling straight through a red light and a crowd of pedestrians. Needless to say he got a mouthfull. One of these days one of them will get a bit more! bastard.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 30, 2017)

hash tag said:


> This evening, crossing through a crossroads which is controlled by traffic lights, I got most of the way accross the junction and virtually into my road when I had to wait for a cyclist ambling straight through a red light and a crowd of pedestrians.



Probably a graduate of The SpookyFrank Cycling Academy.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 30, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Probably a graduate of The SpookyFrank Cycling Academy.



Feel free to quote any post where I've advocated cyclists jumping red lights.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 30, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Feel free to quote any post where I've advocated cyclists jumping red lights.


Wasn't expecting to see you back here, Francis!

It's only bantz, geezer. But you can't compare me to Teuchter, present me with a massive open goal, and expect me not shoot the fuck out of it!!!


----------



## T & P (Jun 30, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> After having a very stressful day driving around London I've come to the conclusion that motorists, cyclists and pedestrians should all unite against the real enemy of the people.  Moped riders.


I ride a scooter not a moped, and I don't work for a food delivery company, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you weren't including the likes of me in your statement


----------



## Orang Utan (Jun 30, 2017)

*In*


T & P said:


> I ride a scooter not a moped, and I don't work for a food delivery company, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you weren't including the likes of me in your statement


Scooter riders = lazy cyclists


----------



## T & P (Jun 30, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Scooter riders = lazy cyclists


Too true, in my case


----------



## emanymton (Jul 1, 2017)

So far today, I have seen two cyclists. Both ran the same red light, as I was trying to cross the road.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 1, 2017)

They're just not proper people. I think we should make this thread a bit more constructive and propose appropriate punishments. 

Running a red light=penis nailed to saddle for a day. 

Not understanding stop lines at junctions=suck off Iain Duncan Smith.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 1, 2017)

"Excuse me sir / madam, do you know why I've stopped you? Yes, you rode through the red light, in contravention of section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Please step over here, we have a human centipede for you to join .. back of the line please.."


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 1, 2017)

with his exaggerated sense of entitlement Orang Utan could easily pass for the worst sort of motorist


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 1, 2017)

Another graduate of the SpookyFrank Academy of Cycling (SFAC). 

We live on a hill. Walking up just now and there was a moron free-wheeling down, with no hands on the bars. Whilst texting!

I find it incredible that anyone could challenge the idea of compulsory training and registration of cyclists.

For every one decent rider like BigTom, there are 50 dangerous fuckers like OU and SpookyFrank, and what's the difference between them? TRAINING!


----------



## sealion (Jul 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> with no hands on the bars. Whilst texting!


It's okay because they were keeping eye contact and have a helmet cam


----------



## keybored (Jul 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Another graduate of the SpookyFrank Academy of Cycling (SFAC).
> 
> We live on a hill. Walking up just now and there was a moron free-wheeling down, with no hands on the bars. Whilst texting!
> 
> ...


This is why those wheels have spokes and sticks are usually readily available.


----------



## sealion (Jul 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Not understanding stop lines at junctions=suck off Iain Duncan Smith.




This could be awkward if ids has his cock nailed to the saddle.


----------



## sealion (Jul 1, 2017)




----------



## sealion (Jul 1, 2017)




----------



## BigTom (Jul 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> They're just not proper people. I think we should make this thread a bit more constructive and propose appropriate punishments.
> 
> Running a red light=penis nailed to saddle for a day.
> 
> Not understanding stop lines at junctions=suck off Iain Duncan Smith.



That's sexist - women can be bad cyclists too!

Also, I think the second may be counter to the geneva convention, cruel and unusual punishments and all that?


----------



## emanymton (Jul 1, 2017)

I saw a cyclist stop at a red light today 
But he chose to stop right in front of someone trying to take a photo of his family. 

It was quite funny really it was on the route of todays demo and so there were no cars on the road anyway. If there was every a time when it was ok to just go it was then. But he dutifully waiting for the light to change green.


----------



## hash tag (Jul 2, 2017)




----------



## hash tag (Jul 2, 2017)




----------



## hash tag (Jul 2, 2017)




----------



## snadge (Jul 2, 2017)

Mates in hospital atm with a puncture wound off a selfish cunt who came around the corner at full pelt on a mountain bike, on the pavement, right next to a cycle lane, hit him and one of the brake levers punctured his abdomen, he's going to be off work for at least 3 weeks, with no pay, well done wanker cyclist. He even tried fucking cycling away but one of the other lads I work with kicked him off the bike and restrained him until the police arrived.

He got arrested, don't know what they are gonna charge him with though.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 3, 2017)

snadge said:


> Mates in hospital atm with a puncture wound off a selfish cunt who came around the corner at full pelt on a mountain bike, on the pavement, right next to a cycle lane, hit him and one of the brake levers punctured his abdomen, he's going to be off work for at least 3 weeks, with no pay, well done wanker cyclist. He even tried fucking cycling away but one of the other lads I work with kicked him off the bike and restrained him until the police arrived.
> 
> He got arrested, don't know what they are gonna charge him with though.



Dreadful. Hope your mate makes a swift recovery and gets compo from the cyclist tossbag.

No licence, no insurance, no identification at all, means that all too often they feel they can just sod off after injuring people


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 3, 2017)

> He got arrested, don't know what they are gonna charge him with though.



He should be done for attempted murder, or at the very least, assault with a deadly weapon.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 3, 2017)

Normally non confrontational people who would seek to resolve an issue without aggression can become utter utter arrogant cunts when on a bike & know they can fuck off without having to deal with the consequences of their actions. Dirty Peckham hipster cunts and lycra fetish city boys come to mind.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> He should be done for attempted murder, or at the very least, assault with a deadly weapon  gbh with intent.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> They're just not proper people. I think we should make this thread a bit more constructive and propose appropriate punishments.
> 
> Running a red light=penis nailed to saddle for a day one thumb off.
> 
> Not understanding stop lines at junctions=suck off Iain Duncan Smith one thumb off.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 3, 2017)

Half drivers ignorant over cyclists’ rights


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Half drivers ignorant over cyclists’ rights


pisspoor. covers yorkshire and humber, not whole country.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 3, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Half drivers ignorant over cyclists’ rights



Half of car drivers know all about cyclists' rights 

Unlike a professional cycle instructor who doesn't


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 3, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> pisspoor. covers yorkshire and humber, not whole country.


it's a local newspaper


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> it's a local newspaper


your link, saying 'half drivers ignorant over cyclists' rights' is therefore misleading, as it's half in the area covered and not half across the country as your link title suggests.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 3, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> it's a local newspaper


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 3, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> your link, saying 'half drivers ignorant over cyclists' rights' is therefore misleading, as it's half in the area covered and not half across the country as your link title suggests.


yorkshire people think that the world doesn't exist outside of yorkshire though


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> yorkshire people think that the word doesn't exist outside of yorkshire though


what word?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jul 3, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> what word?



Cyclists?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 3, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Half drivers ignorant over cyclists’ rights


What does this have to do with why everyone hates cyclists?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 3, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> What does this have to do with why everyone hates cyclists?


yeah maybe i should have put it in the motorists thread as it shows how at least half of motorists are ignorant cunts (though the other half are merely cunts)


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 3, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> yeah maybe i should have put it in the motorists thread ...


Bingo. 

Please don't post on this thread again unless it's to slag off cyclists. 

Thanks.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jul 3, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> yeah maybe i should have put it in the motorists thread as it shows how at least half of motorists are ignorant cunts (though the other half are merely cunts)



I doubt you're safe on a bike.



Spoiler: Spotted earlier


----------



## BigTom (Jul 3, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> What does this have to do with why everyone hates cyclists?



Some drivers hate cyclists because they think cyclists are riding in a way that is against the law / dangerous / inconvenient or annoying, when in fact they are riding legally / for safety. This survey shows just how large a proportion of drivers have it wrong (and hate cyclists as a result though of course that wasn't in the survey, although it did say that loads had had a road rage incident as a result of wrong beliefs about what cyclists should/shouldn't do).

The survey was national btw pickman's, here is some reporting of it nationally: Survey reveals just how little some motorists know about cyclists' rights - Cycling Weekly


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Some drivers hate cyclist's because they think cyclist's are riding in a way that is against the law / dangerous / inconvenient or annoying, when in fact they are riding legally / for safety. This survey shows just how large a proportion of drivers have it wrong (and hate cyclists as a result though of course that wasn't in the survey, although it did say that loads had had a road rage incident as a result of wrong beliefs about what cyclists should/shouldn't do).
> 
> The survey was national btw pickman's, here is some reporting of it nationally: Survey reveals just how little some motorists know about cyclists' rights - Cycling Weekly


the first two paragraphs of ou's link


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 3, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> What does this have to do with why everyone hates cyclists?


----------



## BigTom (Jul 3, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> the first two paragraphs of ou's link
> 
> View attachment 110689



Yes, I know, I'm assuming the survey broke down results into regions and that the local paper only reported on the local stats but national ones are also available.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 3, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Some drivers hate cyclist's because they think cyclist's are riding in a way that is against the law / dangerous / inconvenient or annoying, when in fact they are riding legally / for safety. This survey shows just how large a proportion of drivers have it wrong (and hate cyclists as a result though of course that wasn't in the survey, although it did say that loads had had a road rage incident as a result of wrong beliefs about what cyclists should/shouldn't do).
> 
> The survey was national btw pickman's, here is some reporting of it nationally: Survey reveals just how little some motorists know about cyclists' rights - Cycling Weekly


Well that's as maybe but we actually have an individual on these very boards who is hate preaching to children about the use of advanced stop boxes. What's worse, Abu Francis is doing it from a position of total ignorance! 

Have you signed up for retraining yet, SpookyFrank ?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 3, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> with his exaggerated sense of entitlement Orang Utan could easily pass for the worst sort of motorist



His entitlement to ride a bicycle in accordance with the law?

Lots of usually intelligent posters coming out with rivers of unprocessed shit on this thread. Some real take-a-look-at-yourself-mate moments with people advocating a policy of 'I'm bigger and stronger than you so I should have more rights' which they would be justifiably appalled by in any other context.

If you can't recognise the difference between cyclists putting people at risk by breaking rules and cyclists inconveniencing people by adhering to rules you simply don't approve of, or refuse to admit even exist, then grown up discussions may not be the best place for you. Other people are always an inconvenience, that doesn't mean they don't still count as people.

If you really think motorists get a bad deal then you need to take a look around. Look at how much infrastructure exists to serve your car. Look how much space is dedicated just to storing the bloody things, including (round here anyway) roughly 60% of the pavements. Have a look at the pollution figures which saw London exceed it's annual 'safe' level of toxic emissions within a fortnight, and think about the people who even if they can get around without endlessly making way for cars for fear of being run over still can't avoid breathing toxic shit from your exhaust. Think about the wars that get fought to keep cheap fuel in your tank. Think about whether you're really the oppressed and victimised party here.

A lot of posters on this thread, with their exaggerated sense of victimhood and misdirected tabloid fury, could easily pass for Ukippers or the EDL or something if their attitudes were applied to other contexts.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 3, 2017)

They haven't legs to stand on so they take to trolling


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 3, 2017)




----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> His entitlement to ride a bicycle in accordance with the law?
> 
> Lots of usually intelligent posters coming out with rivers of unprocessed shit on this thread. Some real take-a-look-at-yourself-mate moments with people advocating a policy of 'I'm bigger and stronger than you so I should have more rights' which they would be justifiably appalled by in any other context.
> 
> ...


yes, i do think i'm the oppressed and victimised party here, on the grounds that you're quite happy to tell lies / invent things about me.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 3, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Well that's as maybe but we actually have an individual on these very boards who is hate preaching to children about the use of advanced stop boxes. What's worse, Abu Francis is doing it from a position of total ignorance!
> 
> Have you signed up for retraining yet, SpookyFrank ?



Hate preaching? See my above post about having a look at yourself. 

Hate preaching is advocating violence or persecution, and it causes genuine harm. Pointing out that motorists aren't allowed to wait in advanced stop boxes is not quite the same as that is it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Hate preaching? See my above post about having a look at yourself.


this would be the post riddled with invention.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 3, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yes, i do think i'm the oppressed and victimised party here, on the grounds that you're quite happy to tell lies / invent things about me.



Such as?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Such as?


you know as well as i the bits you've made up.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 3, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> you know as well as i the bits you've made up.



So why not share with rest of the class?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 3, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Have a look at the pollution figures which saw London exceed it's annual 'safe' level of toxic emissions within a fortnight, and think about the people who even if they can get around without endlessly making way for cars for fear of being run over still can't avoid breathing toxic shit from your exhaust. Think about the wars that get fought to keep cheap fuel in your tank.


We've been through all this before, Frank.

It doesn't matter.

Whilst people like you and OU are taking care of the planet and all that shit by NOT driving, I'm just using up your pollution quota. The net effect is that between the 3 of us we're probably only polluting the planet about as much as 3 normal people.

I am, however, looking to buy a 335 next month and that'll be a bit juicy (twin turbo's and all that) so I'm going to need you to cut down on something else. Can you promise not to take any international flights for the next 3 years please?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> So why not share with rest of the class?


ok. you know you've lied about my being a driver - nowhere on this thread, indeed nowhere on urban, have i said i'm a driver. that's because i'm not. why did you decide to make me one?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 3, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> We've been through all this before, Frank.
> 
> It doesn't matter.
> 
> ...



Let me know how you get on with the new car, and if it helps with the crippling sense of inadequacy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2017)

SpookyFrank *taps watch*


----------



## hash tag (Jul 3, 2017)




----------



## Spymaster (Jul 3, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> They haven't legs to stand on so they take to trolling


Hang on. You come along, post a load of fake news about drivers not knowing about cyclists rights, and WE are trolling???


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 3, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Let me know how you get on with the new car, and if it helps with the crippling sense of inadequacy.




Is that a "no" to the flying ban then?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 3, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Hang on. You come along, post a load of fake news about drivers not knowing about cyclists rights, and WE are trolling???


it's not fake news, Donald.

(and you and picky always overplay your shitty hands)


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> ok. you know you've lied about my being a driver - nowhere on this thread, indeed nowhere on urban, have i said i'm a driver. that's because i'm not. why did you decide to make me one?


SpookyFrank *taps watch*


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 3, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> ok. you know you've lied about my being a driver - nowhere on this thread, indeed nowhere on urban, have i said i'm a driver. that's because i'm not. why did you decide to make me one?



Well you're very obviously an expert road user, so I naturally assumed you in some way shape or form had some kind of inkling about using roads.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Well you're very obviously an expert road user, so I naturally assumed you in some way shape or form had some kind of inkling about using roads.


obviously i do. but not in the way you invented.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 3, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Well you're very obviously an expert road user ...


Like you, you mean?


----------



## sealion (Jul 3, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Have a look at the pollution figures which saw London exceed it's annual 'safe' level of toxic emissions within a fortnight,


That will be the hundreds of empty buses that no fucker uses. Three hundred buses an hour on oxford street during peak time.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2017)

sealion said:


> That will be the hundreds of empty buses that no fucker uses. Three hundred buses an hour on oxford street during peak time.


more like the noxious fumes emanating from cyclists


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 3, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> it's not fake news, Donald.


Of course it is.

By the way, can you stop flying for a while as well? It's not fair for SpookyFrank to shoulder the burden of negating my fossil fuel emissions on his own. Maybe you could plant a few trees as well?


----------



## sealion (Jul 3, 2017)

This fucknut doesn't even have brakes.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 3, 2017)

sealion said:


> This fucknut doesn't even have brakes.



Not ones he used at any rate.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 3, 2017)

sealion said:


> This fucknut doesn't even have brakes.



Does he try to blame the motorcyclist jumping the lights???


----------



## snadge (Jul 3, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Does he try to blame the motorcyclist jumping the lights???



No he blames the cyclist who was filming.

"I'm fine, you touched me".

When the filmer turns around you can see the back end of his bike had been knocked across, so obviously clipped his bike.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Well you're very obviously an expert road user, so I naturally assumed you in some way shape or form had some kind of inkling about using roads.


Some sort of "I'm sorry I invented all that bit about you driving a car" would be appreciated


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 3, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Some sort of "I'm sorry I invented all that bit about you driving a car" would be appreciated


yeah, we don't want anyone thinking you're a cunt.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 3, 2017)

snadge said:


> No he blames the cyclist who was filming.
> 
> "I'm fine, you touched me".
> 
> When the filmer turns around you can see the back end of his bike had been knocked across, so obviously clipped his bike.



Nah, you've got that the wrong way round - the guy on the floor asks if he's ok, the person filming says "I'm fine you didn't touch me, what happened" and then I think the other person says "I tried to jump the lights mate".


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 3, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> yeah, we don't want anyone thinking you're a cunt.


Why do you come in here? 

You always seem to get so very cross and wound up!


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 3, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Why do you come in here?
> 
> You always seem to get so very cross and wound up!


i'm having fun


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 3, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> i'm having fun


Oh, ok then.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 3, 2017)

You're not really though, are you? 

I can tell.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 3, 2017)

This had been a joke thread for a long time. Both yours and Picky's posts can only be taken as trolling, so are treated accordingly.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 3, 2017)

Just because it's not going the way you'd like, doesn't mean we're trolling. The pattern seems to be; you post something that's generally ignored or gets the piss taken, SpookyFrank jumps on board to help you out but gashes it up a bit, then you two start swearing and getting personal!

Are you _sure_ you're having fun?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> yeah, we don't want anyone thinking you're a cunt.


If that's what your auld mate meant then it's a pity he didn't come out and say it.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 3, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Pointing out that motorists aren't allowed to wait in advanced stop boxes is not quite the same as that is it?


Ah, but you were wrong about that weren't you?

So what other hate-filled, spittle-flecked, fundamentalist, nonsense have you been teaching your students, Abu?

Do their parents know enough about you to make an informed decision about entrusting them to you and your extremist ways?

What else should we know here?

Can you be trusted? That's the issue here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Just because it's not going the way you'd like, doesn't mean we're trolling. The pattern seems to be, you post something that's generally ignored or gets the piss taken, SpookyFrank jumps on board to help you out but gashes it up a bit, then you two start swearing and getting personal!
> 
> Are you _sure_ you're having fun?


He's never happier than when he's moaning


----------



## snadge (Jul 3, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> This had been a joke thread for a long time.



You say that quite a lot in the the threads that you start, usually when you are getting your arse soundly thrashed.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 3, 2017)

snadge said:


> You say that quite a lot in the the threads that you start, usually when you are getting your arse soundly thrashed.


no i don't, mr snidey


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> This had been a joke thread for a long time.


I don't find anything particularly amusing about cyclists' anti-social behaviour. It's no surprise you find it entertaining.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> no i don't, mr snidey


No you don't or no you think you don't?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 3, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> I don't find anything particularly amusing about cyclists' anti-social behaviour. It's no surprise you find it entertaining.


such dishonesty - you don't fool me


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> such dishonesty - you don't fool me


zzzzzz


----------



## snadge (Jul 3, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> no i don't, mr snidey




LOL. Please elaborate.


----------



## hash tag (Jul 3, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> He's never happier than when he's moaning



Correction...cyclists are never happier than when they are moaning.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 3, 2017)

snadge said:


> LOL. Please elaborate.


no, i don't mr snidey


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> no, i don't mr snidey


Richard of York gave battle in vain


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 3, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Half drivers ignorant over cyclists’ rights



Here's a video, by a cyclist, which clearly shows that the vast majority of cyclists are cunts.



This is what people have got against cyclists!


----------



## snadge (Jul 3, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> no, i don't mr snidey



Now that is funny, just because the comma is now in the incorrect place.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2017)

snadge said:


> Now that is funny, just because the comma is now in the incorrect place.


It's wicked to mock the afflicted


----------



## snadge (Jul 3, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Here's a video, by a cyclist, which clearly shows that the vast majority of cyclists are cunts.
> 
> 
> 
> This is what people have got against cyclists!





That is fucking unbelievable, utter cunts.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 3, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Some sort of "I'm sorry I invented all that bit about you driving a car" would be appreciated



I didn't say anything about you driving a car. The post you're probably upset about was not directed at you in particular, but the 'cyclists should know their place' crowd in general.

But yes, I assumed you were a driver. I've never met anyone so rabidly anti-cyclist who wasn't a driver. If I implied in any way that you were a motorist, and if this offended you, then I apologise. Doesn't change the fact that you've been cheerleader for some seriously dodgy and ill-informed shit on this thread.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 3, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Here's a video, by a cyclist, which clearly shows that the vast majority of cyclists are cunts.
> 
> 
> 
> This is what people have got against cyclists!




Where's that, London? Well everyone in London is a cunt regardless of their mode of transportation so this sort of thing is only to be expected. Round here it's rare to see cyclists jumping lights, I honestly can't remember the last time I saw anyone do it.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 3, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> ...il-informed shit on this thread.


Oh, the ironing!


----------



## snadge (Jul 3, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> I didn't say anything about you driving a car. The post you're probably upset about was not directed at you in particular, but the 'cyclists should know their place' crowd in general.
> 
> But yes, I assumed you were a driver. I've never met anyone so rabidly anti-cyclist who wasn't a driver. If I implied in any way that you were a motorist, and if this offended you, then I apologise. Doesn't change the fact that you've been cheerleader for some seriously dodgy and il-informed shit on this thread.




There are a lot of pedestrians that are 'anti cyclist' also, my workmate for one, stapled up with muscle damage.


----------



## sealion (Jul 3, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Here's a video, by a cyclist, which clearly shows that the vast majority of cyclists are cunts.
> 
> 
> 
> This is what people have got against cyclists!



That is the oval going northbound. The idiots that jump the lights at 1 minute 40 secs are putting there lives in danger. As you complete that left turn there is a side road coming from the estate that cars use as an exit onto the main road. A cyclist won't stand a chance if there was a motor pulling out when they jumped the lights.


----------



## snadge (Jul 3, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> so this sort of thing is only to be expected.




We know. That's why we hate cyclists, top thread Orang Utan .


----------



## sealion (Jul 3, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Where's that, London?


Yes


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 3, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Where's that, London? Well everyone in London is a cunt regardless of their mode of transportation so this sort of thing is only to be expected. Round here it's rare to see cyclists jumping lights, I honestly can't remember the last time I saw anyone do it.


Yet none of the motorists in the video jumped red lights.
As our cousins across the pond say... Go figure!


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 3, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Yet none of the motorists in the video jumped red lights.


Not one!

But OU sees it every day


----------



## emanymton (Jul 3, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> But yes, I assumed you were a driver. I've never met anyone so rabidly anti-cyclist who wasn't a driver.


Or just had to walk anywhere.


----------



## snadge (Jul 3, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Not one!
> 
> But OU sees it every day




At the end of that video, a cyclist actually weaved through 2 moving vehicles against the red light, what a fucking cunt.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 3, 2017)

snadge said:


> At the end of that video, a cyclist actually weaved through 2 moving vehicles against the red light, what a fucking cunt.


Don't be daft. Cyclists don't behave like that. You're imagining stuff.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 3, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> I didn't say anything about you driving a car. The post you're probably upset about was not directed at you in particular, but the 'cyclists should know their place' crowd in general.
> 
> But yes, I assumed you were a driver. I've never met anyone so rabidly anti-cyclist who wasn't a driver. If I implied in any way that you were a motorist, and if this offended you, then I apologise. Doesn't change the fact that you've been cheerleader for some seriously dodgy and ill-informed shit on this thread.


Yeh you weren't aiming the post at me so quoting me doubtless an oversight

And your 'fact' nothing of the sort


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 3, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Yet none of the motorists in the video jumped red lights.
> As our cousins across the pond say... Go figure!



As I've mentioned before, every motorist waiting in an advanced stop box has jumped a red light, and ignored a measure put in place for the safety of other road users.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 3, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> As I've mentioned before, every motorist waiting in an advanced stop box has jumped a red light, and ignored a measure put in place for the safety of other road users.












When you're in a hole, Frank ...


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 3, 2017)

SpookyFrank is the new Tobyjug!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 3, 2017)

snadge said:


> You say that quite a lot in the the threads that you start, usually when you are getting your arse soundly thrashed.



Being outnumbered by reactionary gobshites does not equate to getting soundly thrashed at anything.


----------



## keybored (Jul 3, 2017)

Bike happy.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 3, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> As I've mentioned before, every motorist waiting in an advanced stop box has jumped a red light, and ignored a measure put in place for the safety of other road users.


I think that was already proven not to be the case, wasn't it?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 3, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Being outnumbered by reactionary gobshites does not equate to getting soundly thrashed at anything.


I wouldn't say I'm a reactionary gobshite. OK, maybe the gobshite bit is right  But I'm merely pointing out what I see cyclists doing on a regular basis. I'd love to be able to say that cyclists are nice people who know and observe the rules set out for road users, as this would make the roads (and pavements) much safer for everyone, but unfortunately this isn't the case.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 3, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> I think that was already proven not to be the case, wasn't it?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 3, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Here's a video, by a cyclist, which clearly shows that the vast majority of cyclists are cunts.
> 
> 
> 
> This is what people have got against cyclists!



Good lord, if that's any way representative of cycling in London you can keep it. Utterly horrible on many levels.


----------



## T & P (Jul 3, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> As I've mentioned before, every motorist waiting in an advanced stop box has jumped a red light, and ignored a measure put in place for the safety of other road users.


Drivers casually rolling over the the Advance Box because they can are cunts and should be prosecuted of course. Having said that it is possible and indeed fairly common to find yourself on the AB through no fault of your own due to conditions at certain busy junctions, so seeing a car already standing on an AB does  not necessarily prove wrongdoing by the car driver, certainly not red light jumping.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 3, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> I think that was already proven not to be the case, wasn't it?



No. 

This from Greater Mancester Police:

*Motorists*

_Do not enter the ASL box when the light is red – this space is reserved for the safety of cyclists._
_Crossing the first or second ASL line when the light is red makes you liable for a £100 fine, three penalty points on your licence and endangers vulnerable road users._
_If the traffic light changes from green to amber and you cannot safely stop before the first stop line, you may cross the line but most stop before the second stop line (Highway Code rule 178)_

Ah, there you go then, Frank's wrong. You can stop at the second line if the light changes to red while you're in the box.

But there's also this:


_Motorists including motorcyclists, MUST stop at the first white line reached if the lights are amber or red and should avoid blocking the way or encroaching on the marked area at other times, e.g if the junction ahead is blocked._

It's not possible for the light to turn red while a driver is in the box if the light was not yellow when he or she entered it, unless the driver is travelling slower than walking pace. If the light was yellow, the driver should have stopped at the first line. 

All of which is largely irrelevant anyway, because the vast majority of drivers waiting in advanced stop boxes enter them when the light is red. This is unabiguously an offence and would carry a fine if it were properly enforced, which it isn't. 

I'm not trying to get cyclists who jump red lights let off the hook, just pointing out that those cyclists are not alone in using the roads in an illegal and unsafe manner as a matter of course. Advanced stop boxes are there to make cyclists visible to other road users, and to place them in a position where they can safely turn left or right witout getting sideswiped by other vehicles turning. The size of the box is specifically to allow HGVs which have stopped in  the correct position to clearly see cyclists waiting in front of them.

Newer road markings will encourage cyclists to move to the middle of their lane 30 metres before reaching a junction, as it is now known that this is safer than filtering past traffic on the left and then moving into the box at the last minute. This is not something I thought up, it's evidence-based policy.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 4, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Good lord, if that's any way representative of cycling in London you can keep it. Utterly horrible on many levels.


It's positively scary!
I consider myself a pretty good driver and motorcyclist. I even went as far as getting a RoSPA gold cert for motorbike riding, but I'd be shitting myself if I had to ride in London with those lunatics.
I know it's up to them if they want to kill themselves, but the poor sod who runs over a red light jumper has to live with that.


----------



## keybored (Jul 4, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> unless the driver is travelling slower than walking pace


Have you ever been to London?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 4, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's not possible for the light to turn red while a driver is in the box if the light was not yellow when he or she entered it ...


Really? 

Have you started looking for another job yet, Frank?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 4, 2017)

keybored said:


> Have you ever been to London?


It's like he's spent his life living in Trumpton.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 4, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> I wouldn't say I'm a reactionary gobshite. OK, maybe the gobshite bit is right  But I'm merely pointing out what I see cyclists doing on a regular basis. I'd love to be able to say that cyclists are nice people who know and observe the rules set out for road users, as this would make the roads (and pavements) much safer for everyone, but unfortunately this isn't the case.



I would happily see more arsehole cyclists up in court tbh. Not least because they're a danger to the rest of us if they help fuel the 'lycra lout' stereotype (and those trotting that one out should take a look at the company they keep, such as the Daily Mail et al) that makes motorists disregard the safety of cyclists all too often. But the punishments doled out, and the resources dedicated to catching cyclists rather than other shitty road users, need to take into account the likely harm caused by bad cycling relative to bad driving. Accordingly, cycling on the pavement where there's a genuine risk of causing harm to people sould be dealt with more harshly than cycling badly on the road, where the most likely outcome is killing yourself and maybe denting someone else's bonnet with your head.

Speeding, drink driving, using your mobile phone at the wheel, these things cost lives on a pretty reguar basis. Shitty behaviour from cyclists is not risk-free, but there has to be some kind of acknowledgement that a ton of metal travelling at high speed is more dangerous than 10kg of metal going only as fast as a pair of human legs can shift it.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 4, 2017)

keybored said:


> Have you ever been to London?



Yes. Even the pavements are take-your-life-in-your-hands territory so I've never chanced my luck on the roads.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 4, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> I would happily see more arsehole cyclists up in court tbh.


Have you bought a new suit then?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 4, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Really?



A typical yellow light lasts three seconds. An advanced stop box is 4 metres front to back. For the light to turn red before you reach the second stop line, having not yet turned yellow when you crossed the first, you would have to be travelling at less than 2.9 mph. You're unlikely to be travelling that slowly unless the traffic is seized up ahead. If the road ahead is not clear, you should not enter an advanced stop box at all. 

So yeah, really.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 4, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> I would happily see more arsehole cyclists up in court tbh. Not least because they're a danger to the rest of us if they help fuel the 'lycra lout' stereotype.


That's the thing, though. White van drivers and Audi drivers have a bad name because a small minority drive like cunts. Cyclists have a bad name because an inordinate amount of them ride like cunts.

As a motorbike rider, I know all too well how dangerous it is mixing 2 and 4 wheeled vehicles on today's busy roads, and when I'm riding a motorbike, I assume everyone on the road is out to kill me, and I ride accordingly, but it seems to me that an awful lot of cyclists have a death wish, or just don't realise that riding like a twat is hazardous to their well-being. There's a very strong case for compulsory training, at the very least.



SpookyFrank said:


> A typical yellow light lasts three seconds. An advanced stop box is 4 metres front to back. For the light to turn red before you reach the second stop line, having not yet turned yellow when you crossed the first, you would have to be travelling at less than 2.9 mph. You're unlikely to be travelling that slowly unless the traffic is seized up ahead. If the road ahead is not clear, you should not enter an advanced stop box at all.
> 
> So yeah, really.


The safe stopping distance for a car travelling at 30 mph is over 100 feet. If the lights change to amber 90 feet from the ASB, what is the driver supposed to do, bearing in mind the light will be red by the time he reaches it?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 4, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> A typical yellow light lasts three seconds. An advanced stop box is 4 metres front to back. For the light to turn red before you reach the second stop line, having not yet turned yellow when you crossed the first, you would have to be travelling at less than 2.9 mph. You're unlikely to be travelling that slowly unless the traffic is seized up ahead. If the road ahead is not clear, you should not enter an advanced stop box at all.
> 
> So yeah, really.


Christ Frank, it's been explained to you several times now. Even with posts quoting police websites. As well as total ignorance of how traffic works in the real world you are now displaying outstanding levels of pigheaded bollocktude. Nothing quite as mind-blowing as your suggestion the other day that drivers should go through junctions on red, but not traits one would wish to find in someone who teaches kids to use the roads. Frankly Frankie, for the sake of the children, you should resign.

Even Orang Utan has deserted you in embarrassment and he knows fuck all either!

Why don't you become a lentil farmer or a ferret trainer?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 4, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Christ Frank, it's been explained to you several times now. Even with posts quoting police websites. As well as total ignorance of how traffic works in the real world you are now displaying outstanding levels of pigheaded bollocktude. Nothing quite as mind-blowing as your suggestion the other day that drivers should go through junctions on red, but not traits one would wish to find in someone who teaches kids to use the roads. Frankly Frankie, for the sake of the children, you should resign.
> 
> Even Orang Utan has deserted you in embarrassment and he knows fuck all either!
> 
> Why don't you become a lentil farmer or a ferret trainer?



I never suggested drivers should cross a stop line at a red light. Merely pointed out that the first of the two stop lines is the one they should stop at. This doesn't have any bearing on training _cyclists _in any case, as the first stop line doesn't apply to them. What I teach is that cyclists should wait at the front of the box where they can be seen, and in a position in the lane appropriate for the direction they're heading in. I tell my trainees that while there shouldn't be cars in the box, in real life there will be a lot of the time. 

What weird kick you get out of insinuating that I would ever endanger children only the gods know.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 4, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> The safe stopping distance for a car travelling at 30 mph is over 100 feet. If the lights change to amber 90 feet from the ASB, what is the driver supposed to do, bearing in mind the light will be red by the time he reaches it?



Extend this logic to a light without an advanced stop line and you're letting drivers jump red lights. Every time a driver sees a yellow light they have to decide if they have time to safely pass the stop line before the light turns red. If they don't, they must stop. Before the stop line. If they're not on a bicycle, then the stop line they must stop before is the first one, the one before the box.

I drive myself believe it or not and I've never encountered a situation where I needed to stop in the advanced stop box.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 4, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> There's a very strong case for compulsory training, at the very least.



Well I'd love to help with this but I've just resigned from my job as a cycling trainer on the say-so of some clown from the internet.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Being outnumbered by reactionary gobshites does not equate to getting soundly thrashed at anything.


So two legs bad two wheels good. Must warm the cockles of your heart to have that famous radical Boris Johnson on your side.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 4, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> I never suggested drivers should cross a stop line at a red light. Merely pointed out that the first of the two stop lines is the one they should stop at.


That's not true is it?



			
				SpookyFrank said:
			
		

> ... if the light turns red while your car is in the box, you continue driving


 

And this:



			
				SpookyFrank said:
			
		

> As I've mentioned before, every motorist waiting in an advanced stop box has jumped a red light ...









It's this moronic shit that's sinking your ship at the moment, Francis.

Keep bailing!

But ...


----------



## emanymton (Jul 4, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> That's the thing, though. White van drivers and Audi drivers have a bad name because a small minority drive like cunts. Cyclists have a bad name because an inordinate amount of them ride like cunts.
> 
> As a motorbike rider, I know all too well how dangerous it is mixing 2 and 4 wheeled vehicles on today's busy roads, and when I'm riding a motorbike, I assume everyone on the road is out to kill me, and I ride accordingly, but it seems to me that an awful lot of cyclists have a death wish, or just don't realise that riding like a twat is hazardous to their well-being. There's a very strong case for compulsory training, at the very least.
> 
> ...


Yes, what gets me isn't just that many cyclists ride with no regard for anyone else's safety, they don't seem to consider their own either. I shit myself in London once watching a cyclist run a red light and almost get himself flattened by a bus.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 4, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> So two legs bad two wheels good. Must warm the cockles of your heart to have that famous radical Boris Johnson on your side.



Again, you might want to take a look at who is on your side.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 4, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Again, you might want to take a look at who is on your side.



"Trust me, I'm a cycling instructor"


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 4, 2017)

Bloke here got told off by a cyclist for driving in this bus lane, lunchtime last week. Obviously another graduate of the SpookyFrank Academy of Cycling.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 4, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Bloke here got told off by a cyclist for driving in this bus lane, lunchtime last week. Obviously another graduate of the SpookyFrank Academy of Cycling.



Bus lane until 10am isn't it? Can't expect a cyclist to be able to count to 10 though, evolution's only got as far as 8 fingers on that mob.


----------



## keybored (Jul 4, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Bus lane until 10am isn't it? Can't expect a cyclist to be able to count to 10 though, evolution's only got as far as 8 fingers on that mob.


Now I know why single-speed bikes got so popular.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Again, you might want to take a look at who is on your side.


Everyone who objects to pavement cycling and cyclists running red lights: so I suppose that might include you.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 4, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> The safe stopping distance for a car travelling at 30 mph is over 100 feet. If the lights change to amber 90 feet from the ASB, what is the driver supposed to do, bearing in mind the light will be red by the time he reaches it?


What kind of car needs over 100ft to stop at 30 mph?.


----------



## keybored (Jul 4, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> What kind of car needs over 100ft to stop at 30 mph?.


Any, if there's a bit of drizzle.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 4, 2017)

Nah, 30mph = 23m (~75ft) overall stopping distance, according to DoT 2007


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 4, 2017)

''More if the road is wet'' so maybe 100m then OK


----------



## keybored (Jul 4, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> ''More if the road is wet'' so maybe 100m then OK


What, 330ft?
The general rule is double the distance in wet conditions (so 150ft @ 30mph).


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 4, 2017)

OK, now the road is wet. Let' see everyone taking even more care and how that goes.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 4, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Everyone who objects to pavement cycling and cyclists running red lights: so I suppose that might include you.


What about people who object to "cycling instructors" who don't know what they're talking about, son?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> What about people who object to "cycling instructors" who don't know what they're talking about, son?


you mean cycling unstructors, pa. everyone likes cycling instructors, who pass on useful information to cyclists to enable them to be valued members of the road-using community.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 4, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Can't expect a cyclist to be able to count to 10 though, evolution's only got as far as 8 fingers on that mob.



So we're literally dehumanising people now then.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 4, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> you mean cycling unstructors, pa. everyone likes cycling instructors, who pass on useful information to cyclists to enable them to be valued members of the road-using community.


Individually they may be valued by someone for something (perhaps one or two of them have mothers that love them), but they'll never be valued by other road users, son. They're too rubbish.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 4, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> So we're literally dehumanising people now then.


  

"Literally, I tell you, _LITERALLY!_"


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 4, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Again, you might want to take a look at who is on your side.


Indeed, more pollution and climate change...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 4, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Everyone who objects to pavement cycling and cyclists running red lights: so I suppose that might include you.



You liked a post earlier on this thread stating that 'might has right'. On the pavement, cyclists are mightier than pedestrians, so by your own logic they should have free reign.

Don't pretend that your only beef is with dangerous cyclists when you've been happily joining in with the 'they're all cunts, every single one of them' brigade.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> You liked a post earlier on this thread stating that 'might has right'. On the pavement, cyclists are mightier than pedestrians, so by your own logic they should have free reign.
> 
> Don't pretend that your only beef is with dangerous cyclists when you've been happily joining in with the 'they're all cunts, every single one of them' brigade.


free REIN not free REIGN


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 4, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> Indeed, more pollution and climate change...


Ah, come on, you can help him out a bit better than that, can't you???

Why not give him a hand revising the Highway Code?

He's already started


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 4, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> Indeed, more pollution and climate change...



I was thinking more like Chris Grayling, Brendan O'Neill, Jeremy Clarkson and other such noted scholars of intelligent public policy. 

But now you mention it Pickman's has thrown his lot in with Mr 'fuck climate change, I want a new car' himself, Spymaster.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 4, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> free REIN not free REIGN



Remember the unofficial policy of not pulling people up on typos? I've told you before that I'm dyslexic.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 4, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Ah, come on, you can help him out a bit better than that, can't you???
> 
> Why not give him a hand revising the Highway Code?
> 
> He's already started


There's no need, we have the moral high ground.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> You liked a post earlier on this thread stating that 'might has right'. On the pavement, cyclists are mightier than pedestrians, so by your own logic they should have free reign.
> 
> Don't pretend that your only beef is with dangerous cyclists when you've been happily joining in with the 'they're all cunts, every single one of them' brigade.


you can't draw conclusions like that from my liking a post. i have covered this ground on a number of occasions:


Pickman's model said:


> the point of the like button is to enable users to show solidarity, to express affection, to say 'i agree', to indicate amusement, and - yes - on occasion to massage someone's ego: not to mention the 101 other reasons why people press the like button. one or more of these reasons may be indicated by a 'like'.





Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. Are you sure you're not mistaking likes for agreement? I like lots of posts I don't necessarily agree with.





Pickman's model said:


> tbh 'liking' a post does not necessarily mean 'i agree with everything in this post' or even 'i agree with something in this post'. you'll often see me 'liking' a post because i like the poster rather than my actually associating myself with the contents of the post. editor may 'like' similarly.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Remember the unofficial policy of not pulling people up on typos? I've told you before that I'm dyslexic.


yeh. i don't recall what people said to me at work in february so i think it understandable i had forgotten.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 4, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> you can't draw conclusions like that from my liking a post. i have covered this ground on a number of occasions:



So you were simply troll-feeding rather than actually agreeing with the insanely dangerous notion that 'might has right' ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> So you were simply troll-feeding rather than actually agreeing with the insanely dangerous notion that 'might has right' ?


didn't i just say you can't draw conclusions from my liking a post? for the hard of thinking YOU CANNOT DRAW CONCLUSIONS ABOUT WHAT I THINK FROM MY HAVING LIKED A POST.

if you want to know what i think read my posts.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 4, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Mr 'fuck climate change, I want a new car' himself, Spymaster.


Again, Abu, we went through this yesterday. 

If my buying a new car (this weekend, btw, - 3 litre, twin turbos, 306bhp, 0-60 in 5.3 secs, and 155mph) has any impact on climate change and pollution whatsoever, you only have yourself and OU to blame for not cutting back enough. 

If the pair of you do no flying at all, and cut down on your electricity consumption for the next 3 years, the net effect of the car will be negligible and everyone's a winner!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 4, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> if you want to know what i think read my posts.



I missed the post where you pointed out that 'might has right' is complete bullshit, and the kind of complete bullshit that gets people killed.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 4, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> ... the kind of complete bullshit that gets people killed.



 Do you say stuff like that in a Roy Cropper voice?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 4, 2017)

One of SpookyFrank's trainees about to show him what he thinks of his lessons


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 4, 2017)

Ignore him, SpookyFrank


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 4, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Ignore him, SpookyFrank


That would be the easiest option but I'm only trying to help him. Honest.

My advice to him would undoubtedly _save lives_.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> I missed the post where you pointed out that 'might has right' is complete bullshit, and the kind of complete bullshit that gets people killed.


i'm not sure quite what point you think you're making. you're very keen to invent things - me being a driver, me having some sort of responsibility to reply to all the posts i disagree with, blah blah blah.


----------



## keybored (Jul 4, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> So we're literally dehumanising people now then.


_people_ 
Hah, good one!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Ignore him, SpookyFrank


tbh spookyfrank doing a better job on this thread than you are.


----------



## lefteri (Jul 4, 2017)

Have I accidentally clicked on the top gear forum?


----------



## keybored (Jul 4, 2017)

lefteri said:


> Have I accidentally clicked on the top gear forum?


No, you'll find top gear here.


----------



## sealion (Jul 4, 2017)

Countryside plagued with abusive lycra-clad cyclists


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 4, 2017)

sealion said:


> Countryside plagued with abusive lycra-clad cyclists





> One wonders if the behaviour of cyclists would improve if a method of identifying the rider by a registration number shown prominently would deter the more belligerent members of the cycling community ...


Doesn't one just?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 4, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Doesn't one just?


Accountability, or lack thereof, is definitely a major factor in their attitudes.
It'll never happen but it would be beneficial to everyone, even the cyclists themselves (the decent ones), as stolen bikes would be easier to find owners for if they were registered.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 4, 2017)

Branding irons are not expensive.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 4, 2017)

lefteri said:


> Have I accidentally clicked on the top gear forum?


This has always been a corner of the internet where homage is paid to the internal combustion engine. Every now and then we get a couple of patchouli-drenched, granola-fuckers, on the troll, but it's all part of the fun.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Branding irons are not expensive.


cost of a potato masher or similar.


----------



## lefteri (Jul 4, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> This has always been a corner of the internet where homage is paid to the internal combustion engine. Every now and then we get a couple of patchouli-drenched, granola-fuckers, on the troll, but it's all part of the fun.



so you must be Jeremy then


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 4, 2017)

lefteri said:


> so you must be Jeremy then


Pleased to meet you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 4, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Pleased to meet you.


Hope you've guessed pa's name


----------



## BigTom (Jul 4, 2017)

Apparently cyclists are not cycling on the pavement enough!




(and in case you are wondering, no, it's not shared pavement, and the council have even painted a handy sign on the road to ensure everyone knows cyclists are meant to be there)


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 4, 2017)

Yet again, a nonce chooses cycling as his primary mode of transport.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 4, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Yet again, a nonce chooses cycling as his primary mode of transport.


Less conspicuous than a car when crawling past school playgrounds.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 4, 2017)

When it comes to jumping red lights, the only difference I see between the way car drivers do it and the way cyclists do it, is that car drivers skip through a just-turned red rather than stopping whereas cyclists go through the red at any point. I saw several examples today, three by car drivers of the car-driver version and two by cyclists of the cyclist version.

It's really just a question of timing AFAICS.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 4, 2017)

I should add that I myself was driving a white van during this time, so I'm not trying to claim any kind of moral superiority here.


----------



## keybored (Jul 4, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> car drivers skip through a just-turned red rather than stopping whereas cyclists go through the red at any point


This is a fairly important distinction to make, and worth quoting for posterity. Some drivers are a little foolish, but cyclists are out-and-out reckless.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 4, 2017)

keybored said:


> This is a fairly important distinction to make, and worth quoting for posterity. Some drivers are a little foolish, but cyclists are out-and-out reckless.


Some drivers are out and out reckless, some cyclists are too. Some cyclists are foolish and so are some drivers. And some drivers and some cyclists are sensible. Fuck sake.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 5, 2017)

keybored said:


> This is a fairly important distinction to make, and worth quoting for posterity.



I'm pretty sure the law makes no distinction but I'm up for being proved wrong.


----------



## keybored (Jul 5, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> I'm pretty sure the law makes no distinction but I'm up for being proved wrong.


Er... I was quoting (and agreeing with) you  Cyclists are brain-dead.


----------



## keybored (Jul 5, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Some drivers are out and out reckless, some cyclists are too. Some cyclists are foolish and so are some drivers. And some drivers and some cyclists are sensible. Fuck sake.


That's very profound.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 5, 2017)

keybored said:


> Er... I was quoting (and agreeing with) you  Cyclists are brain-dead.



I don't know how anything I've posted comes across as _cyclists are brain dead_, but in case something really has I'll clarify: I don't think cyclists are brain dead. To be fair, _brain dead_ isn't something I'd use to mean stupid anyway, because brain dead means something else and I'm a bit of a pedant.


----------



## keybored (Jul 5, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> I don't know how anything I've posted comes across as _cyclists are brain dead_, but in case something really has I'll clarify: I don't think cyclists are brain dead. To be fair, _brain dead_ isn't something I'd use to mean stupid anyway, because brain dead means something else and I'm a bit of a pedant.


Well you mentioned that car drivers skip through a just-turned red rather than stopping whereas cyclists go through the red at any point, I guess I extrapolated from that.

It still seems like a fucking stupid thing to do, semantics aside.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 5, 2017)

Running through red lights is fucking stupid, however it's done, unless it's an emergency. I spent years having a go at other cyclists who ran through red lights, one fucker tried to push me off my bike one day because I called out, Are you blind or stupid? Seemed like a reasonable question under the circumstances. I don't do it any more because it's too common now, but I'm onside here. But I see drivers run through at the last second all the time too, how is it different? I don't think it is, really.

The roads are just a microcosm of UK 2017 is all. We're all cunts now.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 5, 2017)

keybored said:


> Well you mentioned that car drivers skip through a just-turned red rather than stopping whereas cyclists go through the red at any point, I guess I extrapolated from that.
> 
> It still seems like a fucking stupid thing to do, semantics aside.



Except you can't extrapolate like that, I've nearly been run over twice by drivers crossing the just turned red at pedestrian crossings (beeps had started, if I was blind, splat), witnessed a near miss at a junction yesterday as someone drove over the red and nearly hit someone turning right, and saw this kind of collision happen a few weeks ago, it's pretty common I think.

Otoh I see cyclists crossing the middle of a red phase on a junction which is otherwise unused and generally paying a lot of attention to things around them, no realistic possibility of causing a collision.

That's not to say I haven't seen seriously unsafe rlj from cyclists, or not really unsafe rljs from drivers but you can't extrapolate or generalise like that.


----------



## joustmaster (Jul 5, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> Running through red lights is fucking stupid, however it's done, unless it's an emergency. I spent years having a go at other cyclists who ran through red lights, one fucker tried to push me off my bike one day because I called out, Are you blind or stupid?


You can't really be surprised that someone had a pop at you, if you're shouting at people calling them idiots. 
I'm amazed it only happened once.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 5, 2017)

Was perusing bike lights when came across Knog, who market themselves by appealing to the cyclist's desire to blind other road users...





These people really are the lowest of the low and need banning from the roads as soon as possible.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jul 5, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Some drivers are out and out reckless, some cyclists are too. Some cyclists are foolish and so are some drivers. And some drivers and some cyclists are sensible. Fuck sake.



Cyclists have a far higher proportion of nutters than car drivers though. Maybe 20% and 1% respectively.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 5, 2017)

I have not cycled into work for a week. yesterday at London bridge I saw a Black full fat Rangie ( not the sport) being driven by a man on a phone and next to him on the inside/outside lane (weaving randomly) was a bearded hipster louse on the phone with no hands on the bars - the cyclists finale was running the red light across a busy pedestrian crossing. Sometimes, I just don't have enough hate to go around.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 5, 2017)

Even dogs don't like cyclists.

Watch Liverpool cyclist taken out by dog that lunged at him


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 5, 2017)

DownwardDog said:


> Cyclists have a far higher proportion of nutters than car drivers though. Maybe 20% and 1% respectively.




Stands to reason really. No medical restrictions on bike riders. OU rides a bike, can't drive a car....


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 5, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Stands to reason really. No medical restrictions on bike riders. OU rides a bike, can't drive a car....


Won't drive a car


----------



## gentlegreen (Jul 5, 2017)

DownwardDog said:


> Cyclists have a far higher proportion of nutters than car drivers though. Maybe 20% and 1% respectively.


Especially during the _tour des cons._


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Won't drive a car


can't drive won't drive


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 5, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Won't drive a car



Good, I'm glad you are complying with the rules the state imposes on people like you to prohibit you from the multi-skilled activity that is car driving


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 5, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Good, I'm glad you are complying with the rules the state imposes on people like you to prohibit you from the multi-skilled activity that is car driving


People like me? What do you mean? Cyclists? Loads of cyclists are also drivers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> People like me? What do you mean? Cyclists? Loads of cyclists are also drivers.


i think he's drawing the net rather more narrowly than all cyclists.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 5, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> People like me? What do you mean?



People whom the state decrees lack the necessary ability to drive a motor vehicle.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 5, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> People whom the state decrees lack the necessary ability to drive a motor vehicle.


What do you mean?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> What do you mean?


he is casting aspersions on your ability to perform complex tasks.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 5, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> he is casting aspersions on your ability to perform complex tasks.


He doesn't know anything about that though, so he's making stuff up


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 5, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> What do you mean?



Does the state allow you to drive a car without a competent adult to supervise you at all times?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 5, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Does the state allow you to drive a motor vehicle without a competent adult to supervise you at all times?


Yes, I just need to pass a driving test like everyone else.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> He doesn't know anything about that though, so he's making stuff up


i don't know, Bahnhof Strasse's quite canny.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 5, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Yes, I just need to pass a driving test like everyone else.



So that's a no then, the state does not allow you to drive a car without a competent adult to supervise you at all times.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Yes, I just need to pass a driving test like everyone else.


well, not cyclists. no need for your actual cyclist to pass a driving test. which goes some way towards explaining the great variation in ability.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 5, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So that's a no then, the state does not allow you to drive a car without a competent adult to supervise you at all times.


You're making me out to be special or something though. That applies to everyone who hasn't passed their test yet.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 5, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> You're making me out to be special or something though. That applies to everyone who hasn't passed their test yet.



There's nothing very special about not being permitted to drive a car. Exceptional ability behind the wheel is a special ability that some of us possess.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 5, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> There's nothing very special about not being permitted to drive a car. Exceptional ability behind the wheel is a special ability that some of us possess.


Being able to drive is not an exceptional ability. this is the absurd entitlement of the motorist in evidence.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 5, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Being able to drive is not an exceptional ability. this is the absurd entitlement of the motorist in evidence.



Who said being able to drive is an exceptional ability? It's a fairly average ability, yet even that mediocre benchmark seems to be set too high for some folk.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 5, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Being able to drive is not an exceptional ability. this is the absurd entitlement of the motorist in evidence.


 
Would you consider a driverless car should once be offered in the future ?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 5, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> You're making me out to be special or something though. That applies to everyone who hasn't passed their test yet.


Of course you're special!


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 5, 2017)

SpookyFrank , can you drive?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 5, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Would you consider a driverless car should once be offered in the future ?


No, I've got a bike and I like public transport


----------



## sealion (Jul 5, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Would you consider a driverless car should once be offered in the future ?


The sooner we get riderless push bikes the better.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 5, 2017)




----------



## Spymaster (Jul 5, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> No, I've got a bike and I like public transport


That's _why_ you're special.


----------



## sealion (Jul 5, 2017)

What have people got against automated cycles


----------



## kebabking (Jul 5, 2017)

sealion said:


> The sooner we get riderless push bikes the better.



I think what you meant to write was that the sooner we build camps for cyclists the better - my phone does stupid things to my words as well...

We could make them all feel at home by filling it with blinding lights, inappropriate lycra and utter fucknuggets.


----------



## sealion (Jul 5, 2017)

kebabking said:


> I think what you meant to write was that the sooner we build camps for cyclists the better


Well i was riding on the pavement and throwing a wanker sign at a pedestrian as i typed that. Bloody predictive text


----------



## hash tag (Jul 5, 2017)

Walking down the tow path like you do to work. I was passing another pedestrian when WE not just me were clipped by a cyclist.
This moron decided they would try and ride between us rather than around us and ended up clipping us both 
I despair.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 5, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Walking down the tow path like you do to work. I was passing another pedestrian when WE not just me were clipped by a cyclist.
> This moron decided they would try and ride between us rather than around us and ended up clipping us both
> I despair.


Next time remember, tow paths have water going down the side of them .....


----------



## hash tag (Jul 5, 2017)

Unfortunately, these tow paths have waist high walls one side and housing the other - bastards.


----------



## hash tag (Jul 5, 2017)




----------



## keybored (Jul 5, 2017)

Watch as cyclist smashes windscreen with bike after row with driver

A typical cyclist, literally ruining Mother's Day.



> We’re still in a state of shock about it. We don’t know why he was so angry.



Feelings of inadequacy? Resentment that his own mother refuses to associate with him? We can only guess what goes on in those tiny minds of theirs


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Walking down the tow path like you do to work. I was passing another pedestrian when WE not just me were clipped by a cyclist.
> This moron decided they would try and ride between us rather than around us and ended up clipping us both
> I despair.


I read in passing about a similar incident where a cyclist, describing how he rode between two pedestrians walking by a canal, chuckled how he'd got two for the price of one


----------



## hash tag (Jul 5, 2017)

Not me, I live by the river.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 5, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Not me, I live by the river.


London calling to the imitation zone


----------



## gentlegreen (Jul 5, 2017)

hash tag said:


>



Round my way, the dickheads ride carbon in full race kit - or aspire to ...


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jul 5, 2017)

keybored said:


> Watch as cyclist smashes windscreen with bike after row with driver
> 
> A typical cyclist, literally ruining Mother's Day.



A reasonable response to that, would have been to knock the cunt off his bike & pin him to ground until the cops arrived.


----------



## keybored (Jul 5, 2017)

This guy could very easily have been killed. You would think he would learn from his mistake, count his lucky stars and strive to ride in a more safe manner in future. But no, he throws a tantrum and seems to believe filter lanes don't apply to cyclists and it must be OK because other cyclists do it


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 5, 2017)

So he's in a left turn only lane inside an articulated truck and he goes straight on and throws a wobbly at the lorry driver? Fuck sakes, that is why cyclists die. Yet again being able to properly identify these road louts would allow them to be held to account for their reckless behaviour; fine and/or jail, plus punative damages paid to the truck driver for the stress might learn these people.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 5, 2017)

keybored said:


> This guy could very easily have been killed. You would think he would learn from his mistake, count his lucky starts and strive to ride in a more safe manner in future. But no, he throws a tantrum and seems to believe filter lanes don't apply to cyclists and it must be OK because other cyclists do it




You see shit like this every day though.

The whole lot of them are sitting in a left turn only lane and the fucking morons all go straight _*alongside an articulated truck*_. Then they give it out to the trucker (who couldn't have seen the ones at the front) on the basis that "you're in London, there will always be cyclists on your left". By this they really mean "you're in London, there will always be a bunch of dangerous, useless, wankers on cycles, who will blame you for their outrageous fuck-ups" 

Absolutely fucking typical. I reckon SpookyFrank was the almost killed offender, and Orang Utan was the "I've got it all on film" belljob, with the camera.

Then they go and post it on YouTube as if they had it right all along!   

Gotta love the "let's just leave it" at the end.

Yeah mate, good call.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 5, 2017)

Note also the other louts stopping ahead of the stop line, then heading off whilst the lights are still red.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 5, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Note also the other louts stopping ahead of the stop line, then heading off whilst the lights are still red.


They were the smartest of a bunch of utter fuckwits, tbf. If you're going to blatantly disregard a traffic layout, at least get the fuck out of the way before the road narrows against you.


----------



## keybored (Jul 5, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> "you're in London, there will always be cyclists on your left".



No doubt they're on their way to some media type jobs that really benefit no one. Whereas without truckers like that poor man they're attacking, London would starve.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 5, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> They were the smartest of a bunch of utter fuckwits, tbf. If you're going to blatantly disregard a traffic layout, at least get the fuck out of the way before the road narrows against you!



Premeditated crime.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 5, 2017)

And as the hero slinks off with a cheery "fuck him" towards the truck driver who had done no wrong, what then? Oh look...

 


Naturellement


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 5, 2017)

keybored said:


> No doubt they're on their way to some media type jobs ...



Nah. SFAC cycling instructors.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 5, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> And as the hero slinks off with a cheery "fuck him" towards the truck driver who had done no wrong, what then? Oh look...
> 
> View attachment 110880
> 
> ...


"These roads are beyond my capabilities. I'll take the pavement"


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 5, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> "These roads are beyond my capabilities. I'll take the pavement"



It's time we consigned these Victorian relics to history. Let them play at the velodromes and BMX tracks, but leave the roads to the transport needs of those who know how to use them in a sensible and orderly manner.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 5, 2017)

The stupid thing is that a vehicle can take to the road with a blind spot like that.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 5, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> The stupid thing is that a vehicle can take to the road with a blind spot like that.



Mad innit, all the cyclist has to do is glance to his right and he really wouldn't be able to miss the fuck-off great truck sat in the straight ahead lane.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 5, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Mad innit, all the cyclist has to do is glance to his right and he really wouldn't be able to miss the fuck-off great truck sat in the straight ahead lane.


Don't be fucking daft.

It's everybody else's responsibility to accommodate _them_.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 5, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Walking down the tow path like you do to work. I was passing another pedestrian when WE not just me were clipped by a cyclist.
> This moron decided they would try and ride between us rather than around us and ended up clipping us both
> I despair.



You do realsie that tow paths have always been habitué of Lombroso faced miscreants - maybe this is why cyclists are drawn to them and wish to exhibit their innate criminality to decent god fearing folk


----------



## emanymton (Jul 5, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> It's everybody else's responsibility to accommodate _them_.


This is the answer to the thread title in a nutshell. For too many cyclists, this does seem to be the case.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 5, 2017)

Cycling investment and the DUP Deal

DUP supports cyclists. is there no end to their vileness?


----------



## keybored (Jul 5, 2017)

emanymton said:


> This is the answer to the thread title in a nutshell. For too many cyclists, this does seem to be the case.


They're always going to come off worse in a scrape with a motor vehicle, so you'd think they'd stop being such dicks. I wonder what that idiot would have liked on his tombstone?

"Here lies Larry Lycra, taken too soon by his own sense of entitlement"


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 5, 2017)

inebriated by the exhuberance of his own verbosity


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 5, 2017)

keybored said:


> "Here lies Larry Lycra, taken too soon by his own sense of entitlement"


... "But we got it all on camera"


----------



## keybored (Jul 5, 2017)




----------



## sealion (Jul 5, 2017)




----------



## sealion (Jul 5, 2017)

This one must be a stunt man


----------



## Sue (Jul 6, 2017)

Torrent of abuse from a cyclist earlier because I 'got in his way' and 'forced him to stop'. 

Got a vitriolic 'fuck you' when I pointed out there was a green man on (he'd just gone through a red light at speed). So that was nice.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 6, 2017)

sealion said:


>



The moron that was filming this was following _the exact path_ of the piss-tube who got squashed.

Then he posts the vid on YouTube, like "look at this dick "

To be able to film that, YOU WERE DOING THE SAME ... you fuckweasel.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 6, 2017)

sealion said:


> This one must be a stunt man



We've seen this before, but it's always a grin.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 6, 2017)

SpookyFrank and Orang Utan have gone quiet


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 6, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> SpookyFrank and Orang Utan have gone quiet


This happens with reach-rounds.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 6, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> The moron that was filming this was following _the exact path_ of the piss-tube who got squashed.
> 
> Then he posts the vid on YouTube, like "look at this dick "
> 
> To be able to film that, YOU WERE DOING THE SAME ... you fuckweasel.



Except he didn't continue to lane split between the bus and pick up which is the problem, moving from the left lane to filter on the right side Is fine, lane splitting as the bus starts to move is stupid


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 6, 2017)

That truck video from yesterday is mental.

Half a dozen or more bikes in a left turn lane, alongside an artic and then they all go straight ahead? No wonder people get killed


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jul 6, 2017)

keybored said:


> This guy could very easily have been killed. You would think he would learn from his mistake, count his lucky stars and strive to ride in a more safe manner in future. But no, he throws a tantrum and seems to believe filter lanes don't apply to cyclists and it must be OK because other cyclists do it




I don't normally read posts on youtube, but a quick scan of them most seem to be cyclists pointing out the truck driver did nothing wrong, not what the guy posting the video expected. 

Summed-up nicely in this post:



> *If you are stupid enough to cycle up a left only lane, with a pack of cyclists in front of you, a pinch point ahead and an articulated lorry to your right then you are on the VIP list at the Darwin Awards*, claiming everyone does it in London is no excuse, more accurately is "I copied those idiots in front of me". I have cycled for 50 years, argued with many many bad drivers, but come on, get real, you took the risk, can I get away fast enough to get in front of the truck? No you couldn't, he can't see you, you lose. I honestly feel sorry for the truck driver, would you have done that in a car? No? Why not? Because it was illegal? Dangerous? Against the Highway Code? Idiotic? Stay back stay primary stay safe.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 6, 2017)

keybored said:


> This guy could very easily have been killed. You would think he would learn from his mistake, count his lucky stars and strive to ride in a more safe manner in future. But no, he throws a tantrum and seems to believe filter lanes don't apply to cyclists and it must be OK because other cyclists do it




To an extent I think this maybe shows how different cyclist behaviour is in London. When I saw this I saw a shorter clip from a paper on Twitter which starts at the junction, so I didn't know it was a left filter lane, and my thought was who the fuck designed that junction.

I didn't really think about it being a left filter because every cyclist had gone in that lane and gone straight so in my mind you must be allowed to, but I saw there was a longer video and there it is. In Birmingham I might see one cyclist doing something like this but not all or even most of them, and if I did see something odd everyone was doing I'd know there must be a reason even if I couldn't see it.

But none of that applies here, why on earth would you go straight from that left turn lane? There's not a sign or something I'm missing allowing cyclists to do that is there?
And this is not a single dick being a dick, this is everyone. It's totally out of my experience in that regard. (and usually the videos are filmed by people who don't do the stupid thing others are doing).


----------



## High Voltage (Jul 6, 2017)

I've said it before and I'll say it again, cyclists are very vocal when it comes to banging on about the Highway Code and how much space that they, as cyclists, have to be given. Of course, that's right up to the very second that it's them that's wanting to do the over/under taking and then the "safe gap" that they require to compensate for their inability to ride in a straight and stable manner goes right out of the window and they'll try and squeeze through suicidally narrow and/or closing gaps at speeds that are inappropriate to the current road speed.

And then, when it goes wrong, still blame the driver.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 6, 2017)

High Voltage said:


> I've said it before and I'll say it again, cyclists are very vocal when it comes to banging on about the Highway Code and how much space that they, as cyclists, have to be given. Of course, that's right up to the very second that it's them that's wanting to do the over/under taking and then the "safe gap" that they require to compensate for their inability to ride in a straight and stable manner goes right out of the window and they'll try and squeeze through suicidally narrow and/or closing gaps at speeds that are inappropriate to the current road speed.
> 
> And then, when it goes wrong, still blame the driver.



Is needing to swerve to avoid a big fuck off pothole due to my inability to ride straight?
Is a strong gust of wind from the side that pushes me out my inability to ride straight?
Is swerving round oil or ice my inability to ride?
What about the driver who forced me up against parked cars with their overtake last night, if a door had been opened, would that be something to do with my inability to ride straight?

I doubt anyone is blaming the driver in the bus video. Filtering is a dangerous manoeuvre to be done with caution. You only pass large vehicles on the right and only if you are certain they are not going to start moving.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 6, 2017)

Not that you (HV) are wrong, but worth remembering there's a massive difference between wanting space when others initiate manoeuvres around you, and choosing to fit yourself into a small space on your own terms. So there's a big difference between a car overtaking a bike and a bike filtering past a car.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jul 6, 2017)

Here's a classic case of 'six of one, half a dozen of the other', OK the driver was in the wrong, you got him on camera, go report him and/or point out his mistake. But, don't wind him up and keep doing so to the point of him getting out the car to assault you, and certainly don't just sit there until he does! Also, don't continue to wind-up him up after he gets back in his car, encouraging him to have another go. 

Although, the driver cracked me up, when he tripped-up giving chase, when he was going for his second pop at the cyclist, I bet that hurt.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 6, 2017)

BigTom said:


> To an extent I think this maybe shows how different cyclist behaviour is in London.


Yep. You just don't see such intense levels of twattery anywhere else.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 6, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Yep. You just don't see such intense levels of twattery anywhere else.



tbf there's not the sheer numbers of bikes in other towns. The idea of reaching a critical mass of cyclists would slow the traffic down and make things safer for cyclists is a strong one, but now that has pretty much happened in London what we see is the cyclists thinking they own the road, acting like twats, then getting squished.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 6, 2017)

High Voltage said:


> I've said it before and I'll say it again, cyclists are very vocal when it comes to banging on about the Highway Code and how much space that they, as cyclists, have to be given. Of course, that's right up to the very second that it's them that's wanting to do the over/under taking and then the "safe gap" that they require to compensate for their inability to ride in a straight and stable manner goes right out of the window and they'll try and squeeze through suicidally narrow and/or closing gaps at speeds that are inappropriate to the current road speed.
> 
> And then, when it goes wrong, still blame the driver.



you know this morning on my way to work I was passed with about 20cm by a 3.5t van driver. I was (and am) so shaken by how close he came to killing me that I walked the ~2 miles I had left to work (out of ~3miles). I've made a complaint to his company. Do you think that when his manager talks to him, his response will be like this? Is that what you'd say? oh yeah I put his life in danger for no reason at all but cyclists filter dangerously so fuck em. You're a dangerous fucking cunt, come to Birmingham, get on a bike and I'll show you how it feels to be passed by a van at 30mph with less than 30cm and you can see why the fuck we "bang on" about it and when we do get this fucking bullshit thrown at us,and all you cunts who liked the post can fuck the fuck off too.
I'm just happy that the west mids police operation close pass has had such a strong effect around here that this kind of thing is much rarer these days than it was just a year ago.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 6, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I was (and am) so shaken by how close he came to killing me


Hope you're OK. A while back I had a van so close its wing mirror clipped my shoulder. Was just a feather touch but a couple of cm closer and I dread to think what would have happened.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 6, 2017)

BigTom said:


> you know this morning on my way to work I was passed with about 20cm by a 3.5t van driver. I was (and am) so shaken by how close he came to killing me that I walked the ~2 miles I had left to work (out of ~3miles). I've made a complaint to his company. Do you think that when his manager talks to him, his response will be like this? Is that what you'd say? oh yeah I put his life in danger for no reason at all but cyclists filter dangerously so fuck em. You're a dangerous fucking cunt, come to Birmingham, get on a bike and I'll show you how it feels to be passed by a van at 30mph with less than 30cm and you can see why the fuck we "bang on" about it and when we do get this fucking bullshit thrown at us,and all you cunts who liked the post can fuck the fuck off too.
> I'm just happy that the west mids police operation close pass has had such a strong effect around here that this kind of thing is much rarer these days than it was just a year ago.



High Voltage isn't saying that at all. He's stated that cyclists should be given adequate space. He also says that often cyclists try to squeeze through dangerous gaps and blame the car/truck when things go wrong.


Glad you're not squished.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 6, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> tbf there's not the sheer numbers of bikes in other towns. The idea of reaching a critical mass of cyclists would slow the traffic down and make things safer for cyclists is a strong one, but now that has pretty much happened in London what we see is the cyclists thinking they own the road, acting like twats, then getting squished.



There are places with lots of cyclists though, the route I usually ride into work on, the NCN 5 along the Rae Valley Route has lots of cyclists, it runs roughly parallel to the A441 pershore road which is a major commuter route and in rush hour, between the A441 and the Rae Valley Route, in summer, cyclists have around 10% modal share, so for parts of the year I do share the roads with lots of other cyclists - not the numbers now using the cycle superhighways in London but not incomparable at points.
It's going to be really hard if this is a culture that develops/has developed. I still maintain that getting more segregated lanes will make a huge difference because it will mean a wider mix of people cycling - children, elderly people, more women - rather than the heavily young male domination that exists now. I think that will change things because young men are the biggest risk takers. You see it in mopeds as well. idk though, it's hard to feel confident to predict behaviour change.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 6, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Hope you're OK. A while back I had a van so close its wing mirror clipped my shoulder. Was just a feather touch but a couple of cm closer and I dread to think what would have happened.



cheers, I'm fine, just shaken up and fucked off that someone would respond to me "banging on" about close passes with crap like HV did. Your experience worse than mine, it's terifying.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 6, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> High Voltage isn't saying that at all. He's stated that cyclists should be given adequate space.



Bullshit. He's fucked off with cyclists "banging on" about drivers passing safely because he thinks cyclists filter dangerously. That's his response to someone who is complaining about close passes. Can't you see how fucking shitty that is? Do you have no idea why I'm so fucked off by it? PArtly a reaction to what's happened oc but really HV can fuck off with this crap.


----------



## aqua (Jul 6, 2017)

BigTom said:


> you know this morning on my way to work I was passed with about 20cm by a 3.5t van driver. I was (and am) so shaken by how close he came to killing me that I walked the ~2 miles I had left to work (out of ~3miles). I've made a complaint to his company. Do you think that when his manager talks to him, his response will be like this? Is that what you'd say? oh yeah I put his life in danger for no reason at all but cyclists filter dangerously so fuck em. You're a dangerous fucking cunt, come to Birmingham, get on a bike and I'll show you how it feels to be passed by a van at 30mph with less than 30cm and you can see why the fuck we "bang on" about it and when we do get this fucking bullshit thrown at us,and all you cunts who liked the post can fuck the fuck off too.
> I'm just happy that the west mids police operation close pass has had such a strong effect around here that this kind of thing is much rarer these days than it was just a year ago.


I am not for a minute defending the dick that did that to you but can I explain why I liked HVs post?

I'm been driving for years, over 20 now (fuck). Have you ANY idea what it's like being a driver of a very large, very heavy metal object than I am MORE than aware could kill, when some dick on a bike (and not the situation you describe, nor the ones above, we all have to make last minute decisions - they're fine) makes a conscious decision to take a REALLY fucking dangerous path? There has been more than many occasions were it has genuinely terrified me how close THEY got to my pretty immoveable object of a metal box. It all flashes in front of our eyes, a rider going under the wheels, being slammed into other traffic. 

I'd say in Brum most of the riders I see are pretty sound, I'd agree the whole thing seems to have got safer and more careful in the last year or so. Most cyclists DON'T take the stupid risks. Most cars/vehicles do give space. But the risks I still see on the roads being done by someone who is soft and squishy and has zero protection makes me wonder what the fuck possesses them.

Don't worry, I shout at vehicles for not leaving space, I make sure I do leave enough before overtaking etc. It has to be a 2 way thing, I just wanted to explain why I liked HVs post.

I'm glad you're OK if shaken up x


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 6, 2017)

BigTom said:


> There are places with lots of cyclists though, the route I usually ride into work on, the NCN 5 along the Rae Valley Route has lots of cyclists, it runs roughly parallel to the A441 pershore road which is a major commuter route and in rush hour, between the A441 and the Rae Valley Route, in summer, cyclists have around 10% modal share, so for parts of the year I do share the roads with lots of other cyclists - not the numbers now using the cycle superhighways in London but not incomparable at points.
> It's going to be really hard if this is a culture that develops/has developed. I still maintain that getting more segregated lanes will make a huge difference because it will mean a wider mix of people cycling - children, elderly people, more women - rather than the heavily young male domination that exists now. I think that will change things because young men are the biggest risk takers. You see it in mopeds as well. idk though, it's hard to feel confident to predict behaviour change.



Come to town in the rush hour, stand at the northern end of Waterloo Bridge, the numbers will blow you away. 

What really needs to happen is everyone needs to chill the fuck out. Separated lanes would be wonderful, but are not always possible. The massive difference you see between here and Holland and Denmark is the attitudes. In Holland and Denmark lycra-clad people riding carbon monsters at Tour de France pace are frowned upon. Sit up and begs moving at a sedate pace is the norm, allows everyone to get along so much better. Only been to Denmark once, but spent donks in Holland, when a lycra-loon flies past he will be in the receiving end of tuts and comments from the other cyclists. Very different to here where the vast majority seem to treat the roads as a race track.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 6, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Your experience worse than mine, it's terifying.


It hardened me as to my positioning on the road. Primary is pretty much as close to the curb as I ever get now, I don't give a fuck if I hold up cars behind me.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 6, 2017)

aqua said:


> I am not for a minute defending the dick that did that to you but can I explain why I liked HVs post?
> 
> I'm been driving for years, over 20 now (fuck). Have you ANY idea what it's like being a driver of a very large, very heavy metal object than I am MORE than aware could kill, when some dick on a bike (and not the situation you describe, nor the ones above, we all have to make last minute decisions - they're fine) makes a conscious decision to take a REALLY fucking dangerous path? There has been more than many occasions were it has genuinely terrified me how close THEY got to my pretty immoveable object of a metal box. It all flashes in front of our eyes, a rider going under the wheels, being slammed into other traffic.
> 
> ...



I've driven 3.5t (often jumbo) vans regularly for 17 years (and driven for 21) so yes, I know what it's like. But the kind of shit HV posted comes out all the time - dangerous driving oh but yeah cyclists do other things that are dangerous like it makes that ok to dismiss the complaint cyclists are making. like it's ok that my life is put in danger because someone else does something shitty. I'm shaken up, adrenaline, angry fucked off and can't stand this shit. I didn't speak ot the van driver because I'd probably ahve hit him if he'd ocme out with something like that to my face. If I had the video and posted it on twitter/fb I'd get that comment back to me. I get you didn't like it for the reason I'm so fucked off by it, fair enough but it's a fucked up post as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 6, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Come to town in the rush hour, stand at the northern end of Waterloo Bridge, the numbers will blow you away.
> 
> What really needs to happen is everyone needs to chill the fuck out. Separated lanes would be wonderful, but are not always possible. The massive difference you see between here and Holland and Denmark is the attitudes. In Holland and Denmark lycra-clad people riding carbon monsters at Tour de France pace are frowned upon. Sit up and begs moving at a sedate pace is the norm, allows everyone to get along so much better. Only been to Denmark once, but spent donks in Holland, when a lycra-loon flies past he will be in the receiving end of tuts and comments from the other cyclists. Very different to here where the vast majority seem to treat the roads as a race track.



Cousins in Copenhagen so I've been there a few times and they've been here - you are bang on here about the different cultures. when it's all utility cycling / cycling for transport it becomes a different thing, but you need a wide mix of people for that. Roads like ours they reward fast, aggressive cycling so you get fast aggressive cyclists. Assertive cycling is great but hard to do and many people get scared of the road who are not fast or aggressive so you just end up with the fast aggressive ones. I just hope they don't define an ongoing culture if/when a fuller network of segregated lanes is put in place in London (or anything elsewhere)


----------



## aqua (Jul 6, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I've driven 3.5t (often jumbo) vans regularly for 17 years (and driven for 21) so yes, I know what it's like. But the kind of shit HV posted comes out all the time - dangerous driving oh but yeah cyclists do other things that are dangerous like it makes that ok to dismiss the complaint cyclists are making. like it's ok that my life is put in danger because someone else does something shitty. I'm shaken up, adrenaline, angry fucked off and can't stand this shit. I didn't speak ot the van driver because I'd probably ahve hit him if he'd ocme out with something like that to my face. If I had the video and posted it on twitter/fb I'd get that comment back to me. I get you didn't like it for the reason I'm so fucked off by it, fair enough but it's a fucked up post as far as I'm concerned.


I think our mutual mate would have lamped him one 

I don't know the HV post history on here, I just wanted to clear up why I liked it. I had a cyclist this week that I actually panicked about, no way was it a safe gap - it was narrowing just ahead of where he was. God awful feeling  esp with the kids in the back (though they now know a range of northern accented swear words )


----------



## BigTom (Jul 6, 2017)

aqua said:


> I think our mutual mate would have lamped him one
> 
> I don't know the HV post history on here, I just wanted to clear up why I liked it. I had a cyclist this week that I actually panicked about, no way was it a safe gap - it was narrowing just ahead of where he was. God awful feeling  esp with the kids in the back (though they now know a range of northern accented swear words )



Definitely 

It's fine to rant about a cyclist's bad behaviour - I get that, I won't disagree - it's the link to the complaining about dangerous driving that fucks me off. (edit: and the generalisations)


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 6, 2017)

Its like Skiing innit- if you are going faster, you factor in everyone else on the piste and ensure that you do not impact anyone else around you and if you fuck up, then you take responsibility. I see too many lycra (and not lycra) boys refusing to accept this responsibility to others- like petulant fucking children who need a minute for each year of their life on the naughty step where they can ponder on their decisions before going to tea. Same goes for anyone else who wholeheartedly embraces highway twattery and high jinks- Cars, Bikes, whatevs.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jul 6, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Bullshit. He's fucked off with cyclists "banging on" about drivers passing safely because he thinks cyclists filter dangerously. That's his response to someone who is complaining about close passes. Can't you see how fucking shitty that is? Do you have no idea why I'm so fucked off by it? PArtly a reaction to what's happened oc but really HV can fuck off with this crap.



I read HV's post as a specific comment on those cyclists in the videos not as a general comment on cyclists, and not in anyway supporting drivers that don't give enough space when overtaking. There are twats on both sides, but specifically it seems in central London there's a far higher percentage of twats on bikes, compared to drivers. Certainly from my experience it's different the further away from central London you get, and worlds apart in towns, for example, in Kent & Surrey.

Anyway, sorry to hear about your experience this morning, and glad you are OK (ish).


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 6, 2017)

BigTom said:


> you know this morning on my way to work I was passed with about 20cm by a 3.5t van driver. I was (and am) so shaken by how close he came to killing me that I walked the ~2 miles I had left to work (out of ~3miles). I've made a complaint to his company.


Sorry to hear this, Tom. Hope you're ok and not too shaken. Might be worth a call to the old bill too?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 6, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Sorry to hear this, Tom. Hope you're ok and not too shaken. Might be worth a call to the old bill too?


Cops, courts etc just have the same attitude that a lot of drivers have.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 6, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Sorry to hear this, Tom. Hope you're ok and not too shaken. Might be worth a call to the old bill too?



no video = they can't do anything or I would have done. The company have been really good though, called them this morning, they called me straight back and are going to talk to the driver, whose not had any complaints against him before, so I'm happy that they sit him down with the highway code and make him read the traffic west mids police blogs on close passing and he will hopefully understand that had there been a pothole in my line when he passed me, I'd be dead now, and it's pure luck on his part I'm not, and there was no reason at all for him not to wait 2 seconds to pass safely.
Hopefully that's enough for him to seriously think  about how much attention he is paying on the road and the dangers he is causing and make him change his driving, if not then I'm confident that the company will act on a second complaint and stop him driving. I'd like him to have 3 points on his licence as a record as well but a decent intervention from his employer is likely to be at least as effective and quicker too.

I'm fine thanks, just shaken still really. You get hardened to this after a while but it's been ages since I've been that close to death.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 6, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> Cops, courts etc just have the same attitude that a lot of drivers have.



honestly, west mids traffic police are great, they will act on videos and the operation close pass is fantastic, plus their interventions on twitter are first rate. They've been doing lots of interventions and it's had a noticeable effect on driver behaviour over the past 6-8 months.
There's so many examples of cyclist's being ignored/fobbed off though. This one from derbyshire police was particularly special - thankfully social media pressure means they have prosecuted now.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 6, 2017)

cupid_stunt said:


> I read HV's post as a specific comment on those cyclists in the videos not as a general comment on cyclists, and not in anyway supporting drivers that don't give enough space when overtaking. There are twats on both sides, but specifically it seems in central London there's a far higher percentage of twats on bikes, compared to drivers. Certainly from my experience it's different the further away from central London you get, and worlds apart in towns, for example, in Kent & Surrey.
> 
> Anyway, sorry to hear about your experience this morning, and glad you are OK (ish).



I didn't. I read it as

All those cyclists complaining about being close passed should shut up because cyclists filter dangerously so they've no basis to complain about other people's behaviour. Especially because the danger is because cyclists can't ride in a straight line.

Well that can fuck right off. I was riding perfectly straight this morning. If I'd had to swerve for pothole I'd be dead. If I'd had to ride through a pothole I could easily have come off my bike and be dead. And I shouldn't be "banging on" about this because of some cyclists being twats on some totally different maneouvre?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 6, 2017)

The fact that people seem surprised about the truck video astounds me. This happens at every single junction with left or right filters. Cyclists use them as ASB's all the time, then pedal like billio to get in front of the traffic that's going straight. More often than not it's a right turn and the bikes are on the other side. The restriction in front is a pedestrian island. In a car you see them and let them through, so they have absolutely no idea what they've done and ride on oblivious. Beside an articulated truck, shit like that is going to happen.	

I'm starting to wonder if this really is a specifically London phenomenon. That would explain SpookyFrank's weird take on crossing stop lines too.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 6, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> The fact that people seem surprised about the truck video astounds me. This happens at every single junction with left or right filters. Cyclists use them as ASB's all the time, then pedal like billio to get in front of the traffic that's going straight. More often than not it's a right turn and the bikes are on the other side. The restriction in front is a pedestrian island. In a car you can see them and let them through, whilst they have absolutely no idea what they've done and ride on oblivious. Beside an articulated truck, shit like that is going to happen.
> 
> I'm starting to wonder if this _really is_ a specifically London phenomenon. That would explain SpookyFrank's weird take on crossing stop lines too.



I really think it is, at least in terms of proportional scale. In the summer I'm often at lights with 5-10 other cyclists so numbers are not extremely dissimilar to non-segregated routes in a lot of London, I do sometimes see cyclists going up the left side of large vehicles at traffic jams but no everyone or even nearly everyone. At most lights no-one will jump, there's one set of lights where one or two people will but most stop. I don't sit there having cyclist after cyclist coming past me like I see in some of the london videos. Similarly there's a couple of junctions I regularly use with filter lanes and I don't think I've ever seen a cyclist using the left turn lane to go straight on - definitely to filter past into an ASB - which is stupid in front of a lorry due to the front blind spot but also different to what they were doing in that video and, as you say, treating the lane as an ASB of sorts - but not treating it as a straight on lane.
There was one junction (now remodelled) which was notorious for drivers going straight on from the left turn filter lane, and there was a full width ASB in front of it, I would always go into the ASB in front of the left turn lane because this meant that all those drivers who went straight on were kept behind me and wouldn't hit me as I moved across the junction into the left hand lane on the other side (two lanes enter, two lanes exit but only the right hand entry lane goes straight on - terrible design really). I'm pretty sure this is legal as the ASB itself doesn't have those filters but in any case I saw enough people nearly hit by drivers going straight on it was clearly the safest way to cross this junction. It's a very specific situation though and not at all like that video.

So whilst I do see the odd cyclist doing somethings like that, it's always a small minority, it's never everyone like in that video. It makes me fear that a culture has grown in London that will be difficult to shift through infrastructure changes (and education/training is probably even less effective - I find it hard to believe they really don't know left turn filter lane is only for turning left, red lights definitely essentially everyone knows so training is minimally useful). I really think it's different to elsewhere in the UK.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 6, 2017)

London also has a higher concentration of shitty drivers and unaware pedestrians (perhaps cos many are tourists)


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 6, 2017)

So, in conclusion, London is shit. Again.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 6, 2017)

Mind you, I don't enjoy cycling much in Leeds either, but that's cos of the state of the roads and poor infrastructure. I cycled from north west to south east Leeds this week and there's supposed to be decent cycle paths, but they are poorly maintained and signposted. East Leeds is a shit hole that seems to be just endless roads and brownfield sites with potholed cycle paths strewn with broken glass and burnt mattresses.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jul 6, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I didn't. I read it as
> 
> All those cyclists complaining about being close passed should shut up because cyclists filter dangerously so they've no basis to complain about other people's behaviour. Especially because the danger is because cyclists can't ride in a straight line.
> 
> Well that can fuck right off. I was riding perfectly straight this morning. If I'd had to swerve for pothole I'd be dead. If I'd had to ride through a pothole I could easily have come off my bike and be dead. And I shouldn't be "banging on" about this because of some cyclists being twats on some totally different maneouvre?



Well, I read it in context of it being posted after several other posts commenting on those videos, so took it that way, hence why I liked it.

You read it in context of what happened to you this morning, which is totally understandable.

Like another poster said, I don't know HV's posting history, I hope his comment was specific to the conversation over the videos, if it was more general, then they are a twat.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 6, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> London also has a higher concentration of shitty drivers ...


See, I don't believe that. I drive most days in London and the shit road use is overwhelmingly by cyclists. Sure you see crap driving, most frequently it's drivers tailgating the car in front to squeeze through a junction on amber or red. Even that's becoming rarer since so many lights in town have cameras, even dickhead drivers think twice about doing it. When I rode a bike it was drivers pulling out in front of you, a la "sorry mate, didn't see you", but taking primary (even right of primary) on a motorbike doesn't piss-off the traffic behind you so you ride near the centre line well in advance when approaching t-junctions. But the really dangerous shit (left and right filters to go straight, turning without signalling, shit visibility, no hands on the bars, ploughing through junctions on red, joining roads without looking or slowing ... etc) is almost the sole preserve of cyclists. If you don't recognise that, you're probably one of them.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jul 6, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> The fact that people seem surprised about the truck video astounds me. This happens at every single junction with left or right filters. Cyclists use them as ASB's all the time, then pedal like billio to get in front of the traffic that's going straight. More often than not it's a right turn and the bikes are on the other side. The restriction in front is a pedestrian island. In a car you see them and let them through, so they have absolutely no idea what they've done and ride on oblivious. Beside an articulated truck, shit like that is going to happen.
> 
> I'm starting to wonder if this really is a specifically London phenomenon. That would explain SpookyFrank's weird take on crossing stop lines too.



IME it happens elsewhere, but on nowhere near the scale you see in Central London. I've always put it down to the pace of life in London being so bloody fast & full-on, everyone always seems to be in a rush to get where they are going, it reminds me of Jason Manford going on about the bloke running for the tube...



[about 55 seconds in]


----------



## BigTom (Jul 6, 2017)

cupid_stunt said:


> Well, I read it in context of it being posted after several other posts commenting on those videos, so took it that way, hence why I liked it.
> 
> You read it in context of what happened to you this morning, which is totally understandable.
> 
> Like another poster said, I don't know HV's posting history, I hope his comment was specific to the conversation over the videos, if it was more general, then they are a twat.



oh, I watched a couple of those videos without sound this morning, if the actual cyclist was complaining about close pass then doing stupid filtering maneouvre it's more understandable, if the cyclist videoing the bus one was complaining about a close pass I'd be surprised since none happened then and they didn't go on to do a stupid filtering maneouvre that might have got them killed so it's still offensive nonsense afaic. 
I'd read his comment before this happened to me - my first reply to it is from before I left for work this morning, taking issue with his comment about cyclists not being able to ride in a straight line and that's why they need space. The second reply is after the incident and is more pointed for obvious reasons.
If you've liked it just because of the shit cycling bit, fair enough, but it's the way that comment is made in relation to close passing that is the problem for me and I can't read one bit not in relation to the other because HV has written it like they are directly linked.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 6, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> See, I don't believe that. I drive most days in London and the shit road use is overwhelmingly by cyclists. Sure you see crap driving, most frequently it's drivers tailgating the car in front to squeeze through a junction on amber or red. Even that's becoming rarer since so many lights in town have cameras, so even dickhead drivers think twice about doing it. When I rode a bike it was drivers pulling out in front of you, a la "sorry mate, didn't see you", but taking primary (even right of primary) on a motorbike doesn't piss-off the traffic behind you so you ride near the centre line when approaching t-junctions. But the really dangerous shit (left and right filters to go straight, turning without signalling, shit visibility, no hands on the bars, ploughing through junctions on red, joining roads without looking or slowing ... etc) is almost the sole preserve of cyclists. If you don't recognise that, you're probably one of them.


you're wrong. you're just being wilfully contrary I know, but motorists are much more dangerous than cyclists - close passes, running reds, exceeding speed limits, failing to indicate etc etc


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> you're wrong. you're just being wilfully contrary I know, but motorists are much more dangerous than cyclists - close passes, running reds, exceeding speed limits, failing to indicate etc etc


For every driver who fails to indicate 50 cyclists turn without warning

I cannot recall the last time I saw a driver mount the pavement and use it as an extra lane. Yet cyclists do this almost as a matter of course


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> For every driver who fails to indicate 50 cyclists turn without warning


you just made that up
drivers' bad behaviour is much more dangerous than cyclists' bad behaviour


----------



## keybored (Jul 6, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> failing to indicate


Let's not even go there where cyclists are concerned!


----------



## keybored (Jul 6, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> you just made that up


I agree. It has to be closer to 1000 than 50.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> you just made that up
> drivers' bad behaviour is much more dangerous than cyclists' bad behaviour


Indicating among cyclists is so rare as to be almost extinct


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 6, 2017)

keybored said:


> Let's not even go there where cyclists are concerned!


i'm talking about motorists though. why should they get a pass when they kill way more people than cyclists?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 6, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> you're wrong. you're just being wilfully contrary I know, but motorists are much more dangerous than cyclists - close passes, running reds, exceeding speed limits, failing to indicate etc etc


Thing is, they behave like this even to other motorists, but it's so normalised that they don't even notice it, but on a bike you do.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> i'm talking about motorists though. why should they get a pass when they kill way more people than cyclists?


You're on the wrong thread, chum, if you want to talk about motorists. Go and start a new thread if that's what you're interested in


----------



## keybored (Jul 6, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> Thing is, they behave like this even to other motorists, but it's so normalised that they don't even notice it, but on a bike you do.


I'm a driver, a cyclist and a pedestrian. I never feel so much shame for humanity as when I am riding my bike, in a city.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> You're on the wrong thread, chum, if you want to talk about motorists. Go and start a new thread if that's what you're interested in


I did, but I also think it's necessary to inject a sense of proportion to this one, which I also started. The trolling on this thread is extraordinary!


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 6, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> i'm talking about motorists though. why should they get a pass when they kill way more people than cyclists?


They don't get a pass though. They're dicks. But we're talking about the frequency of shit road use and that's unquestionably higher with cyclists. The other thing is that what you (a completely untrained road user who's probably never even read the HC) think is shit driving, often isn't. Examples on this thread are SpookyFrank's ridiculous "drivers in ASB's have jumped a red", and those peanuts who thought the truck driver was at fault in the video. In many cases you think that perfectly acceptable driving is shit because it's not how you view traffic. Your understanding of road use is often based on ignorance.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> I did, but I also think it's necessary to inject a sense of proportion to this one, which I also started. The trolling on this thread is extraordinary!


Yeh you've really excelled yourself


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 6, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Your understanding of road use is often based on ignorance.


As is many drivers'!


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 6, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> As is many drivers'!


Sure, but less so. 

Before you read the subsequent posts about the truck video, what did you think about it? If you were a cyclist what would you have done at that junction?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 6, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Sure, but less so.


No, much more so


----------



## keybored (Jul 6, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> As is many drivers'!


What, all those drivers who haven't had to undergo compulsory training and testing?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 6, 2017)

keybored said:


> What, all those drivers who haven't had to undergo compulsory training and testing?


they either fail to understand their training or they forget it. and many just ignore it cos they're selfish cunts


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jul 6, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> i'm talking about motorists though. why should they get a pass when they kill way more people than cyclists?



Road deaths & injuries have seen a massive decrease since the late 90s*, despite massive increases in the number of miles done on the roads. Vehicles & drivers are getting better, cyclists are getting worst, especially in London.

* source - Reported Road Casualties Great Britain - Wikipedia


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 6, 2017)

So what would you have done at the junction in the truck video, Orang Utan ?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 6, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> So what would you have done at the junction in the truck video, Orang Utan ?


I haven't seen the video


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 6, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> I haven't seen the video


Take a look. You might learn something that could save your life.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 6, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Take a look. You might learn something that could save your life.


It's ok. I'm a sensible cyclist, believe it or not. I'm not a reckless type - too much of a sissy


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jul 6, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> I haven't seen the video



It's near the top of page 86, also see the other video further down of a cyclist taking on a bus.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 6, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> They don't get a pass though. They're dicks. But we're talking about the frequency of shit road use and that's unquestionably higher with cyclists. The other thing is that what you (a completely untrained road user who's probably never even read the HC) think is shit driving, often isn't. Examples on this thread are SpookyFrank's ridiculous "drivers in ASB's have jumped a red", and those peanuts who thought the truck driver was at fault in the video. In many cases you think that perfectly acceptable driving is shit because it's not how you view traffic. Your understanding of road use is often based on ignorance.


But you don't ride a bike, so what àre you basing your views on?

And I would have hung back in the video - because of the motoring lobby hgvs can take to the road without being able to see beside themselves


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 6, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> It's ok. I'm a sensible cyclist, believe it or not. I'm not a reckless type - too much of a sissy


Yep, you're ok. It's everyone else who are the dicks.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 6, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> But you don't ride a bike, so what àre you basing your views on?


Over 30 years driving cars and motorbikes, IAM courses, advanced motorcycle training, and a lifelong interest in motoring, road use and safety. But I'm not infallible, I make mistakes. I just try to make them as infrequently as possible, not repeat them, and not blame other road users for my balls-ups.

What about you?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> But you don't ride a bike, so what àre you basing your views on?



Do you really get the impression you're talking to someone whose views are actually based on things?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 6, 2017)

Frank's back.

Get ready for some _proper_ nonsense!!!

Have you got a new job yet SpookyFrank ?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2017)

keybored said:


> This guy could very easily have been killed. You would think he would learn from his mistake, count his lucky stars and strive to ride in a more safe manner in future. But no, he throws a tantrum and seems to believe filter lanes don't apply to cyclists and it must be OK because other cyclists do it




Just saw this posted elsewhere and I'd like to confirm that the cyclist who gets hit and the one behind him with the camera are both utter tools for going straight ahead in a left turn lane and cutting inside an HGV. 

The cyclist's excuse of 'this is London' certainly seems to confirm my theory that cuntish road use is par for the course in London.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 6, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Just saw this posted elsewhere and I'd like to confirm that the cyclist who gets hit and the one behind him with the camera are both utter tools for going straight ahead in a left turn lane and cutting inside an HGV.


Easy when you've seen the answers, isn't it?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 6, 2017)




----------



## BigTom (Jul 6, 2017)

Spymaster said:


>



Cheating on tests is not cyclist behaviour! We don't do tests at all! You're so prejudiced spy, really poor.


----------



## aqua (Jul 6, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> London also has a higher concentration of shitty drivers and unaware pedestrians (perhaps cos many are tourists)


you should drive north of us - fucking hell London driving is significantly better than the fuckwits around there


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 6, 2017)

Where would you train cyclists to be at the junction with the lorry, BigTom ? Behind it or on the right (given there's no right turn)?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 6, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Over 30 years driving cars and motorbikes, IAM courses, advanced motorcycle training, and a massive interest in motoring, road use and safety as a hobby. But I'm not infallible, I make mistakes. I just try to make them as infrequently as possible, not repeat them, and not blame other road users for my balls-ups.
> 
> What about you?


I cycled for a lot of the time as a kid, learned to drive and in the past couple òf years have commuted by bike. I used to think the standard of driving in this country was excellent until I started cycling again.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 6, 2017)

aqua said:


> you should drive north of us - fucking hell London driving is significantly better than the fuckwits around there


where?


----------



## aqua (Jul 6, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> where?


Sutton Coldfield. What is just a small town and yet populated with lots of absolute fucking grade one driving arseholes. I've never driven anywhere worse  when bees goes out on his bike I hate it when he has to go near there. It's bad enough as a driver but on a bike it really worries me


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2017)

cupid_stunt said:


> Here's a classic case of 'six of one, half a dozen of the other', OK the driver was in the wrong, you got him on camera, go report him and/or point out his mistake. But, don't wind him up and keep doing so to the point of him getting out the car to assault you, and certainly don't just sit there until he does! Also, don't continue to wind-up him up after he gets back in his car, encouraging him to have another go.
> 
> Although, the driver cracked me up, when he tripped-up giving chase, when he was going for his second pop at the cyclist, I bet that hurt.




I've never known anyone in a car admit their mistake and promise to do better in future as a result of my shouting at them, no matter how badly they were driving. If they cared about not killing you, they'd not have done *insert dangerous foolishness here* in the first place. 

I stopped shouting at drivers a long time ago. The most anyone gets from me these days is a withering stare like you'd give a child caught running with scissors. I've also developed a theatrical 'that doesn't look like a bike to me' genuinely baffled face for use at advanced stop boxes, and a different but related 'that's a funny looking pedestrian' look for drivers mounting pavements.

A woman parked on the pavement yesterday, right where I was walking along it. There was a high wall to my left, and she parked leaving me less than two feet of pavement to stand in. I gave her my 'what kind of fuckery do you call that?' look and she flapped her arms about as if to say, well where else do you expect me to park? I dunno, somewhere it's legal to park? Somewhere not currently occupied by another person maybe. It wasn't the terrible parking so much as the look she gave me, that cast-iron certainty that whatever shitty thing she had done, she was powerless to do otherwise. The car must be parked, and she is but a slave to its will. She seemed genuinely angry with me for not wanting to get run over. Fucking bizarre.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 6, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> ... somewhere it's legal to park?


Where did this happen? 

You know it's not _always_ illegal to park on a pavement?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Where would you train cyclists to be at the junction with the lorry, BigTom ? Behind it or on the right (given there's no right turn)?



Behind the lorry, assuming there's no advanced stop box. Whichever is the leftmost lane heading straight on (if you're going straight on) you should be in the centre of that. It is not safe to filter between or inside lanes of traffic while crossing a junction, nor is it safe for other vehicles in your lane to pass you in the middle of a junction as this can cause a simillar collision to the one seen in the video when the road narrows at the far side of the junction. Safest place then is in the middle of the lane, and stay there until you're well clear of the junction. 

Left turn only is left turn only for everyone. Many cyclists have got the idea that they should cling to the curb no matter what, even if this leaves them stranded in the wrong lane at a junction. This is one of many reasons why we teach cyclists to ride in the centre of their lane at junctions, and to get into that position well before they actually reach the junction*. This means that at a junction like the one in the video you've got plenty of time to get in the right lane without weaving through stopped cars, and everyone else can see you and know what you're doing.

*modern on-road cycle lanes will stop 30m before a junction to encourage cyclists to do exactly this.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Where did this happen?
> 
> You know it's not _always_ illegal to park on a pavement?



It is always illegal to obstruct the pavement. Round here it's a common sight to see folk in wheelchairs or with kids in buggies negotiating speed bumps and manhole covers in the middle of the road because people park on the pavement with inches to spare. This is by far the most common and most widely ignored example of dangerous, selfish, illegal and just downright bad road use IMO.

 I look after a young child a few days a week, and I'm trying to teach him to walk on the pavement and not the road as you do. But half the time it's not possible to walk along the pavement, so it's a case of 'do as I say, not as I do' or we'd be stuck in the house all day.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 6, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> But you don't ride a bike, so what àre you basing your views on?
> 
> And I would have hung back in the video - because of the motoring lobby hgvs can take to the road without being able to see beside themselves


Again, expecting others to compensate for cyclists' lack of training, lack of self-preservation skills and lack of sense.

Maybe all HGVs should be fitted with proximity sensors, which prevent the vehicle from moving if a cyclist with a death wish rides down the inside of it?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 6, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> It is always illegal to obstruct the pavement. Round here it's a common sight to see folk in wheelchairs or with kids in buggies negotiating speed bumps and manhole covers in the middle of the road because people park on the pavement with inches to spare. This is by far the most common and most widely ignored example of dangerous, selfish, illegal and just downright bad road use IMO.
> 
> I look after a young child a few days a week, and I'm trying to teach him to walk on the pavement and not the road as you do. But half the time it's not possible to walk along the pavement, so it's a case of 'do as I say, not as I do' or we'd be stuck in the house all day.


Have you considered that the woman driving on the pavement may have been trying to run you over? Am irate mother, unhappy at the standards oF tuition at the SFAC?


----------



## BigTom (Jul 6, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Where would you train cyclists to be at the junction with the lorry, BigTom ? Behind it or on the right (given there's no right turn)?



just in case my memory is wrong, this junction had 3 lanes - left filter and two for going straight on, with no right turn.
I would suggest lane splitting between lane 2 and 3 (so on the right of the lorry) and then stopping behind the lorry. Using the left filter lane to filter past then stopping behind the lorry is ok I reckon, but no way should anyone be using that left turn lane to go straight on.

I would say you want to be in the middle of the lane but if you can't be in the middle of the lane (eg: the driver behind the lorry has not left a big enough gap to move into) then you are better off being behind on the right hand side than on the left but it's key that you've made eye contact with the driver behind the lorry so you can move into primary position behind the lorry once traffic starts moving.
(possible exception would be if you could see a traffic jam beyond the lights, in which case you might stay out to the right hand side ready to filter past the lorry once it's hit the traffic jam and for general vision purposes it may be better to be out to the right of the lane to see past the lorry than to be directly behind it but both of those are pretty situational circumstances and not to follow as a rule of thumb).

Without being able to see what it would have been like to lane split between lanes 2/3 I don't know if there's a good reason why none of the cyclists have done that and chosen to filter in the left turn lane (some will believe they are not allowed to lane split or will prefer the comfort of the empty lane, I don't like it because it's a left turn lane and I'm going straight on). It's also possible that the lanes are narrow or how drivers are positioned would prevent lane splitting but I don't think you can see that from the video as the cyclist is in the left lane. Another possible factor is does the left filter lane split out from the left lane or do the two straight on lanes split out from the right lane? Because a cyclist coming up to the junction in the left lane might just follow the lane forward rather than moving lane which would be understandable (drivers often get annoyed if they see a cyclist "weaving" between traffic to change filtering positions, some cyclists think you are not allowed to do this).
Having said the above, they all go on to go straight on from the left hand lane which is pretty unfathomable to me so I don't think it's likely that there's a reason why lane splitting between lanes 2/3 would not be plausible, I think they are just using the left hand lane to do whatever they want.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 6, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Again, expecting others to compensate for cyclists' lack of training, lack of self-preservation skills and lack of sense.
> 
> Maybe all HGVs should be fitted with proximity sensors, which prevent the vehicle from moving if a cyclist with a death wish rides down the inside of it?



loads of lorries have proximity sensor alarms. Drivers hate them because they go off when you are passing some fencing or road signs or parked cars etc... some lorries now have auto-brakes and had drivers talking about times when those have just triggered for no apparent reason and also hate them (not out of principle but because they don't work well).
(at my work we do cycle/pedestrian safety training for HGV drivers so I get to speak to them about these things).

Personally I think that any roads with large vehicles regularly on them should have cyclists segregated, like pedestrians are, so they are not directed to use the same space at the same time.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 6, 2017)

BigTom said:


> just in case my memory is wrong, this junction had 3 lanes - left filter and two for going straight on, with no right turn.
> I would suggest lane splitting between lane 2 and 3 (so on the right of the lorry) and then stopping behind the lorry. Using the left filter lane to filter past then stopping behind the lorry is ok I reckon, but no way should anyone be using that left turn lane to go straight on.
> 
> I would say you want to be in the middle of the lane but if you can't be in the middle of the lane (eg: the driver behind the lorry has not left a big enough gap to move into) then you are better off being behind on the right hand side than on the left but it's key that you've made eye contact with the driver behind the lorry so you can move into primary position behind the lorry once traffic starts moving.
> ...


 Cheers.

I'd get off and walk over the crossing.

Here's the junction, btw.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 6, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Again, expecting others to compensate for cyclists' lack of training, lack of self-preservation skills and lack of sense.
> 
> Maybe all HGVs should be fitted with proximity sensors, which prevent the vehicle from moving if a cyclist with a death wish rides down the inside of it?



Maybe Hgvs could have some way of seeing what's beside them?. If I was in a car I couldn't block the windows.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 6, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> Maybe Hgvs could have some way of seeing what's beside them?


Maybe just don't cycle down the side of them?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 6, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> Maybe Hgvs could have some way of seeing what's beside them?. If I was in a car I couldn't block the windows.


Cyclist in "everyone else should be responsible for my dangerous behaviour" shocker.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 6, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Cyclist in "everyone else should be responsible for my dangerous behaviour" shocker.


No, making allowances for motorists, who in this case can't even see what's around them.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 6, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> No, making allowances for motorists, who in this case can't even see what's around them.


Maybe just don't cycle down the side of them?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 6, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Maybe just don't cycle down the side of them?


This really would seem to be the simplest solution


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> It's ok. I'm a sensible cyclist, believe it or not. I'm not a reckless type - too much of a sissy


Sissy? Do people still use that word despite its connotations?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 6, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> This really would seem to be the simplest solution


London cyclist deaths halved in an instant.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 6, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Where would you train cyclists to be at the junction with the lorry, BigTom ? Behind it or on the right (given there's no right turn)?


You have two choices with regard to positioning around a lorry, assuming it arrives there before you do.

If you're sure you can safely get ahead of it before it moves *and* get yourself into a position where you can be seen by it (remembering the potential forward blind spots) *and* ideally out-accelerate it for a moment when traffic starts again, then pass it on the right. If not, stay behind.

Rule of thumb: don't pass it if it's first in the queue. Asking for trouble.

Not the hardest thing to get right, but very few seem to think about it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 6, 2017)

It's always better to be behind a lorry than under it


----------



## Shechemite (Jul 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Sissy? Do people still use that word despite its connotations?



Yes. It comes up a lot in swingers clubs. And porn.


----------



## kebabking (Jul 6, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Yes. It comes up a lot in swingers clubs. And porn.



Apparently.


----------



## Shechemite (Jul 6, 2017)

No shame in wearing 'female' clothes and taking part in group sex.

Dunno why Orang Utan feels the need to insultingly associate 'sissies' with cowards. Or himself (even worse really)


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 6, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> No shame in wearing 'female' clothes and taking part in group sex.
> 
> Dunno why Orang Utan feels the need to insultingly associate 'sissies' with cowards. Or himself (even worse really)


i've only ever heard the word to describe someone who runs away from fights, so i'm proud to be one


----------



## Shechemite (Jul 6, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> i've only ever heard the word to describe someone who runs away from fights, so i'm proud to be one



A coward or a sissy?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 6, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> A coward or a sissy?


they both mean the same


----------



## Shechemite (Jul 6, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> they both mean the same



They don't. As explained above. 

Why be proud to be a coward?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> they both mean the same


The word carries the connotation of effeminacy as well as cowardice


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 6, 2017)

MadeInBedlam said:


> They don't. As explained above.
> 
> Why be proud to be a coward?


I'm neither a porn connoisseur nor a swinger, so the only meaning I'm familiar with is coward.
I am proud of avoiding physical confrontation and riding sensibly so I don't get mown over by a car or lorry.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> The word carries the connotation of effeminacy as well as cowardice


ok then. i shall avoid using it in future.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 6, 2017)

I thought a sissy was a term for a homosexual bloke.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> I thought a sissy was a term for a homosexual bloke.


A pejorative term, pa, one you should use as frequently as you would defective when talking about the disabled


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 6, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> ... riding sensibly ...


I know someone who's seen you ride a bike. They said that you are extremely unsafe and danger to yourself and others. They also said that if they got the chance they'd let your tyres down.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 6, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> I know someone who's seen you ride a bike. They said that you are extremely unsafe and danger to yourself and others. They also said that if they got the chance they'd let your tyres down.


ok troll all you like, but don't fucking make stuff up and lie for fuck's sake


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> ok troll all you like, but don't fucking make stuff up and lie for fuck's sake


Pa may be a cunt but he's an honest cunt. If he says it happened, it happened


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Pa may be a cunt but he's an honest cunt. If he says it happened, it happened


grow up


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> grow up


Says the potty mouthed troll


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 6, 2017)

this is really desperate stuff


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 6, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> ok troll all you like, but don't fucking make stuff up and lie for fuck's sake


 

They also said that they're going to nick your stabilsers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> this is really desperate stuff


straight out of the ou playbook


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> straight out of the ou playbook


'i know you are, you said you are' - playground bully shite


----------



## Shechemite (Jul 6, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> 'i know you are, you said you are' - playground bully shite



They'll call you a sissy next


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> 'i know you are, you said you are' - playground bully shite


There's a rhythm to your responses when you're unhappy and it's played out across lots of threads. So you shouldn't be surprised when someone points out your posts follow a predictable course.


----------



## keybored (Jul 6, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Maybe all HGVs should be fitted with proximity sensors, which prevent the vehicle from moving if a cyclist with a death wish rides down the inside of it?



In London? Might as well just remove the engine in that case


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> There's a rhythm to your responses when you're unhappy and it's played out across lots of threads. So you shouldn't be surprised when someone points out your posts follow a predictable course.


making shit up about me doesn't reflect well on you or spymaster.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 6, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> making shit up about me doesn't reflect well on you or spymaster.


Also, this person said that when you cycle past them you smell of poo.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> making shit up about me doesn't reflect well on you or spymaster.


I haven't made anything up.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> I haven't made anything up.


you're happy to repeat a lie just to needle someone who you describe as unhappy. classy behaviour.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 6, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> you're happy to repeat a lie just to needle someone who you describe as unhappy. classy behaviour.


Have you ever thought that you might take yourself a bit too seriously sometimes?

You came in here _on the wind-up_ days ago, got a bit of a spanking but kept digging away, started that silly thread as a troll, and now you're cross at getting a bit of playground chaffing in return!

Lighten up, Poopy Pants.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> you're happy to repeat a lie just to needle someone who you describe as unhappy. classy behaviour.


A) I haven't repeated a lie, or told one; B) we're all unhappy here now and again. But few of us have our unhappy responses planned out as appears to so frequently be the case with you.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Left turn only is left turn only for everyone. *Many cyclists have got the idea that they should cling to the curb no matter what, even if this leaves them stranded in the wrong lane at a junction.*



It just occurred to me that some posters on this thread have suggested exactly this, that cyclists should stay in the gutter at all times. How cyclists in such a position are supposed to turn right, or go straight past a left turn without getting knocked down by drivers turning left, is never explained. Probably because 'stay in the gutter' is not advice given for the benefit of cyclists, or even for the convenience of motorists, but only out of frothing hatred for people on bikes.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 6, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> It just occurred to me that some posters on this thread have suggested exactly this, that cyclists should stay in the gutter at all times. How cyclists in such a position are supposed to turn right, or go straight past a left turn without getting knocked down by drivers turning left, is never explained. Probably because 'stay in the gutter' is not advice given for the benefit of cyclists, or even for the convenience of motorists, but only out of frothing hatred for people on bikes.


Or perhaps you're talking total bollocks and just made all that up.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Or perhaps you're talking total bollocks and just made all that up.


We're all in the gutter but some of us are looking at the stars


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> London cyclist deaths halved in an instant.



Even a stopped clock and all that. 

If you look at the numbers, women are more likely to be killed or injured by a left-turning HGV than men. One theory about this is that women cyclists can be less assertive, less willing to shrug off the aggression and abuse you get from motorists if you cycle in primary position (which is by far the safest course of action in many situations) and so more likely to cling to the curb where many vehicles won't see them.

I'm not sure about that, mostly because I have a natural suspicion of any gender-based breakdown of human beaviour, but it's a fact that riding in primary takes left-turn collisions (London's most common cause of cyclist fatalities IIRC) out of the equation altogether. In my personal experience it also helps a cyclist to make more sensible decisions if they think of themselves as another vehicle just like a car, as a part of the traffic, and riding in primary helps with that mindest. 

So to all the posters who have criticised others for recommending the primary position, and then criticised cyclists for putting themselves at risk by sticking to the left, where exactly do you think cyclists should be?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2017)

On the road and not the pavement


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> On the road and not the pavement



Nobody here has suggested riding on the pavement, try again.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 6, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> No, making allowances for motorists, who in this case can't even see what's around them.


Yes, it's the HGV driver's fault that all those imbeciles rode down the inside of him.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Nobody here has suggested riding on the pavement, try again.


The title of the thread is what do people have against cyclists and while no one here may have suggested it, plenty of cyclists insist on riding on the pavement, many of them because of fear of the road.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 6, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> So to all the posters who have criticised others for recommending the primary position, and then criticised cyclists for putting themselves at risk by sticking to the left, where exactly do you think cyclists should be?


You'll need to quote the posters who've done that because I can't recall anyone saying anything like it. The only criticism about cyclists riding in the middle of the road is when the dicks do it unnecessarily to deliberately annoy others road users, or to assert rights, rather than for safety.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 6, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Even a stopped clock and all that.
> 
> If you look at the numbers, women are more likely to be killed or injured by a left-turning HGV than men. One theory about this is that women cyclists can be less assertive, less willing to shrug off the aggression and abuse you get from motorists if you cycle in primary position (which is by far the safest course of action in many situations) and so more likely to cling to the curb where many vehicles won't see them.
> 
> ...


How about not on the inside of a HGV turning left? 
This is nothing at all to do with assertiveness. It's sheer stupidity, and goes to prove that mandatory training and testing of cyclists is essential.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 6, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> How about not on the inside of a HGV turning left?
> This is nothing at all to do with assertiveness. It's sheer stupidity, and goes to prove that mandatory training and testing of cyclists is essential.


Corporal punishment. If every time SpookyFrank and Orang Utan rode irresponsibly they were given six of the best across the arse, in public, they'd soon mend their ways.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 6, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Corporal punishment. If every time SpookyFrank and Orang Utan rode irresponsibly they were given six of the best across the arse, in public, they'd soon mend their ways.


I fear you may be putting too much faith in the power of corporal punishment.
Leopard... spots.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> How about not on the inside of a HGV turning left?
> This is nothing at all to do with assertiveness. It's sheer stupidity, and goes to prove that mandatory training and testing of cyclists is essential.



Is it sheer stupidity on your part if someone passes you on the right and then turns left?


----------



## spanglechick (Jul 6, 2017)

aqua said:


> I am not for a minute defending the dick that did that to you but can I explain why I liked HVs post?
> 
> I'm been driving for years, over 20 now (fuck). Have you ANY idea what it's like being a driver of a very large, very heavy metal object than I am MORE than aware could kill, when some dick on a bike (and not the situation you describe, nor the ones above, we all have to make last minute decisions - they're fine) makes a conscious decision to take a REALLY fucking dangerous path? There has been more than many occasions were it has genuinely terrified me how close THEY got to my pretty immoveable object of a metal box. It all flashes in front of our eyes, a rider going under the wheels, being slammed into other traffic.
> 
> ...



I also liked the post.  The reason for me was because I'd been thinking for a while about what Big Tom said: that cyclists have no legal limit on how close they can pass moving traffic.  I'd been meaning to come back to it, and since HV seemed to be raising the topic in one way or another, I gave his post a "like" for bringing the subject back into play.  No more than that.  

And my take was going to be this: shouldn't there be a limit for how close a cyclist should pass moving vehicles? Wouldn't it make them safer? I know cyclists are better able to squuze safely through when they make their own judgements than when drivers imperil them, but sometimes they take reckless chances and the Highway Code is full of rules to save road users from pushing it.  

And I think there's also probably an element of drivers passing closely because that's what cyclists have shown them.   We only sit our tests at the start of our driving lives. As with anything else, custom is often more powerful than law.  As an admittedly slightly tenuous analogy: If I'd want my students to talk politely to me, it's going to work better if I don't spend all my time shouting at them.  The rules that govern us are different, and there might well be more legitimate reason for me to shout... but if I model shouting, I can't be surprised to get it back.  

I think the width of road painted cycle lanes is also a problem: there's a lane on my way home that is barely 50cm wide.  There's no way to drive in the main carriageway and give a proper overtaking clearance - yet this passing distance of around a metre at most, is demonstrated by "the authorities" as being appropriate.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2017)

And yes training of cyclists should be more widespread (not least because I'd get paid more) but as a cycling trainer I often find myself explaining what should happen, and then what probably will happen. Today for example we were explaining to a group of nine years olds that if they're passing a side road with give way lines they shouldn't need to stop, as any vehicles turning out of the side road should wait for them. But we also have to tell them to be ready to stop at any time, because some drivers won't give way to them as the law requires.

When I'm having to tell small children that someone in a car might run them over because they don't think cyclists count as proper road users, well maybe you can understand why some of the attitudes on this thread upset me a fair bit. Because when you say 'all cyclists are twats' and then use that to justify running them off the road or subjecting them to whatever delightfully comical form of violent punishment you think up, well some of the people you're talking about are nine fucking years old.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 6, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> And yes training of cyclists should be more widespread (not least because I'd get paid more) but as a cycling trainer I often find myself explaining what should happen, and then what probably will happen. Today for example we were explaining to a group of nine years olds that if they're passing a side road with give way lines they shouldn't need to stop, as any vehicles turning out of the side road should wait for them. But we also have to tell them to be ready to stop at any time, because some drivers won't give way to them as the law requires.
> 
> When I'm having to tell small children that someone in a car might run them over because they don't think cyclists count as proper road users, well maybe you can understand why some of the attitudes on this thread upset me a fair bit. Because when you say 'all cyclists are twats' and then use that to justify running them off the road or sunjecting them to whatever delightfully comical form of violent punishment you think up, well some of the people you're talking about are nine fucking years old.


I don't advocate public corporal punishment for kids, only adults. Anyone under 16 should just have their bike crushed and "I'm a dickhead" tattooed on their foreheads.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 6, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Is it sheer stupidity on your part if someone passes you on the right and then turns left?


Is this what generally happens??



SpookyFrank said:


> And yes training of cyclists should be more widespread (not least because I'd get paid more) but as a cycling trainer I often find myself explaining what should happen, and then what probably will happen. Today for example we were explaining to a group of nine years olds that if they're passing a side road with give way lines they shouldn't need to stop, as any vehicles turning out of the side road should wait for them. But we also have to tell them to be ready to stop at any time, because some drivers won't give way to them as the law requires.
> 
> When I'm having to tell small children that someone in a car might run them over because they don't think cyclists count as proper road users, well maybe you can understand why some of the attitudes on this thread upset me a fair bit. Because when you say 'all cyclists are twats' and then use that to justify running them off the road or sunjecting them to whatever delightfully comical form of violent punishment you think up, well some of the people you're talking about are nine fucking years old.



Yes, it's a terrible inconvenience having to take some responsibility for your own life.

I deal with this on a daily basis, and if you're not teaching them that they should *always expect* a car driver to pull out of a side road, then you're teaching them wrong.

And it's not because car drivers "don't think cyclists count as proper road users". It's because car drivers simply don't see cyclists, or motorbikes, and the rider has to accept this and ride accordingly. It's not ideal but if you don't want to die, you have to assume that every driver is out to kill you.

There are many riders in the graveyard who were in the right, but it's no consolation.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> And my take was going to be this: shouldn't there be a limit for how close a cyclist should pass moving vehicles? Wouldn't it make them safer?



There are guidelines. With parked vehicles, cyclists should pass with at least a 1.5 metre gap (the same gap motorists are expected to give cyclists) as this removes the risk of getting hit by a car door. As for filtering through traffic I'd call it a case of use your own judgement. As well as making sure you've got space, you should be travelling at a sensible speed that allows you to maneuvure where needed. 

I don't think the same rules should apply to bikes and cars on this point though. For one thing it's very unlikely you'll kill or harm anyone (except possibly yourself) if you clip another vehicle while passing it on a bike, but a fast-moving vehicle clipping a bike can be fatal in the wrong circumstances. Bikes are smaller, slower, more maneuverable, have better visibility and are quicker to respond. If the rider knows what they're doing, they can pass vehicles safely at a smaller distance than a car can. But judgement is key. Not wanting to be in this traffic jam right now does not mean I'm gonna start passing cars where it's not safe to do so.

Speed is a big factor. If a car moves past me in slow traffic, I'm not going to care if they leave me 1 metre instead of the 1.5 it says in the highway code. If they pass me too close at 30 or 40mph though, that can feel like a near-death experience.


----------



## keybored (Jul 6, 2017)

Why couldn't those cyclists have taken up primary position, in the correct lane behind the lorry?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> I don't advocate public corporal punishment for kids, only adults. Anyone under 16 should just have their bike crushed and "I'm a dickhead" tattooed on their foreheads.



I've met people who were forcibly tattooed as children. Wasn't for cycling offences though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 6, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> I don't advocate public corporal punishment for kids, only adults. Anyone under 16 should just have their bike crushed and "I'm a dickhead" tattooed on their foreheads.


Yeh I've seen your scar pa, from where you had it removed


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> I deal with this on a daily basis, and if you're not teaching them that they should *always expect* a car driver to pull out of a side road, then you're teaching them wrong.



The phrasing we'd use is more like, be aware that the driver might not stop. Conveys the same thing without being too negative about it. We also tell trainees to make eye contact with a driver wherever possible. Primary position is relevant here too, if a side road is round a tight corner with poor visibilty, a cyclist in primary position wil be able to see into that side road, and be seen, earlier than if they were riding by the kerb.

And what you call drivers 'not seeing' I might call 'not looking'. A cyclist in primary postion will be clearly visible to any driver who bothers to look properly.


----------



## spanglechick (Jul 6, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> There are guidelines. With parked vehicles, cyclists should pass with at least a 1.5 metre gap (the same gap motorists are expected to give cyclists) as this removes the risk of getting hit by a car door. As for filtering through traffic I'd call it a case of use your own judgement. As well as making sure you've got space, you should be travelling at a sensible speed that allows you to maneuvure where needed.
> 
> I don't think the same rules should apply to bikes and cars on this point though. For one thing it's very unlikely you'll kill or harm anyone (except possibly yourself) if you clip another vehicle while passing it on a bike, but a fast-moving vehicle clipping a bike can be fatal in the wrong circumstances. Bikes are smaller, slower, more maneuverable, have better visibility and are quicker to respond. If the rider knows what they're doing, they can pass vehicles safely at a smaller distance than a car can. But judgement is key. Not wanting to be in this traffic jam right now does not mean I'm gonna start passing cars where it's not safe to do so.
> 
> Speed is a big factor. If a car moves past me in slow traffic, I'm not going to care if they leave me 1 metre instead of the 1.5 it says in the highway code. If they pass me too close at 30 or 40mph though, that can feel like a near-death experience.


It would surely make sense to give moving vehicles a wider berth than parked ones?


The rest of you post is the sort of subjective, rose tinted view of any good Ben road user's skill that we rightly don't accept when tells no drivers what is safe.   Lots of drivers will tell you that certain laws shouldn't apply to them because they are safer than other road users; because they wouldn't endanger themselves and so on...

And of course we have to legislate because some drivers are less safe, and because some drivers overestimate their safety.   It's surely no different with cyclists.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 6, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> ... rose tinted view of any good Ben road user's skill that we rightly don't accept when tells no drivers what is safe.


???


----------



## BigTom (Jul 6, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> I also liked the post.  The reason for me was because I'd been thinking for a while about what Big Tom said: that cyclists have no legal limit on how close they can pass moving traffic.  I'd been meaning to come back to it, and since HV seemed to be raising the topic in one way or another, I gave his post a "like" for bringing the subject back into play.  No more than that.
> 
> And my take was going to be this: shouldn't there be a limit for how close a cyclist should pass moving vehicles? Wouldn't it make them safer? I know cyclists are better able to squuze safely through when they make their own judgements than when drivers imperil them, but sometimes they take reckless chances and the Highway Code is full of rules to save road users from pushing it.
> 
> ...



When you are filtering past traffic, you can judge the risk you are taking in a way you can't when overtaking, and that risk is much lower (and different) because traffic is stationary or near stationary. I don't remember seeing "filtering cyclist too close to vehicles" in amongst the stats for types of collisions - the collision type which are common enough to result in a cyclist death or serious injury (KSI) when filtering are drivers turning in/out of side roads through queuing traffic iirc. Someone who can deal with CSV files could have a look at the STATS19 data and find out how many cyclists injure themselves filtering too close past vehicles Road Safety Data - Datasets
I reckon it's very few so if there was a set minimum distance and everyone followed it, it would not have much of an effect on cyclist safety. The biggest danger (other than the specifics of large vehicles) when filtering is traffic starting to move, not the gap you have between you and a vehicle or between vehicles. In the bus video, the bus started moving and closed the gap the cyclist went for. The national standards would direct the cyclist to slow and drop in behind the bus in that situation (iirc the pickup was waiting to turn right so continuing in the rh lane not an option), because that's what you do when traffic you are filtering past starts moving (ideally anticipating this by looking ahead and stopping in the line of traffic, riding in primary, until it stops again and you start filtering again).
The national standards level 3 filtering is outcome 4  [edit: pdf] (there;'s also a separate outcome about passing large vehicles). Cyclists are taught to filter cautiously. Those who have and follow the training aren't going to be going for marginal gaps in traffic. People who aren't trained or don't follow the training aren't going to follow this rule anyway. Any time on police enforcement on cyclist behaviour should be spent on pavement cycling and red light jumping imo so enforcement isn't an option and with a very small distance defined it'd be really hard to prosecute anyway (easier to prosecute on a general reckless/dangerous cycling charge in my not a lawyer opinion).

I think the biggest reason drivers pass too close (other than not paying attention) is because of an ingrained notion they should not cross the centre line, coupled with having no idea why a close pass is so dangerous - this is why the gutter is such a bad place to ride and why secondary can be effective to get more space because once a driver is crossing the centre line they'll often go further over, and why primary is effective because it forces drivers to cross the centre line in a significant way.
Painted cycles lanes are actively dangerous imo, they direct drivers to pass too close, this Sainsbury's lorry is a prime example of what painted cycle lanes cause, and that's not to mention the aggro you get when you don't use them.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 6, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> The phrasing we'd use is more like, be aware that the driver might not stop. Conveys the same thing without being too negative about it. We also tell trainees to make eye contact with a driver wherever possible. Primary position is relevant here too, if a side road is round a tight corner with poor visibilty, a cyclist in primary position wil be able to see into that side road, and be seen, earlier than if they were riding by the kerb.
> 
> And what you call drivers 'not seeing' I might call 'not looking'. A cyclist in primary postion will be clearly visible to any driver who bothers to look properly.



I've only taught adults, not kids (dunno how kids think/learn tbh) so I'll talk about how using primary position puts you more in the central vision of a driver coming out of a side road, how you don't want to be in their side or worse peripheal vision and about saccades. Not sure that kids would really take all that in (especially saccades).


----------



## mauvais (Jul 6, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Is this what generally happens??


Happens quite a lot.


SpookyFrank said:


> And what you call drivers 'not seeing' I might call 'not looking'. A cyclist in primary postion will be clearly visible to any driver who bothers to look properly.


'Look properly' requires work. Consider the problem of saccades, for instance.

Edit: beaten to it with the exact link


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Painted cycles lanes are actively dangerous imo, they direct drivers to pass too close, this Sainsbury's lorry is a prime example of what painted cycle lanes cause, and that's not to mention the aggro you get when you don't use them.



When they run alongside parking bays they're generally not wide enough to allow you to ride a car door's width away from the parked cars. And when people park in the actual cycle lane, then you're obliged to weave in and out all the time which is more dangerous than simply ignoring the cycle lane and staying in the main traffic lane.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 6, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Is this what generally happens??



Happens enough for it to be specifically warned against in the relevant outcome of level 2 of the national standards:



> Riding in the primary position when passing a side road makes trainees more visible to drivers wishing to exit the side road and avoids the need to swerve protruding vehicles. Trainees will also be less likely to be cut up by vehicles turning into or emerging from the side road,* this is particularly important for following traffic that may turn left across their path.*


outcome 8 of level 2 - passing side roads (PDF)


----------



## mauvais (Jul 6, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Painted cycles lanes are actively dangerous imo, they direct drivers to pass too close, this Sainsbury's lorry is a prime example of what painted cycle lanes cause, and that's not to mention the aggro you get when you don't use them.


Without trying to diminish the real point of the thing, I have to say there's something I don't get about this, and it's whatever lies behind the attitude of 'keep going at full speed'. If that's as dangerous as it looks, and I think the camera plays some tricks here to a limited extent, then don't fucking pedal away exposed to danger for ten whole seconds. I really don't get it. I would hazard a guess it's something to do with YouTube hits and possibly Strava times, but good lord, it's really weird passive behaviour. You see it a lot in this stuff. Well I had a big accident and I died, but on the other hand, I got maximum views and _I showed them I was right_...


----------



## mauvais (Jul 6, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> And of course we have to legislate because some drivers are less safe, and because some drivers overestimate their safety.   It's surely no different with cyclists.


That's not _why _we legislate, that's _how _we legislate. Less safe than what? You're talking about the point at which we consider the risk/reward balance to be acceptable, which is the detail of it, not the motivation.

_Why _we legislate is because of the public risk and actual public harm. There's orders of magnitude of difference between the potential harm from a cyclist's error or irresponsibility (their own death) and that of a driver of a vehicle (many deaths, £millions).

Primarily because of that, with other secondary factors, there is little to no legislation on cycling.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 6, 2017)

mauvais said:


> Without trying to diminish the real point of the thing, I have to say there's something I don't get about this, and it's whatever lies behind the attitude of 'keep going at full speed'. If that's as dangerous as it looks, and I think the camera plays some tricks here to a limited extent, then don't fucking pedal away exposed to danger for ten whole seconds. I really don't get it. I would hazard a guess it's something to do with YouTube hits and possibly Strava times, but good lord, it's really weird passive behaviour. You see it a lot in this stuff. Well I had a big accident and I died, but on the other hand, I got maximum views and _I showed them I was right_...



I just don't think you can make this statement - in that moment you are going into some kind of instinctive shock based behaviour, you are cycling and clipped in so your legs just keep moving as your whole brain is focused on staying straight and whether there's any potholes or surface hazards, and in the case of an hgv like that maybe also feeling pull/suction pulling you into/under the lorry, in which case a base reaction might be to pedal harder to get away from that force / balance it out.
I mean, what you've said is also possible but there's no way of knowing from the outside. I find it hard to believe they are thinking about youtube views at that point (unlike some of the videos where a cyclist stops to shout at a driver where I find it more believable - but even then I know there's no way of knowing from the outside).


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 6, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Any time on police enforcement on cyclist behaviour should be spent on pavement cycling and red light jumping imo so enforcement isn't an option and with a very small distance defined it'd be really hard to prosecute anyway (easier to prosecute on a general reckless/dangerous cycling charge in my not a lawyer opinion).


And therein lies the problem. How are these cyclists going to be caught running red lights? Even if the cameras could be set up to detect it, there's no registration number to take a picture of, and how can points/bans be issued when no license is in place?
Cyclists ride like twats because they know nothing can or will be done to stop them from doing so.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 6, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I just don't think you can make this statement - in that moment you are going into some kind of instinctive shock based behaviour, you are cycling and clipped in so your legs just keep moving as your whole brain is focused on staying straight and whether there's any potholes or surface hazards, and in the case of an hgv like that maybe also feeling pull/suction pulling you into/under the lorry, in which case a base reaction might be to pedal harder to get away from that force / balance it out.
> I mean, what you've said is also possible but there's no way of knowing from the outside. I find it hard to believe they are thinking about youtube views at that point (unlike some of the videos where a cyclist stops to shout at a driver where I find it more believable - but even then I know there's no way of knowing from the outside).


I get it to some extent, it's adrenaline etc - and certainly almost noone in these things is explicitly thinking, 'wooo, this will make a great video'. But I think it highlights two or three things: the behavioural changes brought about by a camera being running (you see this with car dashcams too), the willingness of vulnerable road users to get into conflicts that they could avoid and would certainly lose big time if it came to it, and the unwillingness of cyclists to lose momentum at any cost including their own safety. I see the last one of those especially regularly, and is a massive factor in poor decision making like passing trucks on the left.

I've had much of this stuff happen to me and I recognise both the situations and some poor behaviours. I don't really agree with your assessment of their reaction to be honest - my immediate inclination would be to stop pedalling, maintain control and get out of the danger area.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 6, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I just don't think you can make this statement - in that moment you are going into some kind of instinctive shock based behaviour, you are cycling and clipped in so your legs just keep moving as your whole brain is focused on staying straight and whether there's any potholes or surface hazards, and in the case of an hgv like that maybe also feeling pull/suction pulling you into/under the lorry, in which case a base reaction might be to pedal harder to get away from that force / balance it out.
> I mean, what you've said is also possible but there's no way of knowing from the outside. I find it hard to believe they are thinking about youtube views at that point (unlike some of the videos where a cyclist stops to shout at a driver where I find it more believable - but even then I know there's no way of knowing from the outside).


If you're not capable of making such decisions, you shouldn't be on the road.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 6, 2017)

Further to that thing about video footage,  here's a question for you: why do they have a camera at all? (actually two cameras)

At _absolute best_ it's because if they get into an accident that they couldn't have avoided, and did their best to mitigate the effects of, they will have some evidence - an insurance policy of sorts.

Even if that is purely and honestly the sole motivation, here's a thought: if you had _no_ camera, and no evidence, and were at risk of winding up with a very expensive broken bike that noone's going to pay for, would you be more or less careful on the road?

More likely it induces something more than that, the idea of value in being able to show that they were right, or even the irrational, like wanting to get your money's worth. The funny thing about outraged or accident-based car dashcam videos is the frequency at which they show contributory negligence or often downright stupidity on the part of the filming driver.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 6, 2017)

mauvais said:


> Further to that thing about video footage,  here's a question for you: why do they have a camera at all? (actually two cameras)
> 
> At _absolute best_ it's because if they get into an accident that they couldn't have avoided, and did their best to mitigate the effects of, they will have some evidence - an insurance policy of sorts.
> 
> ...



I usually have a camera as (a) deterrent if driver sees it they behave differently ime and (b) so I have evidence in the event of a collision or incident. I don't think it has any effect on my cycling behaviour, I'm not very good at remembering to keep them charged anyway so don't always have them and I don't think I cycle any differently when I do. front and rear recommended by police for evidence.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 6, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> And therein lies the problem. How are these cyclists going to be caught running red lights? Even if the cameras could be set up to detect it, there's no registration number to take a picture of, and how can points/bans be issued when no license is in place?
> Cyclists ride like twats because they know nothing can or will be done to stop them from doing so.



I don't know tbh but the charges exist for them to be charged with. West midlands police explicitly say they won't do it because they think all their time should be spent enforcing driver behaviour, because that's where the danger is. so it's kind of a moot question anyway.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 6, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I usually have a camera as (a) deterrent if driver sees it they behave differently ime and (b) so I have evidence in the event of a collision or incident. I don't think it has any effect on my cycling behaviour, I'm not very good at remembering to keep them charged anyway so don't always have them and I don't think I cycle any differently when I do. front and rear recommended by police for evidence.


I had one myself once, a long time ago, and aside from it being really shit at being a camera, I did feel it changed my behaviour. To whatever degree, it compromises the fundamental principle of 'don't get into an accident (or an argument) in the first place'. I think it does a bunch of things like breeds/inflates conflict and hostility, especially so once you're inclined to start broadcasting the content to others.

If I ever have an accident without one I might change my tune a little, but even then it's only minor solace after the fact.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 6, 2017)

Main reason I don't have a camera is I don't want an incident that might be forgotten in a few minutes to turn into some endless crusade. The thought of taking video evidence to the police and trying to get them to do something about it is not something I relish. Even posting stuff on youtube is gonna take time and energy I'd rather use for something else.

If the police aren't interested, there's nothing I can do. If the police are interested then stuff like the close pass enforcement west mids plod are doing is going to be more effective than following up every road rage video that gets sent in, particularly when half of them well be either six-of-one jobs or outright cyclist fails like the HGV video posted earlier.

Also if I had the money to spend on bike stuff I would get myself a new chainset and cranks and maybe try and get closer to the impossible dream of owning All The Tools.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 7, 2017)

mauvais said:


> I had one myself once, a long time ago, and aside from it being really shit at being a camera, I did feel it changed my behaviour. To whatever degree, it compromises the fundamental principle of 'don't get into an accident (or an argument) in the first place'. I think it does a bunch of things like breeds/inflates conflict and hostility, especially so once you're inclined to start broadcasting the content to others.
> 
> If I ever have an accident without one I might change my tune a little, but even then it's only minor solace after the fact.



It doesn't compromise that principle if you believe having a visible camera, or just having drivers think most cyclists do, changes their driving behaviour. I know the west minds police believe it does (and also use the fact of their plains clothes op to suggest any cyclist might be a police officer).
I'm not sure about the cameras but from a personal anecdotal perspective, the police operation has made a massive difference to how drivers behave around here, In Feb, they said video submissions had dropped 50% since they started 
Second to that is that by reporting bad drivers, police can intervene and hopefully this will lead to a change in behaviour, preventing future collisions.
Certainly the police think this is happening:



> Much like #OpClosepass, third party footage prosecutions have now become the “norm” for ourselves. The numbers of close pass due care offences we receive have dropped by about 50% since the #GiveSpaceBeSafe initiative took effect on our regions roads, we still get the same amount of red light, mobile phone and other offences via third party footage though, no change there yet!  Ultimately Op Closepass will be judged on KSI figures and the increase in the number of people cycling, and rightly so, but what is certain is that to succeed it must run alongside a good easy to use and successful 3rd party reporting scheme. We believe we have achieved this to the point where offenders are starting to realise there doesn’t need to be a police officer present and witnessing for their offending to be detected and punished, that element of doubt put in a potential offenders mind works wonders, the psychology of offending is a wonderful thing and easily manipulated as soon as the threat of potential continuous detection is introduced.


Climbing Mountains….

In terms of the youtube side of this, I agree with you about it breeding conflict and I think it'd generally be better if it stopped, but I can totally understand people who've complained to police or a company, got fobbed off or no response and turned to social media to get action over some dangerous driving, and it works, so more people will do it, I probably would too.
I think early on many of the cammers genuinely believed that they would improve road user behaviour by making videos about it and posting on youtube. In the face of general inaction by police (as well as specific inaction for some I'm sure) I can understand this motivation definitely even if I never agreed it'd work.
But for sure some of them will have found an identity in this, the whole _more views, more comments, more subscriptions_ etc thing of youtube (and the equivalents of other social media platforms) is totally a reward circuit dopamine-firing addictive type mechanism and if that becomes important to your identity then you'll start looking to get those reward hits. And then other people outside will want them too and that's even worse because they go into it looking for that reward hit. 

The problem is that whether you are motivated genuinely and fully by a desire to improve road safety, and believe that through the medium of youtube public shaming / education, this can be achieved; or if you are a twat chasing a dopamine hit, behaviour will often be the same or very similar. eg: you can't know if the cyclist who catches up with the driver has chased and followed or just happens to be going the same way and there's traffic (or some other reason why the cyclist is as fast as the driver - I know I've caught up to many drivers without chasing). Same kind of thing with telling the difference between someone who is cycling in primary for safety or just because it's their right. 
You'd have to be in their head to know.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Main reason I don't have a camera is I don't want an incident that might be forgotten in a few minutes to turn into some endless crusade. The thought of taking video evidence to the police and trying to get them to do something about it is not something I relish. Even posting stuff on youtube is gonna take time and energy I'd rather use for something else.
> 
> If the police aren't interested, there's nothing I can do. If the police are interested then stuff like the close pass enforcement west mids plod are doing is going to be more effective than following up every road rage video that gets sent in, particularly when half of them well be either six-of-one jobs or outright cyclist fails like the HGV video posted earlier.
> 
> Also if I had the money to spend on bike stuff I would get myself a new chainset and cranks and maybe try and get closer to the impossible dream of owning All The Tools.



I have a feeling west mids police really like the video submissions stuff - I saw a presentation back in March where they said they'd prosecuted over 100 (I think over 200) drivers from 3rd party video footage and not a single one had objected once they saw the video, all took the due care and attention charge. I reckon (and this is pure conjecture, not something they've said or hinted at) that it's good for their stats - they probably don't need or use an officer to do the initial review of submissions, only ones that a civilian staff member thinks might be prosecuted, and then one officer can work through lots of videos in a relatively short time, getting a succesful prosecution from every single one without anyone objecting, no court dates, nothing).
The live operation is superb though, and they've revoked at least two licences from people who failed the roadside eyesight test, along with catching loads of drivers for multiple offences (they mention someone putting a dog back in its cage whilst close passing the police cyclist!), in that blog post they said 99% just get the 15 minute educational intervention at the roadside and respond really well to it, 1% get charged, mostly because they have done something else as well. 

Submitting footage is really easy too, just a form to complete and a submit on a memory stick and done. The met are testing an online submissions portal and once that is out of beta and working, west mids police say they will implement it too. Lots of other forces have started doing close pass operations and I hope your local force (SYP?) do too.


----------



## hash tag (Jul 7, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Cheers.
> 
> I'd get off and walk over the crossing.
> 
> ...



That junction is a nightmare as a pedestrian. There are no pedstrian specific lights or anything to stop the traffic for even a few seconds allowing a pedestrain to cross the road. As soon as one light goes red, the next goes green. This ignores people constantly jumping reds. When you combine this with filters it is very dangereous! I reckon I am quite fit and nimble.


----------



## High Voltage (Jul 7, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Is needing to swerve to avoid a big fuck off pothole due to my inability to ride straight?


Absolutely not, couldn't disagree more - BUT if cyclists, quite rightly, need to have space to allow for a pot hole when they're being over taken . . . then a similar pot hole could be on your "line" when you're lane splitting or filtering or whatever else it is you want to call it when squeezing through a gap in either stationary or moving traffic - you can't have one without the other



BigTom said:


> Is a strong gust of wind from the side that pushes me out my inability to ride straight?


As above - you'll, no doubt, guess where this is going



BigTom said:


> Is swerving round oil or ice my inability to ride?


Ditto



BigTom said:


> What about the driver who forced me up against parked cars with their overtake last night, if a door had been opened, would that be something to do with my inability to ride straight?


Inexcusably bad and dangerous driving from the car driver

I'm really lucky - I don't have to commute through a city and city traffic - what I do have to drive on though is part of the "Mendip Motorway" system - these are long, straight, wide, national speed limit roads - along which you'll sometimes get leisure cyclists - passing a cyclist along these roads is very easy, but, given the disparity in speeds most, if not all overtaking car drivers will give the cyclists a full lane when over taking (i.e., passing completely in the on-coming lane) because a 60mph wind draft could have them all over the shop - it's not just a legal or safety "thing" it's a common decency thing and it's showing concern about the welfare of a much more vulnerable road user . . . ditto with horses (although why the fuck something that can take off of it's own volition is allowed on a road is another matter, but they are so they have to be compensated for)

And then there's agricultural vehicles and their operators . . . CUNTS THE LOT OF THEM  and that's not because they drive particularly slowly . . . they're certainly driving as fast, if not faster than any push bike I've seen - it's the fact that they're wide and extremely difficult to over take safely but as the Highway code also states



> The *Highway Code* asks *slow moving vehicles* to pull in when safe to allow traffic to pass
> Rule 169:“Do not hold up a long queue of traffic, especially if you are driving a large or *slow*-*moving vehicle*.“Check your mirrors frequently, and if necessary, pull in where it is safe and let traffic pass.”



Now if I really wanted to push the button marked "Wind up Cyclists" it could also be argued then when holding primary position, as recommended, it could be possible, in certain circumstances, for a single cyclists to be holding up a not inconsiderable queue of traffic and it could be argued that, as a gesture towards the queue of traffic being held up that the "slow moving vehicle / cyclist" should pull over from time to time - probably not relevant in a city though


----------



## mauvais (Jul 7, 2017)

High Voltage said:


> Absolutely not, couldn't disagree more - BUT if cyclists, quite rightly, need to have space to allow for a pot hole when they're being over taken . . . then a similar pot hole could be on your "line" when you're lane splitting or filtering or whatever else it is you want to call it when squeezing through a gap in either stationary or moving traffic - you can't have one without the other


No equivalence. Again this is the big difference between initiating a manoeuvre and being subject to one.

Potholes don't magically appear from nowhere, you can see and plan for them. But if you're forced to hold a particular line because of other road users, your options are limited.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2017)

mauvais said:


> No equivalence. Again this is the big difference between initiating a manoeuvre and being subject to one.
> 
> Potholes don't magically appear from nowhere, you can see and plan for them. But if you're forced to hold a particular line because of other road users, your options are limited.


Yeh. Your options are limited anyway. obviously.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> When I'm having to tell small children that someone in a car might run them over because they don't think cyclists count as proper road users,



All parents tell their kids that you don't just blindly cross on the green man, you still look both ways in case the car driver hasn't seen the lights. Why on earth would you suggest that the car driver doesn't think of the cyclist as a proper road user? Just to instill a them and us attitude at the earliest age? Pretty fucked up thing to teach kids tbh.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 7, 2017)

High Voltage said:


> Absolutely not, couldn't disagree more - BUT if cyclists, quite rightly, need to have space to allow for a pot hole when they're being over taken . . . then a similar pot hole could be on your "line" when you're lane splitting or filtering or whatever else it is you want to call it when squeezing through a gap in either stationary or moving traffic - you can't have one without the other
> 
> 
> As above - you'll, no doubt, guess where this is going
> ...



I'll come back to the false equivalence in a moment but you've totally missed the point - you said the danger of a driver close passing a cyclist happens because cyclists can't ride bikes properly, they are unable to ride in a straight line. If something happens it's their fault, not the driver, because if the cyclist was able to ride in a straight line there wouldn't be any danger.
My point was that the dangers of passing too close are not to do with the cyclist's ability, and a driver who does not hit a cyclist because they have passed less than 1.5m is does so purely out of luck that the cyclist didn't have to change line due to a hazard in the road. But you think it's the cyclist at fault, causing the danger.

Now about this nonsense.
What Mauvais said but also the two maneouvres are not comparable because of the different speeds they are/should be done at. Let's take a look shall we.

Sitatuon 1) cyclist filtering past traffic jam. This happens most often in an urban environment on 30mph roads simply because that's where you get traffic jams at rush hours especially on approach to traffic lights. Most 20mph roads are purely residential and rat runs aside won't often have queieng traffic. 40mph roads may be applicable but there's almost none of those in Birmingham anymore and I think most/all cities are dropping them to 30mph roads.
The cars will be stationary or near stationary. If traffic is moving more than very slowly cyclists should drop into the line of traffic, taking primary position (quite often towards one side rather than directly in the middle if you anticipate the traffic is going to stop again shortly). Cyclists should be moving slowing unless they can be in another lane entirely to the traffic. 10mph, maybe 15.

Situation 2) driver passing cyclist. Same type of road, 30mph urban road. Driver will most likely be doing 30-40mph, cyclists have a much bigger range of speed, say 10-25mph but probably 15-20mph would cover most people (we'll also assume we're on the flat in both situations). 

Now lets think about what happens when we
(a) have a pothole. In situation 1) the cyclist is moving slower, this means they have more time to react to the pothole, it also means it is easier to ride through the pothole and the need to swerve is hugely reduced. On top of that, the lack of moving traffic around them means that the wider situation is a whole lot less risky because you can anticipate risks much more easily. Further is Mauvais' point that as the cyclist you are in control of when you pass that pothole in relation to a particular vehicle.
In situation 2) both vehicles are moving a lot faster, both have less time to react. Actually in situation 1) the driver doesn't need to react at all really. It is harder to ride through a pothole so smaller potholes become dangerous, when they are not if you were riding more slowly filtering past traffic. Add to that the fact that as the cyclist you are not in control of when a driver passes you, the risk profile becomes totally different.
Then let's look at the consequences should the cyclist need to swerve or come off their bike and be in a collision as a result. In situation 1) they cyclist either swerves into the car, possibly causing themselves a slight maybe serious injury, possibly causing some physical damage to the car, like a scratch or broken wing mirror. There is no doubt on record some incident of a cyclist dying under these circumstances but I bet its a handful of occasions in all recorded incidents. Or they come off their bike and hit the car with the same likely level of consequences.
In Situation 2) if a cyclist is hit by a car (or worse van) driving at 30-40mph there is a very good chance they will be killed. I know the stats are for pedestrians but there's no reason I can think of they wouldn't be equivalent on a bicycle. 45% - 80% chance of death. http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11_10/Fatality_rates.gif
Very high chance of slight and good chance of serious injury to the cyclist. Driver won't be hurt, vehicle may be damaged.

It's basically the same for the other circumstances - when filtering you might come off your bike and fall into a car which will be stationary or moving very slowly. Because the traffic is not moving you are largely in control of timings. When being overtaken you have less control over timings and might get hit by a vehicle moving at speeds which is likely to kill you.
There is no equivalency, and that's even taking out as much of the road type circumstances as possible. If we moved the overtake to a 40mph road or the national speed limit road you mention below, the differences are even bigger.

But lets say there was equivalency, and like spanglechick you think there should be a set minimum distance when filtering (rather than simply a requirement do only filter if there is space and time to do it safely). Let's say this should be equivalent to the 1.5m a driver should leave a cyclist when passing at 30mph.
Risk level based on physics so cars are 1-1.5t, more like 2t for an suv, 2.1-2.2t unladen for a 3.5t van. In a 30mph limit the median speed is over 30mph (53% break the speed limit).
Bicycles are 6.8kg - maybe 20kg, most are 15kg or less. Speeds may be up to 25-30mph on the flat for the fittest/fastest cyclists on the lightest bikes. Personally I find it hard to get over 20mph and 12mph is my average on my commute, and when filtering cyclists should be going slowly, so really not more than 15mph and imo 10mph unless you can be in another lane entirely.
For the sake of simple maths, lets say we compare a small car, weighing 1,000kg to a normally light bike of 10kg. So the car is 100x heavier. The passing driver will also be driving 2-3 as fast as the filtering cyclist, the comparison the other way round is hard because the cyclist (who is being passed by the driver) is going infinitely faster than the stationary driver (who is being passed by the filtering cyclist). Let's say traffic is moving slowly, 5mph, as it nudges up towards a set of lights, just so we can put some back of the envolope maths on this.
So x0.01 for weight, x0.3-0.5 for overtaking/filtering vehicle speed differential and x0.2-x0.3 for the speed differential of the being passed vehicle.
1500cm passing distance for the driver means 0.9cm - 2.25cm equivalent passing distance for the filtering cyclist. And that's assuming a straight decrease rather than something that works on an inverse square rule or logarithmic type scale which physics often does.

So yeah, no equivalence, and anyone who thinks 9mm is enough distance to leave when filtering past slowly moving traffic is an idiot. Anyone who can judge 9mm by eye whilst cycling is a miracle as well.



> I'm really lucky - I don't have to commute through a city and city traffic - what I do have to drive on though is part of the "Mendip Motorway" system - these are long, straight, wide, national speed limit roads - along which you'll sometimes get leisure cyclists - passing a cyclist along these roads is very easy, but, given the disparity in speeds most, if not all overtaking car drivers will give the cyclists a full lane when over taking (i.e., passing completely in the on-coming lane) because a 60mph wind draft could have them all over the shop - it's not just a legal or safety "thing" it's a common decency thing and it's showing concern about the welfare of a much more vulnerable road user . . . ditto with horses (although why the fuck something that can take off of it's own volition is allowed on a road is another matter, but they are so they have to be compensated for)
> 
> And then there's agricultural vehicles and their operators . . . CUNTS THE LOT OF THEM  and that's not because they drive particularly slowly . . . they're certainly driving as fast, if not faster than any push bike I've seen - it's the fact that they're wide and extremely difficult to over take safely but as the Highway code also states
> 
> ...



This is not an issue on urban roads, only on rural roads. I don't think that there is any argument, afaik "vehicles" includes bicycles and bicycles would be considered slow moving on any roads above 30mph limit (steep downhills excepted) I would say. I'd consider myself slow moving on a 30mph limit too, but many cyclists can maintain 20-25mph and peak around 30mph so it's not true for everyone.
Therefore, if traffic builds up behind you, you pull over somewhere safe and let it pass. I don't think there can be any argument about that. Cyclists don't do it, especially those on club rides, but I think the highway code is totally clear on this point.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> In my personal experience it also helps a cyclist to make more sensible decisions if they think of themselves as another vehicle just like a car, as a part of the traffic...



This is how I was taught to think of bikes when learning to drive, it is how I think of myself when I cycle too, I take primary but will move over to let traffic pass as soon as I possibly can and if that situation doesn't arise fairly quickly I will pull over and stop to allow the faster traffic to go by.

If more cyclists thought of themselves as another vehicle like a car there would be less agg. However if cars were zooming around at maximum revs at all times, one hand on the horn ready to let rip at the slightest perceived impediment to their progress it would be fucking carnage out there. Yet this is how these tossbags in lycra spend their entire time in the saddle.

Licensing, registration, identification and meaningful punishments for cyclists who feel the highway code applies to everyone other than themselves would be a start.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 7, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> All parents tell their kids that you don't just blindly cross on the green man, you still look both ways in case the car driver hasn't seen the lights. Why on earth would you suggest that the car driver doesn't think of the cyclist as a proper road user? Just to instill a them and us attitude at the earliest age? Pretty fucked up thing to teach kids tbh.


He's spouting pish again. If he does tell them that, it's another example of him being unfit to do what he does.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2017)

Outcry at ‘disgrace’ of pavement cyclists


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2017)

Punish cyclists who pedal on pavements, readers demand


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 7, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> All parents tell their kids that you don't just blindly cross on the green man, you still look both ways in case the car driver hasn't seen the lights. Why on earth would you suggest that the car driver doesn't think of the cyclist as a proper road user? Just to instill a them and us attitude at the earliest age? Pretty fucked up thing to teach kids tbh.



I don't tell kids that. But there is no good excuse for a driver pulling out in front of a cyclist. I didn't see her doesn't count. Didn't see means didn't look means didn't care.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 7, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:
			
		

> Why on earth would you suggest that the car driver doesn't think of the cyclist as a proper road user?







			
				SpookyFrank said:
			
		

> I don't tell kids that.








			
				SpookyFrank said:
			
		

> When I'm having to tell small children that someone in a car might run them over because they don't think cyclists count as proper road users


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 7, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Licensing, registration, identification and meaningful punishments for cyclists who feel the highway code applies to everyone other than themselves would be a start.



Licensing and registration for cycling would make it prohibitively expensive for many people. It would also discourage cycling generally, which would mean more journeys by car, more traffic, more pollution and more accidents. A massive own goal.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 7, 2017)

It really wouldn't work.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Licensing and registration for cycling would make it prohibitively expensive for many people. It would also discourage cycling generally, which would mean more journeys by car, more traffic, more pollution and more accidents. A massive own goal.



So if cycling was prohibitively expensive people would instead flock to the cheap as chips car for their transport needs? Are you sure you've thought this one through?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 7, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> It really wouldn't work.



Yeah, probably easier just to ban bikes from the roads altogether.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 7, 2017)

Go and read my post again. What I said was that the reason I have to tell trainees that someone might pull out of a junction and hit them is that some drivers don't care about cyclists. Which as this thread proves, they don't. 

My job is not to discourage people from cycling. Someone earlier said I should tell trainees to expect that every driver will ignore them, but nobody should have to expect shit behaviour.

Still,  it's nice to find someone else who knows how to do my job better than I do.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> It really wouldn't work.


much better to have anti-social wankers cruising the country's pavements and carriageways, i see


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 7, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yeah, probably easier just to ban bikes from the roads altogether.



And then the roads would be trouble free I suppose.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Go and read my post again. What I said was that the reason I have to tell trainees that someone might pull out of a junction and hit them is that some drivers don't care about cyclists.



No you didn't, this is what you wrote: 






			
				SpookyFrank said:
			
		

> When I'm having to tell small children that someone in a car might run them over because they don't think cyclists count as proper road users



Which you now seem to be denying, in spite of it being there for all to see. You been out in the sun too much the past few days?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> And then the roads would be trouble free I suppose.


 
There'd be no more trouble between motorists and cyclists, so a decent chunk of the agg would disappear.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 7, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So if cycling was prohibitively expensive people would instead flock to the cheap as chips car for their transport needs? Are you sure you've thought this one through?



Notice how 'prohibitively expensive' and 'discourage people from cycling' are two separate points. This is indicated by the use of the word 'also'.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 7, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Which you now seem to be denying, in spite of it being there for all to see. You been out in the sun too much the past few days?



Let's go back and read it a third time. And let's take some of the words out to help. I have to do (x) because (y). Y is not part of x.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 7, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> There'd be no more trouble between motorists and cyclists, so a decent chunk of the agg would disappear.



And the increased car traffic would cause no problems?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Notice how 'prohibitively expensive' and 'discourage people from cycling' are two separate points. This is indicated by the use of the word 'also'.



Sadly your also was followed up with: It would also discourage cycling generally, *which would mean more journeys by car*

So added costs for cycling would discourage cycling and push people in to cars. That's what you're saying. Wear a hat when you go out in the sun is my top-tip.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> And the increased car traffic would cause no problems?



Why would there be an increase in traffic? People like OU will get the bus.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Let's go back and read it a third time. And let's take some of the words out to help. I have to do (x) because (y). Y is not part of x.



Quite a desperate wiggling there, but no one is fooled.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jul 7, 2017)

I've more than once thought of coming up with a comedy number plate for my bike 

I used to buy a dog licence for 37 1/2p long after most people had forgotten they existed.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 7, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Sadly your also was followed up with: It would also discourage cycling generally, *which would mean more journeys by car*
> 
> So added costs for cycling would discourage cycling and push people in to cars. That's what you're saying. Wear a hat when you go out in the sun is my top-tip.



People need to travel. If you make one mode of transport more hassle, other modes of transport will become more common. This is super fucking basic stuff here, but thankfully it's widely understood by most people. 

But I don't know why I keep explaining myself anyway, when you can come out with ludicrous shit like 'ban all bikes' and don't bother even attempting to justify it. Bikes will never be banned, nor licensed, nor registered. You have already lost.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Bikes will never be banned, nor licensed, nor registered.


or insured


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 7, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> or insured



You can insure your bike if you want.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 7, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> or insured



Or ridden in a safe and orderly manner.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> You can insure your bike if you want.


how many cyclists have insurance in the same way car drivers have insurance, so that if you hit someone you're covered for injuries etc?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> You have already lost.



See, there you go again, off in an adversarial manner. I care about safety on the roads, not battling with other road users. You seem to have a massive issue with the private motor car and have maneuvered yourself in to a position whereby you can try and influence children in your vile ways.  I just want children to grow up to be rounded human beings that know how to stay safe. Because I believe the children are our future.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 7, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> how many cyclists have insurance in the same way car drivers have insurance, so that if you hit someone you're covered for injuries etc?



None. Which is entirely in keeping with the harm caused by bicycles relative to cars.

Bikes actually make people healthier. Both directly and due to reduced traffic pollution. Their net effect on general public wellbeing is positive. Penalising cyclists for the public good is a contradiction in terms.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Bikes actually make people healthier.



snadge's colleague may beg to differ on this statement.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Bikes actually make people healthier.


could you explain precisely how a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian makes the pedestrian healthier?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 7, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> See, there you go again, off in an adversarial manner. I care about safety on the roads, not battling with other road users. You seem to have a massive issue with the private motor car and have maneuvered yourself in to a position whereby you can try and influence children in your vile ways.  I just want children to grow up to be rounded human beings that know how to stay safe. Because I believe the children are our future.



I am a driver myself as I've already said. I don't hate all drivers, only selfish and dangerous driving. It is you who have suggested banning all bikes from the roads, I never said anything about banning cars.


----------



## sealion (Jul 7, 2017)

I wonder how many more people in London would drive to work if there was free parking.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> I am a driver myself as I've already said. I don't hate all drivers, only selfish and dangerous driving. It is you who have suggested banning all bikes from the roads, I never said anything about banning cars.



And I have a bike, but yes, as cyclists seem unable to behave within the limits of the law, for their own safety and for that of those who may have to squish them, best just ban the lot and free up the roads for those who know how to behave.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 7, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> could you explain precisely how a collision between a cyclist and a pedestrian makes the pedestrian healthier?



Can you understand the difference between society as a whole and the experiences of one individual on one day? 

And can you see the problem with banging on about cyclists on the pavement while also sticking up for bahnhof strasse's plans to ban bikes from the road? Bearing in mind you know deep in your heart that bikes aren't going to be banned outright because you don't like them?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> I am a driver myself ...


Gord elpus


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 7, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> And I have a bike, but yes, as cyclists seem unable to behave within the limits of the law, for their own safety and for that of those who may have to squish them, best just ban the lot and free up the roads for those who know how to behave.



Let me know how you get on with that.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 7, 2017)

sealion said:


> I wonder how many more people in London would drive to work if there free was parking.



And we'd only have to demolish about a quarter of the city to provide all this parking.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Can you understand the difference between society as a whole and the experiences of one individual on one day?


right. answering a question with a question makes you look weak. so you can't explain how each instance of such a collision increases publick health.



> And can you see the problem with banging on about cyclists on the pavement while also sticking up for bahnhof strasse's plans to ban bikes from the road? Bearing in mind you know deep in your heart that bikes aren't going to be banned outright because you don't like them?


yeh. please tell me, this sticking up for banning all bikes, where have i said that?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 7, 2017)

If Pickman's and Bahnhof's theories are correct, somewhere like the Netherlands where bike use is far more common must have a far higher rate of deaths and injuries on the roads. 

What do we think folks? Roads in the Netherlands safer or more dangerous than the UK?


----------



## sealion (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> And we'd only have to demolish about a quarter of the city to provide all this parking.


I am talking about parking spaces that currrently exist. There is loads of it if you pay.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Let me know how you get on with that.



It will be a hard battle, with wankers like Boris Johnson involved with the cycling lobby, but restrictions on these outlaws are bound to come in sooner or later. Already helmets are mandated (and the law vigorously enforced) in places such as Australia, not too much of a leap to require registration and licensing. Then we can get round to banning the offenders from the roads and so on.


----------



## sealion (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> If Pickman's and Bahnhof's theories are correct, somewhere like the Netherlands where bike use is far more common must have a far higher rate of deaths and injuries on the roads. lanes
> 
> What do we think folks? Roads in the Netherlands safer or more dangerous than the UK?


Is there not dedicated cycle lanes in Holland ?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> If Pickman's and Bahnhof's theories are correct, somewhere like the Netherlands where bike use is far more common must have a far higher rate of deaths and injuries on the roads.
> 
> What do we think folks? Roads in the Netherlands safer or more dangerous than the UK?



I can remember riding a Dutch bike with registration plates on it. The attitudes that led to are still felt strongly today.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 7, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> right. answering a question with a question makes you look weak. so you can't explain how each instance of such a collision increases publick health.



It doesn't. As I'm sure you're aware. That's how a straw man works isn't it?

There must be someone somewhere who has got themselves run over by an ambulance. Doesn't change the fact that I'd rather live in a country with ambulances than one without.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> It doesn't. As I'm sure you're aware. That's how a straw man works isn't it?
> 
> There must be someone somewhere who has got themselves run over by an ambulance. Doesn't change the fact that I'd rather live in a country with ambulances than one without.


ambulances are insured. by your own admission cyclists aren't. this seems to me to be a bit of an oversight on cyclists' part.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 7, 2017)

sealion said:


> I am talking about parking spaces that currrently exist. There is loads of it if you pay.



Ok let's assume there are free parking spaces for all. Can you even begin to comprehend the hellscape of gridlock you'd get if everyone in London drove to work in their own car?


----------



## BigTom (Jul 7, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Sadly your also was followed up with: It would also discourage cycling generally, *which would mean more journeys by car*
> 
> So added costs for cycling would discourage cycling and push people in to cars. That's what you're saying. Wear a hat when you go out in the sun is my top-tip.



He's not wrong though. The saving in cost of moving from driving to cycling is a big factor in people starting to cycle, take that away and you won't get the modeshift of people currently driving -> cycling (though what spooky was talking about is current cyclists -> driving, both have the effect that 12months down the line you have fewer cyclists than you would have had)

There's all the people who have a bike and a car. Add the hassle of needing the bike licenced and they'll get rid of the bike because it doesn't cover 100% of their transport needs. Think of all the fair weather cyclists who currently drive in winter and ride in summer. They'll be driving in summer instead. Is it worth paying for 3-6 months of use on a bike? probably not for many people so they'll get rid.

I think it's the hassle though more than the cost, certainly there are people who would be priced out but as you said before, they wouldn't be able to afford a car either and would be walking or on the bus (public transport is more expensive than cycling in Birmingham at the moment anyway). for me it's the people who currently split cycling and driving that would stop cycling and drive all the time instead, along with any casual cyclists who might just jump on a bike for a few journeys each year at the moment but wouldn't have a bike to do that if it all had to be registered etc.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 7, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> ambulances are insured. by your own admission cyclists aren't. this seems to me to be a bit of an oversight on cyclists' part.



Getting hit by an ambulance hurts more than getting hit by a bike, and not just because of the irony.


----------



## sealion (Jul 7, 2017)

The cyclists seem so much more civilised in Holland.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Getting hit by an ambulance hurts more than getting hit by a bike, and not just because of the irony.


a meaningless post, like so many of its predecessors.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 7, 2017)

BigTom said:


> He's not wrong though. The saving in cost of moving from driving to cycling is a big factor in people starting to cycle, take that away and you won't get the modeshift of people currently driving -> cycling (though what spooky was talking about is current cyclists -> driving, both have the effect that 12months down the line you have fewer cyclists than you would have had)
> 
> There's all the people who have a bike and a car. Add the hassle of needing the bike licenced and they'll get rid of the bike because it doesn't cover 100% of their transport needs. Think of all the fair weather cyclists who currently drive in winter and ride in summer. They'll be driving in summer instead. Is it worth paying for 3-6 months of use on a bike? probably not for many people so they'll get rid.
> 
> I think it's the hassle though more than the cost, certainly there are people who would be priced out but as you said before, they wouldn't be able to afford a car either and would be walking or on the bus (public transport is more expensive than cycling in Birmingham at the moment anyway). for me it's the people who currently split cycling and driving that would stop cycling and drive all the time instead, along with any casual cyclists who might just jump on a bike for a few journeys each year at the moment but wouldn't have a bike to do that if it all had to be registered etc.




Utter tosh. You'd just have a bicycle entitlement added your driving licence, no hassle, minimal expense. Of course insurance will be a cost, but for car drivers it could easily be added to the annual premium for a tiny fee. The only people who would be against this are those who currently enjoy flouting the law with impunity, not sure why you'd want to defend those fuckers tbh.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> *None*. Which is entirely in keeping with the harm caused by bicycles relative to cars.
> 
> Bikes actually make people healthier. Both directly and due to reduced traffic pollution. Their net effect on general public wellbeing is positive. Penalising cyclists for the public good is a contradiction in terms.



This isn't true. Any cyclist who is a member of Cycling UK (formerly CTC; or any of their community cycling clubs) or British Cycling (or any of the amateur cycle racing clubs/groups) get liability insurance as part of their membership.
Most people who have their bikes insured on their home contents policy will also get legal & liability cover from that.
Many people who have specific bicycle theft insurance policy add on liability insurance (often offered for free as a new customer incentive).

cyclists are not required to have liaiblity insurance. Many do. I cannot find it but I have a vague memory of a survey estimating 70-80% of cyclists have liability insurance (estimated around 90% of drivers are insured).


----------



## sealion (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Ok let's assume there are free parking spaces for all. Can you even begin to comprehend the hellscape of gridlock you'd get if everyone in London drove to work in their own car?


Exactly. No fucker would cycle and my point being-Most cyclists in london only ride to work because it,s free, free to park and nothing to do with keeping fit. Breathing in that toxic shit and getting stressed out has no health benefits.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 7, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Utter tosh. You'd just have a bicycle entitlement added your driving licence, no hassle, minimal expense. Of course insurance will be a cost, but for car drivers it could easily be added to the annual premium for a tiny fee. The only people who would be against this are those who currently enjoy flouting the law with impunity, not sure why you'd want to defend those fuckers tbh.



I could not support a licencing system that meant a driving test was sufficient for cycling. I do not think the training you get to drive teaches you to cycle properly or safely. You are missing fees (or costs paid through increased taxes) for keeping a bike registered with the DVLA. Insurance costs are small for cyclists at the moment but I bet that would change if it was legally mandated. It would all be forms that had to be filled in, money to be paid. Hassle. People wouldn't do it.


----------



## sealion (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Getting hit by an ambulance hurts more than getting hit by a bike, and not just because of the irony.


The ambulance will still give you a lift to the nearest a&e.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 7, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I could not support a licencing system that meant a driving test was sufficient for cycling.



Not advocating testing. Christ, that would involve letting the likes of SpookyFrank in on the act, with his advocacy of red light jumping. *shudders*


----------



## BigTom (Jul 7, 2017)

sealion said:


> Exactly. No fucker would cycle and my point being-Most cyclists in london only ride to work because it,s free, free to park and nothing to do with keeping fit. Breathing in that toxic shit and getting stressed out has no health benefits.



Science disagrees with you
eg: 



> *Conclusions* Cycle commuting was associated with a lower risk of CVD, cancer, and all cause mortality. Walking commuting was associated with a lower risk of CVD independent of major measured confounding factors. Initiatives to encourage and support active commuting could reduce risk of death and the burden of important chronic conditions.


Association between active commuting and incident cardiovascular disease, cancer, and mortality: prospective cohort study | The BMJ

I mean there are loads of studies (I should probably try to find some meta-studies) that show that cycle commuting leads to a lower rate of all cause mortality - ie if you cycle regularly, you are less likely to die tomorrow than if you don't. 
cba to start going into some of the specifics like CVD which is also mentioned in that study I've linked to.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 7, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Not advocating testing. Christ, that would involve letting the likes of SpookyFrank in on the act, with his advocacy of red light jumping. *shudders*



how do you licence without a test? Or have I misunderstood what you meant by licencing there?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 7, 2017)

BigTom said:


> You are missing fees (or costs paid through increased taxes) for keeping a bike registered with the DVLA. Insurance costs are small for cyclists at the moment but I bet that would change if it was legally mandated. It would all be forms that had to be filled in, money to be paid. Hassle. People wouldn't do it.



All these kinds of arguments came out when helmets were mandated for motorbikes, seat belts for cars, the smoking ban etc. People complied and numbers did not drop.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 7, 2017)

sealion said:


> The cyclists seem so much more civilised in Holland.




They have a more civilised environment in which to cycle.


----------



## sealion (Jul 7, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Science disagrees with you
> eg:
> 
> 
> ...


So the fumes gushing from the bus and taxi in front of you does no harm ?


----------



## BigTom (Jul 7, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> All these kinds of arguments came out when helmets were mandated for motorbikes, seat belts for cars, the smoking ban etc. People complied and numbers did not drop.



Not true for mandatory bicycle helmets in NZ and Aus at least (I think everywhere tbh). helmets mandated -> huge drop in cycling and a rise in collision/injury rates. I have no idea how strong the effect would be but it's not going to encourage people to cycle more is it, putting cost and effort in their way.
Also loads and loads of people stopped smoking after the smoking ban - I was working in schools around that time and was told the effect it had on teenage smoking rates was clear and obvious, with way fewer taking it up. Whether that's been verified by time and actual studies I don't know.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 7, 2017)

BigTom said:


> how do you licence without a test? Or have I misunderstood what you meant by licencing there?



I have a TV licence, have taken no test to use a TV. gentlegreen used to have a dog licence, no test to own a dog, (not sure if he had a dog, wouldn't surprise me to learn that he didn't), I used to have a licence for my boat on the Thames when I had one, no test. A person can be licensed to own or use something without being tested. However that licence can be withdrawn for poor behaviour and a penalty applied for use of that thing without a valid licence.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 7, 2017)

sealion said:


> So the fumes gushing from the bus and taxi in front of you does no harm ?



No, the harm is outweighed by the benefits of the exercise.

edit: eg see: Benefits of cycling and walking 'outweigh air pollution risk' in cities


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 7, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The only people who would be against this are those who currently enjoy flouting the law with impunity.



And people without driving licenses.  And people too young to drive. And people with driving licenses who still have a fondness for evidence-based policy.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> And people without driving licenses.  And people too young to drive. And people with driving licenses who still have a fondness for evidence-based policy.



Fuck me you're like some UKIP voter, stuck on a narrow path. Expand yer mind Frank; 10 years old is the age of criminal responsibility in the UK, we can issue driving licences to people aged 10 and over. Under 10's get to ride with no licence.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> If Pickman's and Bahnhof's theories are correct, somewhere like the Netherlands where bike use is far more common must have a far higher rate of deaths and injuries on the roads.
> 
> What do we think folks? Roads in the Netherlands safer or more dangerous than the UK?


Don't be a knob. The infrastructure is completely different. You can't compare cycle use in Denmark and Holland to here.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 7, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Not true for mandatory bicycle helmets in NZ and Aus at least (I think everywhere tbh). helmets mandated -> huge drop in cycling and a rise in collision/injury rates. I have no idea how strong the effect would be but it's not going to encourage people to cycle more is it, putting cost and effort in their way.
> Also loads and loads of people stopped smoking after the smoking ban - I was working in schools around that time and was told the effect it had on teenage smoking rates was clear and obvious, with way fewer taking it up. Whether that's been verified by time and actual studies I don't know.



The latest figures show that in Aus & NZ rates are back up. 

And the smoking ban, I meant it didn't affect people going to the pub as much as was hyped; it encouraging people to stop smoking was pretty much the point of the thing.


----------



## sealion (Jul 7, 2017)

BigTom said:


> They have a more civilised environment in which to cycle.


Exactly and i'd imagine most have used and famillarized themselves with the road system from a young age. They don't just whack on some lycra and off you scoot. I cycled in London for 30 odd years but there was roads i deemed unsuitable and too dangerous to even contemplate using.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> If Pickman's and Bahnhof's theories are correct, somewhere like the Netherlands where bike use is far more common must have a far higher rate of deaths and injuries on the roads.
> 
> What do we think folks? Roads in the Netherlands safer or more dangerous than the UK?


yeh. what theories would these by, frank? more of your inventions i'll be bound.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 7, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I could not support a licencing system that meant a driving test was sufficient for cycling. I do not think the training you get to drive teaches you to cycle properly or safely. You are missing fees (or costs paid through increased taxes) for keeping a bike registered with the DVLA. Insurance costs are small for cyclists at the moment but I bet that would change if it was legally mandated. It would all be forms that had to be filled in, money to be paid. Hassle. People wouldn't do it.



One of the courses we do is for HGV drivers, to show them the world from a cyclist's point of view. Perfectly competent professional drivers with however many years experience don't necessarily know anything about safe cycling, and lots of the feedback we get from drivers on these courses reflects that.


----------



## sealion (Jul 7, 2017)

BigTom said:


> No, the harm is outweighed by the benefits of the exercise.
> 
> edit: eg see: Benefits of cycling and walking 'outweigh air pollution risk' in cities


I will tell my mate that. He was a cycle courier in London that never smoked in his life but ended up with lung cancer.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 7, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. what theories would these by, frank? more of your inventions i'll be bound.



You rubbished my suggestion that cycling has a net benefit to public health and safety. It follows that you believe cycling to have a negative effect on public health and safety.

And just generally you've been in this thread for time spewing reheated daily mail soundbites about cyclists being a public menace.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 7, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I have a TV licence, have taken no test to use a TV. gentlegreen used to have a dog licence, no test to own a dog, (not sure if he had a dog, wouldn't surprise me to learn that he didn't), I used to have a licence for my boat on the Thames when I had one, no test. A person can be licensed to own or use something without being tested. However that licence can be withdrawn for poor behaviour and a penalty applied for use of that thing without a valid licence.



ah, me being a bit dense, normally when someone calls for bicycle licence they mean test as well. You can ban people from using bicycles though anyway, so if that's the point of the licence, there's no need for it. Man who assaulted women while cycling around London is 'banned from cycling indefinitely' - Cycling Weekly
There's also charges that can be brought for poor/dangerous cycling.
So it all exists, but police won't enforce because it won't make any real difference to their KSI statistics, which is what they need to bring down. I don't see that licences changes any of this (at least with a test it means you have to prove you have some level of competence on that day)


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 7, 2017)

sealion said:


> I will tell my mate that. He was a cycle courier in London that never smoked in his life but ended up with lung cancer.



Even if correlation implied causality, you'd still need more than one data point to even establish correlation.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 7, 2017)

sealion said:


> I will tell my mate that. He was a cycle courier in London that never smoked in his life but ended up with lung cancer.


----------



## sealion (Jul 7, 2017)

BigTom said:


>


You can roll your eyes all you fucking want and fuck your stats too.


----------



## sealion (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Even if correlation implied causality, you'd still need more than one data point to even establish correlation.


See my post above.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> You rubbished my suggestion that cycling has a net benefit to public health and safety. It follows that you believe cycling to have a negative effect on public health and safety.
> 
> And just generally you've been in this thread for time spewing reheated daily mail soundbites about cyclists being a public menace.


let's remind ourselves of what you in fact said



i replied, quoting your 'bikes actually make people healthier' and not quoting your 'net effect on public health' bit. are you with me so far? you see how i did not rubbish your 'cycling has a net benefit to public health', on the grounds that i did not address that point?

incidentally, how would making sure cyclists were insured in case of collision with pedestrians or other road users being penalising them?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 7, 2017)

sealion said:


> I will tell my mate that. He was a cycle courier in London that never smoked in his life but ended up with lung cancer.



But let's assume for the sake of argument that your friend's cancer was caused by his time cycling on London's roads. What do we think the causative factor was, motor vehicle exhaust fumes or bicycle exhaust fumes?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> And just generally you've been in this thread for time spewing reheated daily mail soundbites about cyclists being a public menace.


and so many of them are. as i have said time and again on this thread, cyclists running red lights and cycling on the pavement *are* a menace. i am surprised to see you now suggest that that is not in fact the case. you're fucking barking.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2017)

.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 7, 2017)

BigTom said:


> ah, me being a bit dense, normally when someone calls for bicycle licence they mean test as well. You can ban people from using bicycles though anyway, so if that's the point of the licence, there's no need for it. Man who assaulted women while cycling around London is 'banned from cycling indefinitely' - Cycling Weekly
> There's also charges that can be brought for poor/dangerous cycling.
> So it all exists, but police won't enforce because it won't make any real difference to their KSI statistics, which is what they need to bring down. I don't see that licences changes any of this (at least with a test it means you have to prove you have some level of competence on that day)



That man was banned from cycling as he was using his bike as a means to commit sexual assault. It wasn't poor cycling that got him banned. It's like a nonce being banned from the internet.

Police not focusing on poor cycling is in large part down to the difficulties in catching them. In the lorry vid a couple of pages back every single one of those cyclists could have had a penalty drop through the post on the strength of that vid had they been identifiable.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 7, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> let's remind ourselves of what you in fact said
> 
> View attachment 110955
> 
> i replied, quoting your 'bikes actually make people healthier' and not quoting your 'net effect on public health' bit. are you with me so far? you see how i did not rubbish your 'cycling has a net benefit to public health', on the grounds that i did not address that point.



Ok but 'cycling has a net benefit to public health' and 'cyling makes people healthier' are two different ways of saying the same thing aren't they?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Ok but 'cycling has a net benefit to public health' and 'cyling makes people healthier' are two different ways of saying the same thing aren't they?


no.


----------



## sealion (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> But let's assume for the sake of argument that your friend's cancer was caused by his time cycling on London's roads. What do we think the causative factor was, motor vehicle exhaust fumes or bicycle exhaust fumes?


Are you fucking stupid frank ? Tom reckons cycling is healthy, i asked how the fuck is it healthy breathing in all them toxic fumes from buses and taxis, Tom reckons it has no detremental affect.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 7, 2017)

sealion said:


> Are you fucking stupid frank ? Tom reckons cycling is healthy, i asked how the fuck is it healthy breathing in all them toxic fumes from busses and taxis, Tom reckons it has no detremental affect.



Yes and he took the time to provide evidence for his assertion.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2017)

sealion said:


> Are you fucking stupid frank ? Tom reckons cycling is healthy, i asked how the fuck is it healthy breathing in all them toxic fumes from buses and taxis, Tom reckons it has no detremental affect.


one aspect of your point is the depth of breath which cyclists take as opposed to the lighter breaths taken by drivers and pedestrians. this draws particulates and other pollution into the deepest parts of the lungs.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 7, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> no.





So, to clarify, you believe cycling makes people healthier but doesn't benefit their health? Or was it the other way around?


----------



## hash tag (Jul 7, 2017)

How quickly they forget - it is that bad that the police have been called in! 







Cyclist on Wandsworth riverside reminded of speed, control and pedestrians


----------



## BigTom (Jul 7, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> That man was banned from cycling as he was using his bike as a means to commit sexual assault. It wasn't poor cycling that got him banned. It's like a nonce being banned from the internet.
> 
> Police not focusing on poor cycling is in large part down to the difficulties in catching them. In the lorry vid a couple of pages back every single one of those cyclists could have had a penalty drop through the post on the strength of that vid had they been identifiable.



sure, but legally speaking what did they use to ban him from cycling? that must be available, you could do it with an ASBO if nothing else.

Police not focusing on cycling is because cyclists do not cause many KSIs. West Midlands police are explicit about this but it's always been on twitter or in person I've seen/heard the conversations and I'm not trying to search their twitter feed to find it for you. Whether that'd change if it was easier to catch cyclists I don't know.

With that video, it's a bid odd in legal terms, because a left filter arrow painted on the road is advisory unless accompanied by a left turn only sign. So I'm not sure they've actually broken any laws and whether it would come under reckless cycling is not immediately clear to me but I'm not in the frame of mind today to investigate and think about legal bullshit - please no-one take this as any kind of defence of the cyclists in that video, I'm just musing about the technical legal situation and what the police could actually do beyond having words, if they could identify/catch the cyclists concerned.

I waiver around on cyclist registration. I'd like to get a network of segregated cycle lanes built, a comprehensive school training program in place, and then see what behaviour is like and what is needed. atm I think being identifiable would have an effect IF police were to enforce. But I don't think police would enforce because they aren't interested as they will reduce KSIs far more by putting their time into enforcing driver behaviour. So I can't see it actually having that positive effect, which makes it pointless and all the potential negative effects on reducing cycling participation, however small, become the remaining factors.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 7, 2017)

sealion said:


> Are you fucking stupid frank ? Tom reckons cycling is healthy, i asked how the fuck is it healthy breathing in all them toxic fumes from buses and taxis, Tom reckons it has no detremental affect.



 So the fumes are from buses and taxis then, not bikes? OK thanks for accidentally answering my question.


----------



## sealion (Jul 7, 2017)

Amazing the things you learn on the internet sometimes. People don't get lung cancer or emphysema from breathing in toxic fumes.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 7, 2017)

sealion said:


> Are you fucking stupid frank ? Tom reckons cycling is healthy, i asked how the fuck is it healthy breathing in all them toxic fumes from buses and taxis, Tom reckons it has no detremental affect.







BigTom said:


> No, the harm is outweighed by the benefits of the exercise.
> 
> edit: eg see: Benefits of cycling and walking 'outweigh air pollution risk' in cities


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> So, to clarify, you believe cycling makes people healthier but doesn't benefit their health? Or was it the other way around?


this is a new question - rather two new questions  - which don't relate to what you've previously asked.

i get the feeling you don't understand what you asked in post 2839. go back and read it. and read it again until you understand it. then read my answer in 2840 and maybe we can move on.


----------



## sealion (Jul 7, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> one aspect of your point is the depth of breath which cyclists take as opposed to the lighter breaths taken by drivers and pedestrians. this draws particulates and other pollution into the deepest parts of the lungs.


Don't tell frank that he will want a survey done.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2017)

sealion said:


> Don't tell frank that he will want a survey done.


frank is stupid and doesn't understand his own posts.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 7, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> and so many of them are. as i have said time and again on this thread, cyclists running red lights and cycling on the pavement *are* a menace. i am surprised to see you now suggest that that is not in fact the case. you're fucking barking.



To clarify again, is it reckless cyclists you disapprove of, or all cyclists? You seem to be claiming the former opinion while posting stuff that clearly indicates the latter.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2017)

hash tag said:


> How quickly they forget - it is that bad that the police have been called in!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


police cyclists have a long and sorry history of riding on pavements.


----------



## sealion (Jul 7, 2017)

BigTom said:


>


' According to a study ' 
It's also a year old so can we have something a bit more recent.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> To clarify again, is it reckless cyclists you disapprove of, or all cyclists? You seem to be claiming the former opinion while posting stuff that clearly indicates the latter.


perhaps you could quote one of these posts that "clearly indicates the latter"


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2017)

/


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> To clarify again, is it reckless cyclists you disapprove of, or all cyclists? You seem to be claiming the former opinion while posting stuff that clearly indicates the latter.


come on, chop chop - quote one of these posts that "clearly indicates the latter". we don't have all day you know


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 7, 2017)

sealion said:


> Don't tell frank that he will want a survey done.



Yeah I find that evidence does come in handy sometimes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Yeah I find that evidence does come in handy sometimes.


only sometimes: i see - other times i suppose you find it a bit of a burden


----------



## sealion (Jul 7, 2017)

hash tag said:


> How quickly they forget - it is that bad that the police have been called in!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is the same route that leads through to Chelsea harbour and up lotts road and onto Cheyne walk where the lorry driver lost his rag. One load of riders on the pavement and the rest on the road on the wrong side of a lorry.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Yeah I find that evidence does come in handy sometimes.


yeh. let's see some then for your assertion - your post 2853 - that "clearly indicates the latter". i don't want to have to call bullshit on you.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 7, 2017)

BigTom said:


> sure, but legally speaking what did they use to ban him from cycling? that must be available, you could do it with an ASBO if nothing else.



It would be bail conditions or an ASBO. Neither very suitable for motoring offences.




			
				BigTom said:
			
		

> Police not focusing on cycling is because cyclists do not cause many KSIs. West Midlands police are explicit about this but it's always been on twitter or in person I've seen/heard the conversations and I'm not trying to search their twitter feed to find it for you. Whether that'd change if it was easier to catch cyclists I don't know.



It would change as their conviction rate would rocket. A couple of years ago they had a spate of deaths in London which was responded to with a crackdown on bad cycling, was like shooting fish in a barrel. So it can be done when the will is there. The cycling lobby is strong though and for some reason it doesn't want to take some fairly simple steps towards better cyclist safety.


----------



## sealion (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Yeah I find that evidence does come in handy sometimes.


When it suits the rhetoric.


----------



## hash tag (Jul 7, 2017)

sealion said:


> That is the same route that leads through to Chelsea harbour and up lotts road and onto Cheyne walk where the lorry driver lost his rag. One load of riders on the pavement and the rest on the road on the wrong side of a lorry.



This is South of the river, your talking about tother side.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2017)

sealion said:


> When it suits the rhetoric.


yeh but he's not forthcoming when it's evidence to back up his own assertions. then he pipes down and shuts the fuck up.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> You rubbished my suggestion that cycling has a net benefit to public health and safety. It follows that you believe cycling to have a negative effect on public health and safety.


How about a nice inductive fallacy to go with that false dichotomy?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> How about a nice inductive fallacy to go with that false dichotomy?


pa, he's been an awful prig all afternoon. not to mention the most outrageous liar.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 7, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. let's see some then for your assertion - your post 2853 - that "clearly indicates the latter". i don't want to have to call bullshit on you.





Pickman's model said:


> what else do you expect from cyclists?





Pickman's model said:


> more like the noxious fumes emanating from cyclists





Pickman's model said:


> Indicating among cyclists is so rare as to be almost extinct



...just from skimming a few pages.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> ...just from skimming a few pages.


1) this relates to cyclists' behaviour off the road, where so many of them so often refuse to countenance any criticism of other cyclists;
2) this can hardly be expected to be taken seriously;
3) indicating among cyclists is so rare as to be almost extinct. do you seriously dispute this?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> this is a new question - rather two new questions  - which don't relate to what you've previously asked.
> 
> i get the feeling you don't understand what you asked in post 2839. go back and read it. and read it again until you understand it. then read my answer in 2840 and maybe we can move on.


SpookyFrank can you come back to this pls, if you've found someone to explain your 2839 to you?


----------



## sealion (Jul 7, 2017)

'You can't breathe': London cyclists don masks amid soaring pollution

City cyclists are at increased risk of lung injury from inhaled soot


----------



## sealion (Jul 7, 2017)

hash tag said:


> This is South of the river, your talking about tother side.


Yes. the ones that come through lotts road to go along the north embankment. Some on the road and many more on the pavement on the river side.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 7, 2017)

sealion said:


> ' According to a study '
> It's also a year old so can we have something a bit more recent.



You lied when you claimed I said air pollution had no detrimental effect. That's why I posted that. 
A year old is nothing for a study and you've been quite clear you have no interest in studies anyway so what would be the point of me producing one from yesterday?


----------



## BigTom (Jul 7, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It would be bail conditions or an ASBO. Neither very suitable for motoring offences.
> 
> 
> 
> It would change as their conviction rate would rocket. A couple of years ago they had a spate of deaths in London which was responded to with a crackdown on bad cycling, was like shooting fish in a barrel. So it can be done when the will is there. The cycling lobby is strong though and for some reason it doesn't want to take some fairly simple steps towards better cyclist safety.



hmm, yeah maybe it was bail conditions, that would make sense and I agree, neither are suitable for motoring offences, although an ASBO for pavement cycling does seem appropriate. Actually, if you were convicted of reckless/dangerous cycling, a ban on cycling would be suitable as part of bail conditions (assuming it could run as long as a year as in that case). idk really, I think the means are there but the desire is not.

No, I meant the WMP attitude towards enforcing cyclist behaviour wouldn't necessarily change if it was easier to enforce cyclist behaviour, because their interest is in reducing KSIs and that comes from enforcing driver behaviour. I'm as certain as it's possible to be that cyclist behaviour would change if it was felt likely that they would be caught/fined for what they are doing. The will isn't there to do that enforcement though, and I don't think that making it easier to do would change that, maybe it would (semi-automated stuff like red light cameras would seem more likely than active policing), but my feeling is not.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 7, 2017)

BigTom said:


> hmm, yeah maybe it was bail conditions, that would make sense and I agree, neither are suitable for motoring offences, although an ASBO for pavement cycling does seem appropriate. Actually, if you were convicted of reckless/dangerous cycling, a ban on cycling would be suitable as part of bail conditions (assuming it could run as long as a year as in that case). idk really, I think the means are there but the desire is not.



Bail must not be used as some kind of punishment (although it often is), breaching an ASBO can land you in jail, which is a tad harsh for pavement cycling, in spite of this thread.




			
				BigTom said:
			
		

> No, I meant the WMP attitude towards enforcing cyclist behaviour wouldn't necessarily change if it was easier to enforce cyclist behaviour, because their interest is in reducing KSIs and that comes from enforcing driver behaviour. I'm as certain as it's possible to be that cyclist behaviour would change if it was felt likely that they would be caught/fined for what they are doing. The will isn't there to do that enforcement though, and I don't think that making it easier to do would change that, maybe it would (semi-automated stuff like red light cameras would seem more likely than active policing), but my feeling is not.



Really I would like more police on the streets and in their cars enforcing the rules for bikes and cars. All too often you see terrible cycling and driving totally ignored by passing plod. Decent enforcement of all traffic laws would have a significant effect on KSIs, leaving it to cameras doesn't really work.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 7, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> SpookyFrank can you come back to this pls, if you've found someone to explain your 2839 to you?



I neither know nor care what you're asking here. You know full well that you used a hypothetical individual case of one person being harmed to argue against the point that in general terms cycling does more good than harm. When called out for this weak argument, you resorted to splitting hairs over the difference between two broadly equivalent statements.

I think the main reason you won't be drawn on whether you think cycling is harmful in general terms is that you don't have a position you can defend, and are in fact just joining in with a bunch of trolls for your own amusement.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 7, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> I neither know nor care what you're asking here. You know full well that you used a hypothetical individual case of one person being harmed to argue against the point that in general terms cycling does more good than harm. When called out for this weak argument, you resorted to splitting hairs over the difference between two broadly equivalent statements.
> 
> I think the main reason you won't be drawn on whether you think cycling is harmful in general terms is that you don't have a position you can defend, and are in fact just joining in with a bunch of trolls for your own amusement.


In general terms it should be good, for health, for the economy, for the environment... But the general refusal by cyclists to admit it's rep is hurt and undermined by the behaviour of a great number of cyclists and your resort to lying does neither you nor the cause you affect to promote any favours


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 7, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> In general terms it should be good, for health, for the economy, for the environment... But the general refusal by cyclists to admit it's rep is hurt and undermined by the behaviour of a great number of cyclists and your resort to lying does neither you nor the cause you affect to promote any favours



I'm happy to admit (and have done so already) that bad cycling damages the reputation of cycling in general. I would go further and say it puts all cyclists at risk if it causes other road users not to respect the right of people to ride bikes on the road. What I take issue with is this 'great number' of yours. I don't think there is any reason to believe that a majority of cyclists belong in the arsehole category, I just think it's human nature to pay more attention to those who do stupid or dangerous things than those who go about their business calmly and sensibly.

And I know you don't like people drawing conclusions from which posts you like, but there's a single post and then there's a very clear pattern. On this thread you have consistently liked posters advocating violence against cyclists. I'm sure this is all in the very best spirit of fun and games but it's not entirely a laughing matter when you're talking about things which result in innocent people being killed. A friend of mine was killed while cycling, another suffered life-changing injuries. Bikes simply do not represent an existential threat to other road users the way cars and vans do to cyclists. Any measures to make the roads safer must take into account the relative risks involved for different road users, and anyone who claims to want the roads to be safer has got to acknowledge that cyclists are a long long way from being the biggest danger on the roads.


----------



## cyril_smear (Jul 7, 2017)

<iframe src="Facebook" width="400" height="400" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true" allowFullScreen="true"></iframe>


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 7, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> ...best just ban the lot and free up the roads for those who know how to behave.



With further driving tests to be taken every three to five years to make sure everyone on the road _actually _knows how to behave.


----------



## keybored (Jul 7, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> one aspect of your point is the depth of breath which cyclists take


For all that shouting and screaming?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 8, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> With further driving tests to be taken every three to five years to make sure everyone on the road _actually _knows how to behave.



Very much in favour of compulsory continued driver education/testing.

On the licensing idea, BigTom notes that many cyclists also are car drivers. If a car driver also has motorcycle entitlement and speeds the points affect his ability to drive a car. So if you got three to six points for jumping a light on your bike that would have a massive effect on bringing cycling standards up to a respectable level.


----------



## snadge (Jul 8, 2017)

The cyclist that injured my workmate is getting charged with reckless conduct we just heard, workmate has approached solicitor to sue for loss of wages and damages also.


----------



## hash tag (Jul 8, 2017)

This is Disraeli Road, viewed from Putney High Street, SW15. Note the narrow exit, the no entry signs, the traffic lights. This section of this road is NO ENTRY, no exceptions. No plug no entries for cyclists, no cycle paths.

In the course of my work this morning, I had to drive down this road. Would I have been guilty for crashing into the two non-lycra lout, middle aged cyclists that were taking up most of the road while cycling the wrong way of this one way road towards me. What is it that makes them think they own the road and they can do what they like, where they like?


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 8, 2017)

Great Entitlement doesn't trump Due Care and Attention, at least in the eyes of the law. You'd still get done if either of them got hurt by your vehicle. And you can be sure they'd give out the full theatrics...


----------



## lefteri (Jul 8, 2017)

hash tag said:


> View attachment 111004
> 
> This is Disraeli Road, viewed from Putney High Street, SW15. Note the narrow exit, the no entry signs, the traffic lights. This section of this road is NO ENTRY, no exceptions. No plug no entries for cyclists, no cycle paths.
> 
> In the course of my work this morning, I had to drive down this road. Would I have been guilty for crashing into the two non-lycra lout, middle aged cyclists that were taking up most of the road while cycling the wrong way of this one way road towards me. What is it that makes them think they own the road and they can do what they like, where they like?



What makes the drivers who recklessly drive straight at me because they think the road is one way and I am cycling the wrong way down it, when in fact it is two way for cyclists, think they own the road and they can do what they like, where they like?

This happens regularly on Pope's Road, Brixton, alongside the Rec


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 8, 2017)

lefteri said:


> What makes the drivers who recklessly drive straight at me because they think the road is one way and I am cycling the wrong way down it, when in fact it is two way for cyclists, think they own the road and they can do what they like, where they like?
> 
> This happens regularly on Pope's Road, Brixton, alongside the Rec


Wrong thread.


----------



## lefteri (Jul 8, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Wrong thread.



On the contrary, it is precisely about what people have against cyclists


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 8, 2017)

lefteri said:


> On the contrary, it is precisely about what people have against cyclists


No it's not 

Shoo


----------



## lefteri (Jul 8, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> No it's not
> 
> Shoo


 Yoo shoo


----------



## snadge (Jul 8, 2017)

Well, it seems I am having an exceptional time with cyclists atm.

Today I decided to get some fags from the local shop before my drive up to Glasgow for my work and the route I go there is down the main road, turn in for the shop then return to my house up the other street which is pretty narrow and has cars parked up one side, sometimes people park on the 'wrong' side as the road is on top of the cliffs overlooking a picturesque bay, no problem really usually.

Anyway it is a gorgeous day so people are out on their bikes on this road, it's about half a mile long and I'm driving up at about 15-20 mph as there are cyclists in front of me travelling the same direction and cyclist coming towards me as well as a jittery horse and a stressed young girl trying to control it about 200 yards ahead.

I stop to let the oncoming cyclists get past me and then slowly overtake the two cyclists travelling the same direction, coming up to the jittery horse and rider, I keep well back from said horse as I do not want to scare it any more, the 2 cyclists that I had overtaken previously catch me up and stay behind me at a safe distance, obviously letting the young girl get her horse under control and also trying not to make her situation any worse, cue a third cyclist, full pelt, overtakes the 2 cyclists and myself, then undertakes the jittery horse making it almost rear and throw the girl, I turn my engine off and get out in case she is thrown, one cyclist behind me dumps his bike to help also

Didn't even fucking slow down, one of the cyclists behind me took off and chased him for which I thank them for because if he hadn't, I would have, I passed them 2 minutes later and they were having a blazing shouting match.

Wish I had a dash cam, may get one because more and more it looks like car drivers are going to have to protect themselves from fucking idiots ( including other drivers).


----------



## T & P (Jul 9, 2017)

snadge said:


> Well, it seems I am having an exceptional time with cyclists atm.
> 
> Today I decided to get some fags from the local shop before my drive up to Glasgow for my work and the route I go there is down the main road, turn in for the shop then return to my house up the other street which is pretty narrow and has cars parked up one side, sometimes people park on the 'wrong' side as the road is on top of the cliffs overlooking a picturesque bay, no problem really usually.
> 
> ...


Dash cams seem a good idea, if only because of the cheeky cunts and/or 'professional' crash-for-cashers who will make inflated claims if you find yourself involved in the most minor of collisions.


----------



## snadge (Jul 9, 2017)

T & P said:


> Dash cams seem a good idea, if only because of the cheeky cunts and/or 'professional' crash-for-cashers who will make inflated claims if you find yourself involved in the most minor of collisions.



yeah, shit like this.

South Korean man smashes windscreen with HEAD in bid for payout | Daily Mail Online

apologies for the mail.


----------



## T & P (Jul 9, 2017)

snadge said:


> yeah, shit like this.
> 
> South Korean man smashes windscreen with HEAD in bid for payout | Daily Mail Online
> 
> apologies for the mail.


A friend from work literally just tapped the rear bumper of the car in front (with hindsight because it had braked hard to cause it). There was just the driver inside. Then a while later she got a injury claim for the whiplash suffered by the five occupants of the car. Scum of the highest order.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 10, 2017)

Big beefy bastard, clearly spends a lot of time in the gym, on a Boris Bike shouting at the fuzz outside work this morning.

From what I heard he seemed to have run a red light and be somewhat angry they'd pulled him over to have a word in his shell, surprisingly this was leading to him getting a note from the police with some numbers on it.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 10, 2017)

Just going to chuck this out there on a quiet Monday morning

Cycling makes you a better driver for obvious reasons.
Driving does not make you a better cyclist.
All drivers- unless medically unable to operate a cycle- should be required to take and pass a basic cycling proficiency course as paper of their test.

I can see no one wanting to disagree with this at all.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jul 10, 2017)

I learned to drive on a motorcycle - never had lessons


----------



## T & P (Jul 10, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> Big beefy bastard, clearly spends a lot of time in the gym, on a Boris Bike shouting at the fuzz outside work this morning.



Speaking of men on Boris bikes having altercations with the police...


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 10, 2017)

T & P said:


> Speaking of men on Boris bikes having altercations with the police...



Great job.

As we can see from that video, most UK cyclists are also opportunist thieves so it's good to see them being dealt with robustly.


----------



## toblerone3 (Jul 10, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Great job.
> 
> As we can see from that video, most UK cyclists are also opportunist thieves so it's good to see them being dealt with robustly.



I could show you several videos showing that *most* motorists are terrible drivers who should have their licences revoked.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jul 10, 2017)

toblerone3 said:


> I could show you several videos showing that *most* motorists are terrible drivers who should have their licences revoked.



Bollocks.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 10, 2017)

toblerone3 said:


> I could show you several videos showing that *most* motorists are terrible drivers who should have their licences revoked.


Nonsense of course. But there's a (rather unpopular, dreary, and quiet) thread here for that. Perhaps you could liven it up a bit?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 10, 2017)

that is indeed a moribund thread. A zombie thread run entirely on energy freed up by the spattering of bile of its handful of enraged and car envious contributors.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 10, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Just going to chuck this out there on a quiet Monday morning
> 
> Cycling makes you a better driver for obvious reasons.
> Driving does not make you a better cyclist.
> ...


Just gonna chuck this back at you.

How about *all cyclists* should be required to take and pass a basic cycling proficiency course, seeing as, you know, they're the ones riding the bikes? 

Then let's take your idea a step further, and make it mandatory for all cyclists to take and pass a basic HGV driving course, to make them realise why they shouldn't cycle down the inside of one?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 10, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> Big beefy bastard, clearly spends a lot of time in the gym, on a Boris Bike shouting at the fuzz outside work this morning.
> 
> From what I heard he seemed to have run a red light and be somewhat angry they'd pulled him over to have a word in his shell, surprisingly this was leading to him getting a note from the police with some numbers on it.


If he's on a Boris bike he's not a proper cyclist.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 10, 2017)

I can't go for that, Oh no, no can do


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 10, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> If he's on a Boris bike he's not a proper cyclist.


A proper cyclist is one who is trained, who understands road use and traffic, possesses correct equipment and uses it accordingly. 

Therefore 98.73% of UK bicycle riders are not proper cyclists.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 10, 2017)

Was it this thread I was saying how I think WMP like the third party video prosecutions because they result in easy convictions? Just seen this tweet from them - 300 cases and they've just had their first "not guilty" (no details): trial for someone pleading not guilty - convicted



Just posted for no reason except I remember having that convo recently and I thought I'd just post this up for some actual numbers but I cannot remember where I was having that convo or who with!

edit: I was wrong there are details in the link (I thought that was a link to a tweet) and the driver was convicted West Midlands Police


----------



## toblerone3 (Jul 10, 2017)

This thread is an appalling thread full of nonsense and bile.  Is this what Urban has come to?  It seems more like the Daily Mail. Unless I'm completely missing the point and the anti-cyclist posts on here are ironic.  If not.  What the hell is wrong with you all!!


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 10, 2017)

toblerone3 said:


> This thread is an appalling thread full of nonsense and bile.


Bugger off then.


----------



## toblerone3 (Jul 10, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Great job.
> 
> As we can see from that video, most UK cyclists are also opportunist thieves so it's good to see them being dealt with robustly.



So clearly a windup.  You can't really mean this Spymaster. Its beyond stupid. Or is it trolling all the way on this thread.  Why do you have to lie.  Its quite simple to tell the truth.


----------



## toblerone3 (Jul 10, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Bugger off then.



Why don't you fuck off back to the Daily Mail where I would go if I want to wind myself up by reading ill-informed bigoted tripe.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 10, 2017)




----------



## Spymaster (Jul 10, 2017)

toblerone3 said:


> ... the Daily Mail where I would go if I want to wind myself up ...


Well now you don't have to go that far, eh?

Just pop in here and there's pretty much _always_ something that'll annoy you.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jul 10, 2017)

toblerone3 said:


> So clearly a windup.  You can't really mean this Spymaster. Its beyond stupid. Or is it trolling all the way on this thread.  Why do you have to lie.  Its quite simple to tell the truth.



Have you never come across spymaster before?


----------



## BigTom (Jul 10, 2017)

toblerone3 said:


> So clearly a windup.  You can't really mean this Spymaster. Its beyond stupid. Or is it trolling all the way on this thread.  Why do you have to lie.  Its quite simple to tell the truth.



Spy is/has been quite open about trolling cycling threads, tbf he's generally pretty obvious about it and imo there's not usually any doubt when he's saying something trolling or serious. I mean that post for instance, he knows quite well that very few cyclists are opportunistic thieves, we are usually planning stuff well in advance.

If you want some propery shitty comments go and find the facebook post from west mids police about that truck driver conviction  (edit: the one who got done for the close pass in the tweet at the bottom of the last page)


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jul 10, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Spy is/has been quite open about trolling cycling threads, tbf he's generally pretty obvious about it and imo there's not usually any doubt when he's saying something trolling or serious. I mean that post for instance, *he knows quite well that very few cyclists are opportunistic thieves, we are usually planning stuff well in advance.*


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 10, 2017)

BigTom said:


> ... very few cyclists are opportunistic thieves, we are usually planning stuff well in advance.


Once again, Tom, I fear that you're crediting the wider cycling populace with skills that few actually possess.


----------



## maomao (Jul 10, 2017)

toblerone3 said:


> This thread is an appalling thread full of nonsense and bile.  Is this what Urban has come to?  It seems more like the Daily Mail. Unless I'm completely missing the point and the anti-cyclist posts on here are ironic.  If not.  What the hell is wrong with you all!!


It's the worst thread on the whole of urban. Boringly obvious trolling and unimaginative abuse.


----------



## patman post (Jul 10, 2017)

toblerone3 said:


> This thread is an appalling thread full of nonsense and bile.  Is this what Urban has come to?  It seems more like the Daily Mail. Unless I'm completely missing the point and the anti-cyclist posts on here are ironic.  If not.  What the hell is wrong with you all!!


Many like me regularly drive in London and are appalled at the risks to motorists, pedestrians and, yes, cyclists themselves as they ignore traffic conditions, road regulations, and by-laws as they weave in and out of traffic, on pavements,  through pedestrian-only alleyways, etc. I've had my car scratched more than a few times by incompetent and unskilled cyclists as they wobble through traffic and giving the finger to other road users. I'd be happy to support all bikes being chipped so the owner gets fined every time a bike contravenes the Highway Code. I'd also like cycle rider training and testing — though I don't see how that could be accomplished...


----------



## friedaweed (Jul 10, 2017)

Edgy 

WB


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jul 10, 2017)

friedaweed said:


> Edgy
> 
> WB



friedaweed  You know who this arsehole is. Nice welcome.


----------



## friedaweed (Jul 10, 2017)

Rutita1 said:


> friedaweed  You know who this arsehole is. Nice welcome.


No I don't actually I was being sarcastic


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 10, 2017)

My old mum PBUH used to say, ''If you can't think of anything nice to say, just say nothing.''

This thread is like the exact opposite of that.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 10, 2017)

joustmaster said:


> You can't really be surprised that someone had a pop at you, if you're shouting at people calling them idiots.
> I'm amazed it only happened once.



I remembered this post this evening while I was cycling home, for no particular reason, and I want to describe the scene, as yes it was the only time some stupid cyclist actually came on physically to me in all the years I spent being rude to the fuckers, during rush hours as I cycled to and from work across London (way before it was fashionable etc)

There was a bloke who I saw every day who wore what looked like goalkeepers gloves. It was winter. Every day for weeks , I watched this guy be the first one to jump the red light at the north side of Battersea bridge, and be the one who made it OK for other people to do it, like fucking sheep.

Anyway, one morning I snapped and went, _Are you blind or stupid?_ He cursed at me, rode on and the light changed about 2 secs later, so I easily caught him up and said as I got to him, What's wrong with you, you do that all the time. Of course he just said Fuck off, dropped back and I went on, then he suddenly caught back up with me on my off side, and literally tried to push me off - on a busy A road at 8am. Anyway, he didn't push me off, but he raced away. The traffic up Gunter Grove at 8am is crazy and there was a great deal of weaving, and I had to leave it.

Anyway, around Fulham Road I caught up with him but couldn't actually reach him because of all the traffic, but as we came up Warwick Rd I passed him on the far lane and when I came to the main road junction with Cromwell Rd I stopped to wait for him.

Of course, he'd bottled it and I never saw him again. So there, anticlimactic and cowardly. Inspired me to become an even more militantly rude bastard to stupid fucking cyclists. But it couldn't last, I'm no Sisyphus.


----------



## DownwardDog (Jul 11, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> I remembered this post this evening while I was cycling home, for no particular reason, and I want to describe the scene, as yes it was the only time some stupid cyclist actually came on physically to me in all the years I spent being rude to the fuckers, during rush hours as I cycled to and from work across London (way before it was fashionable etc)
> 
> There was a bloke who I saw every day who wore what looked like goalkeepers gloves. It was winter. Every day for weeks , I watched this guy be the first one to jump the red light at the north side of Battersea bridge, and be the one who made it OK for other people to do it, like fucking sheep.
> 
> ...



What were you going to do when you caught him?


----------



## emanymton (Jul 11, 2017)

maomao said:


> It's the worst thread on the whole of urban. Boringly obvious trolling and unimaginative abuse.


Well, that's cyclists for you.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jul 11, 2017)

I never hold back on the local railway path and had a small set-to myself the other month.

The twat decided to sprint race me to the obvious necessary overtake of a pedestrian -I don't recall the details - in the past I've been double-overtaken and had idiots undertake me between me and pedestrian ...

I told him what kind of an arsehole he was and he decided he wanted a scrap - to the extent that he followed me off the path - tried to provoke me by calling me "fat" (true) and "puffing and panting" (comically untrue) ...

Eventually we got to the main road and he came around the side and gently barged me with his bike... I used my usual "are you assaulting me ?" ... he replied that he wanted me to assault him so he could beat me up or something ... thankfully I was in a cheerful mood and treating it non-seriously - he was maybe a few years younger than me but of slighter build and I'm pretty sure he realised he'd over-extended himself so was looking for an exit ...

As we parted company I made a comment about him being the victory of a tiny amount of testosterone over even less intelligence.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 11, 2017)

patman post said:


> I'd be happy to support all bikes being chipped so the owner gets fined every time a bike contravenes the Highway Code.


How would this work? Tranq them and take their bike to the vet to be scanned?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2017)

patman post said:


> I've had my car scratched more than a few times by incompetent and unskilled cyclists as they wobble through traffic and giving the finger to other road users.


pics or stfu


----------



## Artaxerxes (Jul 11, 2017)

toblerone3 said:


> This thread is an appalling thread full of nonsense and bile.  Is this what Urban has come to?  It seems more like the Daily Mail. Unless I'm completely missing the point and the anti-cyclist posts on here are ironic.  If not.  What the hell is wrong with you all!!



For the most part the thread is a pisstake, for the most part.

There is a fair bit of unpleasantness from those taking the joke to far and those who are overly defensive but I just ignore that, it does require skipping a few pages though.


----------



## nick (Jul 11, 2017)

toblerone3 said:


> This thread is an appalling thread full of nonsense and bile.  Is this what Urban has come to?  It seems more like the Daily Mail. Unless I'm completely missing the point and the anti-cyclist posts on here are ironic.  If not.  What the hell is wrong with you all!!



It's a massive trollfest - but very entertaining. Akin to picking at a scab, it's hard to resist taking a peek at it every now and then


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 11, 2017)

What are cyclist views on brexit ? That's the real issue here.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 11, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> What are cyclist views on brexit ? That's the real issue here.


What do you think?

They're all UKIP voters, ffs.


----------



## nick (Jul 11, 2017)

Brexit?
Those rules don't apply to us


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 11, 2017)

DownwardDog said:


> What were you going to do when you caught him?



I wanted to ask him why he thought it was ok to push someone off their bike on a busy road, and get him to apologise. Or maybe I just wanted to push his face into the pavement, my emotions were pretty confused at the time. 

In any case, the cowardly shit rode away from either consequence.


----------



## toblerone3 (Jul 11, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> What do you think?
> 
> They're all UKIP voters, ffs.


 
UKIP policies on cycling below. Basically this thread is UKIP on wheels especially when cyclists cause "unacceptable delays to traffic".

0.2 We believe that there needs to be a better balance of rights and responsibilities for pedal cyclists, with too much aggressive abuse of red lights, pedestrian crossings and a lack of basic safety and road courtesy.

10.6 UKIP would consult on the desirability of minimum third party liability insurance cover for cyclists - a simple annual flat rate registration ‘Cycledisc’, stuck to the bicycle frame, to cover damage to cars and others, which are currently unprotected. The Cycledisc should also carry clear identification details, which will help counter bicycle theft, and deter dangerous cyclist behaviour. We support provision of cycle parking at
reasonable charges.

10.7 UKIP believes that basic cycle and safety training should be made mandatory, and be funded in schools or via local authorities. UKIP supports the campaign work of national cycling organisations.

10.9 Local authorities should be given additional powers to enforce a ‘cyclists dismount’ or ‘no cycling’ regulation where there are safety concerns – such as on busy roundabouts, junctions or bus lanes, or where the road would be too narrowed by cycle lanes and cause
unacceptable delays to traffic


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2017)

toblerone3 said:


> UKIP policies on cycling below. Basically this thread is UKIP on wheels especially when cyclists cause "unacceptable delays to traffic".
> 
> 0.2 We believe that there needs to be a better balance of rights and responsibilities for pedal cyclists, with too much aggressive abuse of red lights, pedestrian crossings and a lack of basic safety and road courtesy.
> 
> ...


tl;dr. are you agreeing with Spymaster or not? give us the executive summary, toblerone3


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 11, 2017)

toblerone3 said:


> UKIP policies on cycling below.
> 
> 0.2 We believe that there needs to be a better balance of rights and responsibilities for pedal cyclists, with too much aggressive abuse of red lights, pedestrian crossings and a lack of basic safety and road courtesy.
> 
> ...


Well ... a stopped clock ... etc


----------



## joustmaster (Jul 11, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Well ... a stopped clock ... etc


worse than hitler


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 11, 2017)

Cyclists should not rest until this reaches 100 pages.


----------



## sealion (Jul 11, 2017)

No drugs in this bloke at all


----------



## sealion (Jul 12, 2017)

The saftey helmet he was obviously wearing fucked his hair up a bit.


----------



## fishfinger (Jul 12, 2017)

sealion said:


> View attachment 111188
> 
> No drugs in this bloke at all


Unfortunately, it's just police propaganda

Local officer explains how Barry Larry Terry and his raccoon became a social media sensation


----------



## mauvais (Jul 12, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Well ... a stopped clock ... etc


Ah yes, the old English saying, "a stopped clock that has a racist cuckoo in it which pops out throughout the day at inconsistent intervals to squawk, 'kick out all the fucking blacks' is err actually oh it is wrong all the time"


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 14, 2017)

Clearly the cyclists fault here


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Jul 17, 2017)

Meanwhile in the Peak District this week


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2017)




----------



## cupid_stunt (Jul 17, 2017)




----------



## nick (Jul 17, 2017)

#2949 = Divine retribution for going through that pedestrian crossing when the lights were against and there were two people crossing.

(though I hope there were no serious injuries)


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


>




The Queens Guards vid that's attached to that is brilliant.

The soldier shouting at the kid on the fence is fucking classic !!!


----------



## Brainaddict (Jul 17, 2017)

Someone did a load of research to explain the answer to this thread New study looks at attitudes of drivers toward cyclists, and it ain't pretty


> In the model of pressure to overtake, only age, social dominance, and legitimacy were significant predictors. The social dominance scale had the highest standardized coefficient. This factor scale reflects anger at bicyclist rulebreaking, willingness to excuse drivers’ rule-breaking, and perhaps most importantly, the belief that bicyclists should not hold up traffic. This suggests that drivers’ own feelings about bicyclists not holding up traffic may cause them to perceive, real or not, that drivers behind them are angry if they do not overtake. Another possibility is that they get angry when drivers in front of them do not pass bicyclists, and so they assume other drivers feel the same. ... Although roadway legitimacy is modelled as the predictor of overtaking pressure, it is possible that the relationship goes the other direction – drivers who feel pressure to overtake may see bicyclist licensing and registration as a way to control bicyclists or make them behave.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2017)

Brainaddict said:


> Someone did a load of research to explain the answer to this thread New study looks at attitudes of drivers toward cyclists, and it ain't pretty


pity they didn't look at e.g. pedestrians' attitudes towards cyclists.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 17, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> The Queens Guards vid that's attached to that is brilliant.
> 
> The soldier shouting at the kid on the fence is fucking classic !!!




What makes people think it's a good idea to fuck around with an armed soldier?

Cyclists, every single one of 'em.


----------



## hash tag (Jul 19, 2017)

Cyclist shows off legs after 16 days of Tour de France and people are horrified


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 19, 2017)

Breastfeeding mother made to stand on C2C train - BBC News



> A woman forced to breastfeed her baby while standing up on a packed train says she was left feeling "intimidated and uncomfortable".
> 
> Bryony Esther, 32, from Leigh-on-Sea, was on a C2C service when 15-month-old baby Saffron awoke and needed feeding.
> 
> ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 19, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Cyclist shows off legs after 16 days of Tour de France and people are horrified
> 
> View attachment 111630
> 
> View attachment 111631


this goes some way towards explaining those auld trousers modelled here by mussolini


----------



## hash tag (Jul 19, 2017)

Greipel's trunks would not fit in those trousers!


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 19, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Breastfeeding mother made to stand on C2C train - BBC News


I'm torn between hating the cyclist and hating the mother for calling her child Saffron


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 19, 2017)

Not much of a cyclist if he had to get the train.


----------



## Shechemite (Jul 19, 2017)

Cyclists being dicks on trains could fill a new thread tbh


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 19, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> I'm torn between hating the cyclist and hating the mother for calling her child Saffron



She's from Leigh-on-Sea in Essex, Saffron Walden is in Essex, probably got knocked up in the bogs on the high street, so it's a bit like Brooklyn Beckham and that.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 19, 2017)

Saffron is a lovely name. Judging people by their names. Typical motorist behaviour


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 19, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Saffron is a lovely name. Judging people by their names. Typical motorist behaviour


Yeh you'd never do that


----------



## sealion (Jul 19, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> so it's a bit like Brooklyn Beckham and that.


If only David and posh had visited and stayed in Peckham


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 20, 2017)

Ride London is happening on 30th July, another day of utter disruption to the good people of Surrey so these people can get their jollies pretending they are Bradley Wiggins. 

Here's what some of those good people of the fair county think of it all...


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 20, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Saffron is a lovely name. Judging people by their names. Typical motorist behaviour



My Bike is called Saffron


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 20, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Ride London is happening on 30th July, another day of utter disruption to the good people of Surrey so these people can get their jollies pretending they are Bradley Wiggins.
> 
> Here's what some of those good people of the fair county think of it all...
> *snip*



If there's anything more beautifully British than angry nimby Commuter belt types...I've not seen it.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 20, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> ...good people of Surrey...



Interesting use of a plural there.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 21, 2017)

They'll be busy...


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 21, 2017)

100!


----------



## High Voltage (Jul 21, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> 100!



And we've barely scratched the surface of the question asked in the OP


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 21, 2017)




----------



## souljacker (Jul 21, 2017)

High Voltage said:


> And we've barely scratched the surface of the question asked in the OP



I think it's pretty clear what people have against cyclists. They hold up twats which makes twats really angry.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jul 21, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> They'll be busy...View attachment 111805



Nothing in that about going after crazy cyclists.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 21, 2017)

souljacker said:


> I think it's pretty clear what people have against cyclists. They hold up twats which makes twats really angry.



They also break traffic rules twats would dearly love to break but can't because they have a registration number attached to their twatmobile. And they don't pay vehicle duty, which is a mainstay of twat envy.


----------



## joustmaster (Jul 21, 2017)

cupid_stunt said:


> Nothing in that about going after crazy cyclists.


We don't have number plates, and we can sneak off down pavements, so we are a lot harder to catch.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 22, 2017)

*What have people got against cyclists?*

The three week highlight of their drugfest ends in Paris tomorrow, the pinnacle of cycling and it makes WWF looks like a fair go.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 22, 2017)




----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 22, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> They'll be busy...View attachment 111805


Following Birminghams lead there


----------



## High Voltage (Jul 23, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> *What have people got against cyclists?*
> 
> The three week highlight of their drugfest ends in Paris tomorrow, the pinnacle of cycling and it makes WWF looks like a fair go.



I believe someone on urban likened professional cycling to being like competitive raving. In as much as the one who took the most drugs wins.


----------



## maomao (Jul 23, 2017)

The lovely cyclist who passed me halfway through the Greenwich foot tunnel this morning pressed the lift down button before he got out of it at the top so the lift doors opened as if by magic when I walked up to it.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 23, 2017)

.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 23, 2017)

maomao said:


> The lovely cyclist who passed me halfway through the Greenwich foot tunnel this morning pressed the lift down button before he got out of it at the top so the lift doors opened as if by magic when I walked up to it.



The same Geenwich foot tunnel where it is against the law to cycle through?


----------



## maomao (Jul 23, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The same Geenwich foot tunnel where it is against the law to cycle through?


No not that one. The one that has restrictions on cycling at certain times of day and a very clear light up sign in the middle of the tunnel for when it's not allowed. Don't know where the one you're talking about is tbh.


----------



## maomao (Jul 23, 2017)

And where did I say he cycled past me? He might have pushed his bike past me.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 23, 2017)

maomao said:


> And where did I say he cycled past me? He might have pushed his bike past me.



He cycled when he shouldn't have. That's a given.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 23, 2017)

And whilst we're at it, the lanes of Surrey are proper clogged today with twats acting out La Tour


----------



## sealion (Jul 23, 2017)

maomao said:


> No not that one. The one that has restrictions on cycling at certain times of day and a very clear light up sign in the middle of the tunnel for when it's not allowed. Don't know where the one you're talking about is tbh.


You cannot cycle in either of them.
Opening times and access - Foot tunnels - Greenwich


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 23, 2017)

sealion said:


> You cannot cycle in either of them.
> Opening times and access - Foot tunnels - Greenwich


You can


----------



## sealion (Jul 23, 2017)

Greenwich Foot Tunnel - BikeRadar Forum


----------



## maomao (Jul 23, 2017)

sealion said:


> You cannot cycle in either of them.
> Opening times and access - Foot tunnels - Greenwich


Why is there a sign that tells cyclists to dismount when it's busy but not when it's quiet then? 

I tend to use it very early Sunday mornings and have never seen anyone else on foot to tell the truth. It's primarily a cycling tunnel.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 23, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> You can



Yes, in the same way you can jump red lights, ride on pavements, dress like a ninja and so on; by having a flagrant disregard for the law, like all cyclists do.


----------



## maomao (Jul 23, 2017)

sealion said:


> Greenwich Foot Tunnel - BikeRadar Forum


That's 2013. Theres a new sign and new rules. I was there this morning.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 23, 2017)

maomao said:


> Why is there a sign that tells cyclists to dismount when it's busy but not when it's quiet then?
> 
> .



Because they are aware they are dealing with a section of society that feel they are above the law, so are trying to mitigate the damage these law breakers wreak.


----------



## maomao (Jul 23, 2017)

Greenwich & Woolwich foot tunnels go smart | Tower Hamlets Wheelers


----------



## sealion (Jul 23, 2017)

maomao said:


> Why is there a sign that tells cyclists to dismount when it's busy but not when it's quiet then?
> 
> I tend to use it very early Sunday mornings and have never seen anyone else on foot to tell the truth. It's primarily a cycling tunnel.


It clearly states no cycling.
*Crossing the river by bike*
*Foot tunnels, cable car and river services*
You can walk your bike through the Greenwich and Woolwich foot tunnels but not cycle through the tunnels.


----------



## sealion (Jul 23, 2017)

maomao said:


> Greenwich & Woolwich foot tunnels go smart | Tower Hamlets Wheelers


Thats a cycling blog. Wht does Greenwich council say you can't cycle in the tunnel ?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 23, 2017)

maomao said:


> Why is there a sign that tells cyclists to dismount when it's busy but not when it's quiet then?
> 
> I tend to use it very early Sunday mornings and have never seen anyone else on foot to tell the truth. It's primarily a cycling tunnel.



Peds have been scared off by the reckless louts on their bikes


----------



## sealion (Jul 23, 2017)

maomao said:


> Greenwich & Woolwich foot tunnels go smart | Tower Hamlets Wheelers


Thats out of date too !


----------



## maomao (Jul 23, 2017)

sealion said:


> Thats out of date too !


The sign is still there.


----------



## sealion (Jul 23, 2017)

They are foot tunnels ffs.


----------



## maomao (Jul 23, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Peds have been scared off by the reckless louts on their bikes


A cyclist in Greenwich foot tunnel this morning. Notice all the pedestrians jumping out of his way:


----------



## maomao (Jul 23, 2017)

sealion said:


> They are foot tunnels ffs.


Bicycles are powered by feet. Pedal, pedestrian, same root.


----------



## sealion (Jul 23, 2017)

maomao said:


> Bicycles are powered by feet. Pedal, pedestrian, same root.


You win.


----------



## maomao (Jul 23, 2017)

So when you car scum are driving down the road do you take your cues from the signage on the road or do you refer to the relevant council's website? There must be a note on Havering council's website saying the lights at the junction of Exchange Street and Waterloo Road in Romford are to be ignored because I see cars running the Northbound red _every fucking day_.


----------



## sealion (Jul 23, 2017)

maomao said:


> So when you car scum are driving


I have previously stated on this thread that i don't drive nor own a car.


----------



## maomao (Jul 23, 2017)

sealion said:


> I have previously stated on this thread that i don't drive nor own a car.


Then the question wasn't addressed to you then was it.


----------



## sealion (Jul 23, 2017)

maomao said:


> see cars running the Northbound red _every fucking day_.


But not through a foot tunnel designed for pedestrians.


----------



## sealion (Jul 23, 2017)

maomao said:


> Then the question wasn't addressed to you then was it.


I can see why you have issues with cars when you call users of them scum. You must get angry every time you see one. Not good for the mindset out on a dangerous road or foot tunnel and cycling in a rage.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 23, 2017)

maomao said:


> Bicycles are powered by feet.



Ehrm, my right foot makes my car go faster...


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 23, 2017)

maomao said:


> A cyclist in Greenwich foot tunnel this morning. Notice all the pedestrians jumping out of his way:
> View attachment 111926



Yeah, forced on to the DLR as walking has been made  too dangerous by law breaking cyclists.


----------



## maomao (Jul 23, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Ehrm, my right foot makes my car go faster...


Not part of the drive train as such though. Unless you bought your car off someone called Fred or Barney.


----------



## maomao (Jul 23, 2017)

sealion said:


> I can see why you have issues with cars when you call users of them scum. You must get angry every time you see one. Not good for the mindset out on a dangerous road or foot tunnel and cycling in a rage.


Missed this. I no longer cycle. I'm a pedestrian.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 23, 2017)

maomao said:


> Missed this. I no longer cycle. I'm a pedestrian.


TFFT


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 23, 2017)

maomao said:


> So when you car scum are driving down the road do you take your cues from the signage on the road or do you refer to the relevant council's website? There must be a note on Havering council's website saying the lights at the junction of Exchange Street and Waterloo Road in Romford are to be ignored because I see cars running the Northbound red _every fucking day_.


I would be greatly concerned by people using the Internet while driving.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 23, 2017)

maomao said:


> Missed this. I no longer cycle. I'm a pedestrian.


Thank you for increasing safety on the roads and pavements


----------



## sealion (Jul 23, 2017)

Filmed in june 2017. 1 minute 44 secs in.


----------



## maomao (Jul 23, 2017)

If I'd read that I wouldn't have coughed up those greenest and taken that dump. 

Bit of an antique sign there. Really not sure anyone gives a fuck at 6 on a Sunday morning.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 23, 2017)

maomao said:


> Bit of an antique sign there. Really not sure anyone gives a fuck at 6 on a Sunday morning.



So it'll be cool for me to let the dog off her lead down there, chase a few cyclists and give 'em a friendly bite?


----------



## maomao (Jul 23, 2017)

,


Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So it'll be cool for me to let the dog off her lead down there, chase a few cyclists and give 'em a friendly bite?


That doesn't follow. Dogs okay, as long as owners responsible for their behaviour as people riding bicycles are for their own.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 23, 2017)

maomao said:


> ,
> 
> That doesn't follow. Dogs okay, as long as owners responsible for their behaviour as people riding bicycles are for their own.



Sign says dog's on leads, cyclists on feet. If it is OK for one group to ignore the sign cos it's old, others should be able to disgregard the rules too...


----------



## maomao (Jul 23, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Sign says dog's on leads, cyclists on feet. If it is OK for one group to ignore the sign cos it's old, others should be able to disgregard the rules too...


Yes and you're building a big strawman by saying that dogs off leads inevitably leads to assaults on cyclists. I'm saying it's all good as long as it's clear that everyone is responsible for their actions.

And I'm reserving judgement on the rules till I've had a proper look at the signage. Probably next Sunday but if not then it won't be for weeks. It's certainly not prominently displayed and on recent occasions the electronic sign has indicated cycling is allowed. I use the tunnel regularly. 

You'll probably have jumped loads of red lights (it wasn't safe to stop!) and broken the speed limit loads of times (33 in a 30s not really speeding/ everyone else does it so it would be more dangerous not to speed/ those speed cameras are just money making operations) in the meantime but you just keep telling yourself it's okay for you and not for them.


----------



## maomao (Jul 23, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse How many points have you been awarded on your license since you first passed your test? How many punishment courses have you had to do?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 23, 2017)

One punishment course

7 points.

Passed one month after turning 17, turn 45 next month.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 23, 2017)

maomao said:


> Yes and you're building a big strawman by saying that dogs off leads inevitably leads to assaults on cyclists. I'm saying it's all good as long as it's clear that everyone is responsible for their actions.
> 
> And I'm reserving judgement on the rules till I've had a proper look at the signage. Probably next Sunday but if not then it won't be for weeks. It's certainly not prominently displayed and on recent occasions the electronic sign has indicated cycling is allowed. I use the tunnel regularly.
> 
> You'll probably have jumped loads of red lights (it wasn't safe to stop!) and broken the speed limit loads of times (33 in a 30s not really speeding/ everyone else does it so it would be more dangerous not to speed/ those speed cameras are just money making operations) in the meantime but you just keep telling yourself it's okay for you and not for them.




Not really, I said it would be my dog that would attack cyclists, can't speak for any other dog. My dog has class.


----------



## maomao (Jul 23, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Not really, I said it would be my dog that would attack cyclists, can't speak for any other dog. My dog has class.


So you're an irresponsible dog owner and irresponsible driver. I haven't denied the existence of irresponsible cyclists. All I've said is that cyclists often do nice things and that if they aren't allowed to cycle through the Greenwich foot tunnel at quiet times (and I honestly believe they are) then they should be.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 23, 2017)

maomao said:


> So you're an irresponsible dog owner and irresponsible driver.



You say this like it's a bad thing


----------



## keybored (Jul 23, 2017)

maomao said:


> So you're an irresponsible dog owner and irresponsible driver.



He's an Audi driver, 7 points in almost 30 years is practically sainthood territory.


----------



## joustmaster (Jul 23, 2017)

I've cycled through that foot tunnel a good number of times. Before and after it was legal.

Ragingly drunk at high speed at 3am is fantastic fun.

Carrying the bike up all the stairs because the lift is fucked is no fun.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 23, 2017)

joustmaster said:


> Carrying the bike up all the stairs because the lift is fucked is no fun.


Not so bad with a nice light road bike


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 23, 2017)




----------



## joustmaster (Jul 23, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Not so bad with a nice light road bike


My road bike is a steal war horse from the late 80s.
I need the exercise, to be fair.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 23, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Not so bad with a nice light road bike





joustmaster said:


> I've cycled through that foot tunnel a good number of times. Before and after it was legal.
> 
> Ragingly drunk at high speed at 3am is fantastic fun.
> 
> Carrying the bike up all the stairs because the lift is fucked is no fun.




Revelling in their criminality.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 23, 2017)

Just like all those motorists and their points and their speed camera apps.


----------



## joustmaster (Jul 23, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Revelling in their criminality.


you should see me at a red light


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 23, 2017)

joustmaster said:


> you should see me at a red light



How much do you charge for a blow job?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 23, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Just like all those motorists and their points and their speed camera apps.


So cyclists *are* as bad as motorists


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 23, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> So cyclists *are* as bad as motorists


Yes, they're humans


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 23, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Yes, they're humans


Yeh yeh. So either you're lying now, you were lying earlier in the thread or - my favourite - you've not been at all truthful


----------



## sealion (Jul 23, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> How much do you charge for a blow job?


Depends if he's using his head cam or not.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 23, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh yeh. So either you're lying now, you were lying earlier in the thread or - my favourite - you've not been at all truthful


I always tell the truth, but truth varies.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 23, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> I always tell the truth, but truth varies.


At best you're economical with it


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 23, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> At best you're economical with it


Shit off, Mr Black Pot
This thread is full of lies, hyperbole and misrepresentation. I think possibly only BigTom has refrained from such.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 23, 2017)

I've been entirely truthful, there's no point in lying on a web forum where I'm as good as anonymous.

Can't say I haven't quaffed from the chalice of hyperbole though. Always a tasty draught, that one.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 23, 2017)

For example anyone who says 'all Xs do Y'  is lying. Everyone knows this.


----------



## joustmaster (Jul 23, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> How much do you charge for a blow job?


All dressed up in my lycra shorts, with my beer belly hanging out from under my lycra top.
You know you fucking want it.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> So cyclists *are* as bad as motorists
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Objection, your honour. The statement assumes facts not in evidence.


----------



## maomao (Jul 24, 2017)

keybored said:


> He's an Audi driver, 7 points in almost 30 years is practically sainthood territory.


Just demonstrates how normal it is for drivers to break the law. I was a professional cyclist (courier) in London for several years and a commuting cyclist for many more and have never been charged with a traffic offense of any kind*.

*I was once arrested for but not charged with criminal damage for an offense that allegedly took place on the road. But I wasn't breaking the highway code at the time. And the whole business was started by a car running a red light.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Shit off, Mr Black Pot
> This thread is full of lies, hyperbole and misrepresentation. I think possibly only BigTom has refrained from such.


I'm only looking at your contributions atm chuck


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> Just demonstrates how normal it is for drivers to break the law. I was a professional cyclist (courier) in London for several years and a commuting cyclist for many more and have never been charged with a traffic offense of any kind*.



Another compelling argument for registration and licensing for bikes and cyclists.


----------



## maomao (Jul 24, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Another compelling argument for registration and licensing for bikes and cyclists.


Why? I did most of my cycling in one of the most heavily policed areas in the world. The only time I was ever stopped was either for trying to chain my bike to government buildings or for allegedly smashing in the back window of a red-light jumping driver's car. If my cycling was dangerous or in breech of the highway code I don't think the lack of a cycling license would have prevented them from telling me about it.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> Why? I did most of my cycling in one of the most heavily policed areas in the world. The only time I was ever stopped was either for trying to chain my bike to government buildings or for allegedly smashing in the back window of a red-light jumping driver's car. If my cycling was dangerous or in breech of the highway code I don't think the lack of a cycling license would have prevented them from telling me about it.



The lack of enforcement of the law is one of the reasons these people feel they can ride with impunity. On the rare occasions the stretched police service do concentrate their efforts on these menaces it's like shooting fish in barrel: Cyclists hit with 15,800 fines in a year as police clamp down on


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> I'm only looking at your contributions atm chuck


How very odd and obsessive.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> How very odd and obsessive.


yeh heaven forfend someone might dare to challenge what you've said


----------



## BigTom (Jul 24, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The lack of enforcement of the law is one of the reasons these people feel they can ride with impunity. On the rare occasions the stretched police service do concentrate their efforts on these menaces it's like shooting fish in barrel: Cyclists hit with 15,800 fines in a year as police clamp down on



West Mids police choose not to enforce cyclist behaviour, licencing would make no difference. This tweet gives their reasoning



also in longer form, section titled "A New Dawn"
Junction Malfunction and a New Dawn


> Cyclists don’t cause us, as an organisation, problems, that’s because they aren’t causing our communities problems, they aren’t killing nearly 100 people on our regions roads as mechanically propelled vehicles currently do. Yes we do get complaints of the “nuisance” variety, pavement cycling, some anti-social behaviour (usually yobs on bikes rather than “cyclists”), red light running etc. but you get the idea, most peoples interpretation of “1st world problems” or the “modern day blues”, nothing that’s a priority for a force like our own in a modern day society. Bad cycling is an “irritant” to the wider community rather than a danger, and maybe an improvement in infrastructure and policing may alieve many of the reasons that cause a very small minority of cyclists to be an “irritant”



Surrey Road Police have said much the same on twitter as well.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh heaven forfend someone might dare to challenge what you've said


you haven't, though, you've just thrown shit


----------



## joustmaster (Jul 24, 2017)

I'd probably stop jumping so many red lights and cycling down one way streets if I had a visible registration tag.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> you haven't, though, you've just thrown shit


yeh it's obviously throwing shit pointing out when you equate cyclists with drivers after earlier in the thread your saying how drivers are worse than cyclists.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh it's obviously throwing shit pointing out when you equate cyclists with drivers after earlier in the thread your saying how drivers are worse than cyclists.


it's not a serious thread anymore and one can change one's position over time anyway. motorists' bad behaviour is certainly worse than cyclists' because it kills more people. i have previously argued against the likes of Spymaster and yourself, with your own lies and hyperbole, by taking a similar but opposite over-the-top stance in order to counteract the nonsense you've been spouting about the behaviour of 'all cyclists', but I now realise how fruitless it is to do so.
It's obvious really that it is not being a cyclist or a motorist that makes people twats, but being humans. Some of those humans ride bikes, some drive cars, some are pedestrians, etc. We all know this, but people like arguing by taking extreme positions for sport.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 24, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> it's not a serious thread anymore and one can change one's position over time anyway. motorists' bad behaviour is certainly worse than cyclists' because it kills more people. i have previously argued against the likes of Spymaster and yourself, with your own lies and hyperbole, by taking a similar but opposite over-the-top stance in order to counteract the nonsense you've been spouting about the behaviour of 'all cyclists', but I now realise how fruitless it is to do so.
> It's obvious really that it is not being a cyclist or a motorist that makes people twats, but being humans. Some of those humans ride bikes, some drive cars, some are pedestrians, etc. We all know this, but people like arguing by taking extreme positions for sport.


I rarely mention "all cyclists". I try to be as exact as possible, hence '99.75% of cyclists suck-off goats'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 24, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> it's not a serious thread anymore and one can change one's position over time anyway. motorists' bad behaviour is certainly worse than cyclists' because it kills more people. i have previously argued against the likes of Spymaster and yourself, with your own lies and hyperbole, by taking a similar but opposite over-the-top stance in order to counteract the nonsense you've been spouting about the behaviour of 'all cyclists', but I now realise how fruitless it is to do so.
> It's obvious really that it is not being a cyclist or a motorist that makes people twats, but being humans. Some of those humans ride bikes, some drive cars, some are pedestrians, etc. We all know this, but people like arguing by taking extreme positions for sport.


i don't believe i have ever used the phrase 'all cyclists'. it's dishonesty like this which undermines your credibility. furthermore you've yet to adduce an instance in which i have lied. you by contrast are a self-confessed liar.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 24, 2017)

BigTom said:


> West Mids police choose not to enforce cyclist behaviour, licencing would make no difference. This tweet gives their reasoning
> 
> 
> 
> ...




No, not much of an issue with cyclists in Surrey tbf, clogging up the roads of a Sunday is hardly the worst thing in the world. It's in London though that they take the absolute piss and are a genuine menace, which is why the Met periodically clamps down on them, but they just don't have the resources to keep that up full time.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 25, 2017)

No matter what the road safety issue is, cyclist-hating always seems acceptable | Peter Walker


----------



## hash tag (Jul 25, 2017)

"if I did the same thing at 12mph on a bike."

20 MPH on a bike is not difficult!

"Bad cycling is an irritant to the wider community rather than a danger, and maybe an improvement in infrastructure and policing may alleviate many of the reasons that cause a very small minority of cyclists to be an irritant.”

SMALL MINORITY - rubbish; vast majority, at least in London!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 25, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> No matter what the road safety issue is, cyclist-hating always seems acceptable | Peter Walker


but what do you think of the article?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 25, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> but what do you think of the article?


Disingenuous question


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 25, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Disingenuous question


from the faq:



i thought you'd been here long enough to read the faq and perhaps even to understand it


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 25, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> from the faq:
> 
> View attachment 112038
> 
> i thought you'd been here long enough to read the faq and perhaps even to understand it


Hypocrite


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 25, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> but what do you think of the article?



I've not read it, but from the headline I think it is great that even woolly wankers like the Guardian are finally admitting the truth, that cyclist hating is acceptable.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 25, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Hypocrite


on the basis that...

i suppose this is an example of you offering a discourtesy to users, as is so often the case.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 25, 2017)

Don't you ever get bored of being you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 25, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Don't you ever get bored of being you?


if ever i begin to feel a foretaste of ennui, i remind myself i could be you and count my numerous blessings.

now, about this article to which you linked. what do you think of it?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 25, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> if ever i begin to feel a foretaste of ennui, i remind myself i could be you and count my numerous blessings.
> 
> now, about this article to which you linked. what do you think of it?


You know what I think of it. Bore off.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 25, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> You know what I think of it. Bore off.


i don't know what you think of it, i don't do telepathy.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 25, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't know what you think of it, i don't do telepathy.


But you are dishonest and obtuse


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 25, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> But you are dishonest and obtuse


so you say. but simply saying something doesn't make it true, chuck. you're very happy to throw up allegations and insults and very reluctant to actually back them up. seeing as you're a self-confessed liar i don't believe your word carries much weight in these parts.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 25, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> so you say. but simply saying something doesn't make it true, chuck. you're very happy to throw up allegations and insults and very reluctant to actually back them up. seeing as you're a self-confessed liar i don't believe your word carries much weight in these parts.


You're the only one who professes to care about it though. You are dishonest and obtuse cos you know that I posted that article in agreement with it. 
And you're a hypocrite cos you accuse people of wanting to be moderators while posting up FAQ points tediously. And you're also a hypocrite for this last post as you've accused me of dishonesty without backing it up either. 
It's really tedious to read your interjections, so god know how tedious it must be for others to read.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 25, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> You're the only one who professes to care about it though. You are dishonest and obtuse cos you know that I posted that article in agreement with it.


how would i know that? it's not like you gave any indication of it.


> And you're a hypocrite cos you accuse people of wanting to be moderators while posting up FAQ points tediously.


i have never accused anyone of wanting to be a moderator: it's another of your lies





> And you're also a hypocrite for this last post as you've accused me of dishonesty without backing it up either.


i have backed it up. it's another of your lies. see e.g. this post


Orang Utan said:


> Shit off, Mr Black Pot
> This thread is full of lies, hyperbole and misrepresentation. I think possibly only BigTom has refrained from such.





> It's really tedious to read your interjections, so god know how tedious it must be for others to read.


it's only tedious to you as that's what you get off on, it's your shtick.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 25, 2017)

fucking hell


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 25, 2017)

i'm not going to go through your posts to point out your duplicity as it would be tedious, but you are a lying sack of shit.


----------



## maomao (Jul 25, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> i'm not going to go through your posts to point out your duplicity as it would be tedious, but you are a lying sack of shit.


There's no point. He gets off on pointless circular arguments. The only way to deal with him is 'manual ignore'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 25, 2017)

maomao said:


> There's no point. He gets off on pointless circular arguments. The only way to deal with him is 'manual ignore'.


ou asked for evidence. I provided evidence. A straight line, no curve in sight.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 25, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> i'm not going to go through your posts to point out your duplicity as it would be tedious, but you are a lying sack of shit.


Yeh yeh. So you say. To repeat myself, your word no longer bears any weight.


----------



## maomao (Jul 25, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> ou asked for evidence. I provided evidence. A straight line, no curve in sight.


I wasn't talking to you.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 25, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh yeh. So you say. To repeat myself, your word no longer bears any weight.


You tell yourself that, fella.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 25, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> You tell yourself that, fella.


if you allege mendacity and you cannot or will not find one post - one post! - to back you up on a thread you claim is rotten with lies, then there's a plain conclusion to draw.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 25, 2017)

maomao said:


> I wasn't talking to you.


aw  i am cut to the very quick 

Orang Utan: there you go, that's a very plain lie.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 25, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> if you allege mendacity and you cannot or will not find one post - one post! - to back you up on a thread you claim is rotten with lies, then there's a plain conclusion to draw.


you lied about not knowing what i thought about the article i posted. that's just one.
your posts are so dripping with dishonesty that it's impossible to pick out all the strands. 
you just say stuff to needle people without really believing it. it's so obvious it shouldn't need pointing out.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 25, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> ou asked for evidence.


another lie.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 25, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> you lied about not knowing what i thought about the article i posted. that's just one.
> your posts are so dripping with dishonesty that it's impossible to pick out all the strands.
> you just say stuff to needle people without really believing it. it's so obvious it shouldn't need pointing out.


jesus  i didn't lie about that because i didn't know what you thought. you may think you know what i know but on occasion, as in this instance, you don't.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 25, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> And you're also a hypocrite for this last post as you've accused me of dishonesty without backing it up either.


is this not a request for evidence?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 25, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> jesus  i didn't lie about that because i didn't know what you thought. you may think you know what i know but on occasion, as in this instance, you don't.


see? more lies. you do know what i think. you haven't fooled anyone with this nonsense.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jul 25, 2017)

ETA: Spymaster - we posted at the same time.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 25, 2017)

Are you two at it again?


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 25, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> is this not a request for evidence?


No it isn't. It's a statement pointing out your hypocrisy. i'm not interested in rehashing 'evidence' when anyone who is interested (ie only you) can go and find out for themselves


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 25, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> see? more lies. you do know what i think. you haven't fooled anyone with this nonsense.


i know what you think now as you've said. i did not know before you said. i may have a guess at what you think, but if you don't say what you think then it's only a guess.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 25, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> i know what you think now as you've said. i did not know before you said. i may have a guess at what you think, but if you don't say what you think then it's only a guess.


more dishonest shite, just shut up and bore off. no one cares.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 25, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> more dishonest shite, just shut up and bore off. no one cares.


and this is another reason why people don't like cyclists.

E2A you seem to care a lot for someone who doesn't care.


----------



## hash tag (Jul 25, 2017)




----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 25, 2017)




----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 25, 2017)




----------



## cupid_stunt (Jul 25, 2017)




----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 25, 2017)

TBF , cunts on  inline skates , weaving through pedestrians at speed ,beat cyclists hands down

Consensus 

I knew that 3 day course in negotiation skills would prove useful one day


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 25, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> TBF , cunts on  inline skates , weaving through pedestrians at speed ,beat cyclists hands down
> 
> Consensus
> 
> I knew that 3 day course in negotiation skills would prove useful one day


Saw a cyclist slice through the rashan charles vigil yesterday doing about 20, very lucky not to whack anyone as I wouldn't have given his wellbeing much chance if he had


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 25, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> TBF , cunts on  inline skates , weaving through pedestrians at speed ,beat cyclists hands down
> 
> Consensus
> 
> I knew that 3 day course in negotiation skills would prove useful one day


I guess you skipped day three.


----------



## T & P (Jul 25, 2017)

As a part-time cyclist who also regularly drives and rides a scooter I like to think I view road users' behaviour with an uncritical and and balanced eye. Yet today I witnessed one of those incidents that are (rightly so) infuriating to car/ truck drivers whilst not even registering to the offending cyclist concerned.

I was travelling on a stretch of the South Circular that goes through the southern end of Clapham Common (The Avenue). This is a narrow and busy two-lane stretch and safe overtaking opportunities are limited.

Today, the vehicle in front was a lorry, and in front of it was a cyclist doing no more than 11-12 mph. Traffic on the opposite lane was heavy, but that's life- the lorry and all traffic behind it patiently crawled behind the cyclist for ages instead of trying to overtake with less than appropriate distance.

Eventually the traffic on the opposite lane dried out, giving the lorry an opportunity to overtake the cyclist safely and in accordance with with the HC rules. But then a hundred metres ahead a pedestrian crossing goes red as a ped presses the button. The lorry slows down and eventually stops while waiting for the light to go green. Does the cyclist now riding behind keep behind when he catches up with the lorry? No of course not- he squeezes through a narrow gap to undertake the lorry- a cunt's trick in itself- and manages to get in front of it just before the light goes green again. By now there is traffic going in the opposite direction again, so the lorry and by now many dozens of other vehicles behind it are stuck behind the cyclist once again, for another half mile as it turns out.

I don't know whether the cyclist had zero awareness or was just a spiteful dickhead, but either way he should be taken off the roads until he has a word with himself.


----------



## keybored (Jul 25, 2017)

T & P said:


> As a part-time cyclist who also regularly drives and rides a scooter I like to think I view road users' behaviour with an uncritical and and balanced eye. Yet today I witnessed one of those incidents that are (rightly so) infuriating to car/ truck drivers whilst not even registering to the offending cyclist concerned.
> 
> I was travelling on a stretch of the South Circular that goes through the southern end of Clapham Common (The Avenue). This is a narrow and busy two-lane stretch and safe overtaking opportunities are limited.
> 
> ...



This is also a good argument against Advanced Stop Lines. Why cyclists can't just queue behind the vehicle in front of them at junctions (as everyone else does) instead of jostling for some kind of undeserved "pole position" is a source of amazement.


----------



## bluescreen (Jul 26, 2017)

keybored said:


> This is also a good argument against Advanced Stop Lines. Why cyclists can't just queue behind the vehicle in front of them at junctions (as everyone else does) instead of jostling for some kind of undeserved "pole position" is a source of amazement.


Because they get side-swiped and run over. It doesn't actually hold up car drivers that much, tbh.

I've just come back from a meeting in Cambridge, where this bike pole position is a thing, and it isn't a problem. 

What is a problem is the number of cyclists without lights. In a short journey, well after dark, I counted thirteen -THIRTEEN - who carried no light at all. (And those were just the ones I could see because I'm hyper alert. God knows how many more there were. God knows how many fewer I'd have seen if it was busy, foggy, raining, or if I was tired...) There were many more whose lights you could detect only when you were right behind them at the traffic lights. Do they have a death wish? Do they think that because they can see well, they can also be seen? Or do they not think at all?


----------



## keybored (Jul 26, 2017)

bluescreen said:


> Because they get side-swiped and run over.


Please explain how this is somehow mitigated by undertaking a queue of vehicles, then waiting in front of them before slowly pulling away at a slow speed. As opposed to just waiting in the queue. If a cyclist chooses to undertake 20 cars at a junction then they are potentially asking to get side-swiped a further 20 times when those cars inevitably attempt to overtake them later.


bluescreen said:


> It doesn't actually hold up car drivers that much, tbh.


It actually does, tbh. As described in the post I quoted.


----------



## bluescreen (Jul 26, 2017)

keybored said:


> Please explain how this is somehow mitigated by undertaking a queue of vehicles, then waiting in front of them before slowly pulling away at a slow speed. As opposed to just waiting in the queue.


It is mitigated by drivers waiting for them to pull away safely.



> It actually does, tbh. As described in the post I quoted.


It holds drivers up for a second or two. I can live with that. Even if it were an entire minute or two, wouldn't you rather live with that than the risk of cyclists being caught under a lorry or swiped by a petrolhead?  I wouldn't want to put a time value on someone else's life anyway.


----------



## keybored (Jul 26, 2017)

bluescreen said:


> It is mitigated by drivers waiting for them to pull away safely.



So it's yet another case of drivers being _expected_ to accommodate cyclists, rather than cyclists having to wait like every other road user?



bluescreen said:


> It holds drivers up for a second or two. I can live with that. Even if it were an entire minute or two, wouldn't you rather live with that than the risk of cyclists being caught under a lorry or swiped by a petrolhead?  I wouldn't want to put a time value on someone else's life anyway.



_a second or two_  Cyclists probably cause far more pollution than they claim to alleviate by causing traffic to idle behind them. Why do you keep going on about "being caught under a lorry" or "sideswiped by a petrolhead"? Do these lorries and petrolheads lurk near the back of traffic queues, waiting to murder cyclists? Is that why cyclists are so, so desperate to be at the front of every queue? Really?


----------



## bluescreen (Jul 26, 2017)

keybored said:


> So it's yet another case of drivers being _expected_ to accommodate cyclists, rather than cyclists having to wait like every other road user?


This is a wind-up, right? You're living up to your name? Every road user isn't like every other road user. Cyclists are slower than cars and lorries and more vulnerable. What is your problem with that?



> _a second or two_  Cyclists probably cause far more pollution than they claim to alleviate by causing traffic to idle behind them. Why do you keep going on about "being caught under a lorry" or "sideswiped by a petrolhead"? Do these lorries and petrolheads lurk near the back of traffic queues, waiting to murder cyclists? Is that why cyclists are so, so desperate to be at the front of every queue? Really?


I don't know how you get from A to B with logic like that.


----------



## keybored (Jul 26, 2017)

bluescreen said:


> This is a wind-up, right? You're living up to your name? Every road user isn't like every other road user. Cyclists are slower than cars and lorries and more vulnerable. What is your problem with that?
> 
> I don't know how you get from A to B with logic like that.



You know when riding a bike, and you're approaching a junction, it's ok to take up primary position behind the vehicle in front of you? You don't _have_ to throw yourself into the gutter.

That's how I cycle on the road. A lot of cyclists outside of London and a few other cities seem to grasp this.


----------



## joustmaster (Jul 26, 2017)

keybored said:


> This is also a good argument against Advanced Stop Lines. Why cyclists can't just queue behind the vehicle in front of them at junctions (as everyone else does) instead of jostling for some kind of undeserved "pole position" is a source of amazement.


Here is a document telling you why they exist and why bikes need them.
http://www.sustrans.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/design_portfolio_advanced_stop_linesa09.pdf

Also note that they should have feed-in lanes. Where cyclists are meant to filter in to them, or "undertake" as you incorrectly call it.


----------



## keybored (Jul 26, 2017)

joustmaster said:


> Here is a document telling you why they exist and why bikes need them.
> http://www.sustrans.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/design_portfolio_advanced_stop_linesa09.pdf
> 
> Also note that they should have feed-in lanes. Where cyclists are meant to filter in to them, or "undertake" as you incorrectly call it.


I'm going to have to ask you for a less biased source than sustrans.


----------



## bluescreen (Jul 26, 2017)

keybored said:


> I'm going to have to ask you for a less biased source than sustrans.


----------



## keybored (Jul 26, 2017)

bluescreen said:


>


Are you not familiar with their work? They disgust me, and I'm a cyclist.


----------



## bluescreen (Jul 26, 2017)

I haven't seen any cause to be disgusted with them. No doubt you can explain.


----------



## joustmaster (Jul 26, 2017)

There's a wiki article. Read that.


----------



## bluescreen (Jul 26, 2017)

joustmaster said:


> There's a wiki article. Read that.


On sustrans, explaining why they are disgusting?


----------



## bluescreen (Jul 26, 2017)

Still not getting the hate. When I'm a pedestrian I'm unhappy about shared pathways with bikes because a few riders can be thoughtless but when I'm a driver I don't have any problem paying them due consideration and really don't get why that's a problem for other drivers.


----------



## emanymton (Jul 26, 2017)

bluescreen said:


> Still not getting the hate. When I'm a pedestrian I'm unhappy about shared pathways with bikes because a few riders can be thoughtless but when I'm a driver I don't have any problem paying them due consideration and really don't get why that's a problem for other drivers.


Yeah, because the only time cyclists and pedestrians meet is shared pathways. Cyclists expect priority on the road and most expect priority on the pavement as well.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 26, 2017)

keybored said:


> Please explain how this is somehow mitigated by undertaking a queue of vehicles, then waiting in front of them before slowly pulling away at a slow speed. As opposed to just waiting in the queue. If a cyclist chooses to undertake 20 cars at a junction then they are potentially asking to get side-swiped a further 20 times when those cars inevitably attempt to overtake them later.
> 
> It actually does, tbh. As described in the post I quoted.





keybored said:


> So it's yet another case of drivers being _expected_ to accommodate cyclists, rather than cyclists having to wait like every other road user?
> 
> 
> 
> _a second or two_  Cyclists probably cause far more pollution than they claim to alleviate by causing traffic to idle behind them. Why do you keep going on about "being caught under a lorry" or "sideswiped by a petrolhead"? Do these lorries and petrolheads lurk near the back of traffic queues, waiting to murder cyclists? Is that why cyclists are so, so desperate to be at the front of every queue? Really?



I'm so much faster on my bike than in a car on my journeys - commuting in rush hour. I do not hold up any drivers when I filter past the traffic jams at junctions to the front. Some may overtake me and/or consider they have been delayed by being held behind me but the fact is that I go back past them at the next set of traffic lights. No delay to them at all and my journey is 15-20min by bike or 20-40min by car/van so obviously I'm not holding people up as my average speed is higher on my bike than driving.

The nature of filtering is that it can only happen when there are traffic queues so some/most of the time the above situation will be the case (plus those times are the busiest ie when more people are travelling). Not always like this of course but the number of drivers who squeeze/rush past me straight into the back of a traffic jam, and the complaints like yours that I hear, say to me that lots of people don't think about this at all and just see the cyclist in front of them after the junction slowing them down, don't see them filtering past at the next set of lights and heading off into the distance whilst they wait for the next green phase.

National standards clearly teaches filtering as a choice - you don't have to do it, but you can if it's safe and you wish to, if not just move into primary position (centre of the lane) in the queue  of traffic. Why should cycles and motorcycles be slowed by other people's choice of space inefficient transport? It is cars/buses/lorries that cause the traffic jams, not bikes.
No-one should be filtering on the inside of a large vehicle anywhere or the outside of a large vehicle at the head of pedestrian lights like described, would also say not to filter into an ASL with a large vehicle at the front because the ASL is exactly the same shape as the blind spot mat they use to show blind spots from HGVs. I hate ASLs for that reason but they exist for good reason as gives a clear space to filter into and reduce left/right hooks at junctions by putting you in the most visible position to all drivers.

You couldn't ban filtering at off peak times and allow at on peak, that couldn't be regulated I don't think. So either it's allowed always, or not at all. We need to encourage more cycling and ime one of the biggest hooks is the extra time in bed in the morning/with family in the evening, and if you can't filter, cycling will never be faster than driving.

The whole pollution thing is ludicrous, it's crazy that people are saying cycling causes more pollution - anyone who is cycling would be travelling by a different method, probably car, if they weren't cycling. More congestion, more pollution. But oh no, the issue is cycling which has no direct pollution. Stop everyone cycling! Get them all in cars! air pollution problem solved? Of course not - you need to get more people cycling. stupid.


----------



## Herbsman. (Jul 26, 2017)




----------



## BigTom (Jul 27, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> No matter what the road safety issue is, cyclist-hating always seems acceptable | Peter Walker



In a similar sort of vein:

Media reports on cyclist fatalities shift blame from drivers to riders, says researcher

PhD research, looking at the language media uses when reporting on cyclist fatalities, shifts blame from driver to cyclists.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jul 27, 2017)

The correct place for cycle lanes...



Spoiler: Oh, yes.










Thanks to Casual Observer & the 'I'm on ur boardz, wasting ur bandwidthz' thread for that one.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 28, 2017)

Slough road fight: Cyclist and driver filmed brawling - BBC News

fill yer boots with this delight

fucking hell, boot his door and fuck off if he has done you wrong, dont get all Streetfighter and get yersel arreated


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 29, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Slough road fight: Cyclist and driver filmed brawling - BBC News
> 
> fill yer boots with this delight
> 
> fucking hell, boot his door and fuck off if he has done you wrong, dont get all Streetfighter and get yersel arreated



Proper handbags stuff though.

I know that road, yon cycle fella was lucky not to get stabbed.


----------



## hash tag (Jul 30, 2017)

With ride London, putney and Wadsworth are in chaos. Putney Hill with Putney High Street are both closed for the ride. A major crossroads, upper Richmond road remais open! It is controlled by people who are clueless. There has been one accident and ambulance was required. 
Car drivers have been getting physically aggressive towards cyclists in Wandsworth.


----------



## maomao (Jul 30, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I'm so much faster on my bike than in a car on my journeys - commuting in rush hour. I do not hold up any drivers when I filter past the traffic jams at junctions to the front. Some may overtake me and/or consider they have been delayed by being held behind me but the fact is that I go back past them at the next set of traffic lights. No delay to them at all and my journey is 15-20min by bike or 20-40min by car/van so obviously I'm not holding people up as my average speed is higher on my bike than driving.
> 
> The nature of filtering is that it can only happen when there are traffic queues so some/most of the time the above situation will be the case (plus those times are the busiest ie when more people are travelling). Not always like this of course but the number of drivers who squeeze/rush past me straight into the back of a traffic jam, and the complaints like yours that I hear, say to me that lots of people don't think about this at all and just see the cyclist in front of them after the junction slowing them down, don't see them filtering past at the next set of lights and heading off into the distance whilst they wait for the next green phase.
> 
> ...


The main reason car drivers don't like cyclists filtering is because they think they're getting an advantage for free. It's exactly the same attitude as people who whinge on about people on benefits lounging around watching their wide-screen tvs and smoking and drinking at the taxpayers expense. There's a certain small-minded mindset that just can't deal with other people getting one over on them. It might not be racist or sexist but its the same prejudice of 'people who aren't like me' having any sort of advantage.


----------



## spanglechick (Jul 30, 2017)

maomao said:


> The main reason car drivers don't like cyclists filtering is because they think they're getting an advantage for free. It's exactly the same attitude as people who whinge on about people on benefits lounging around watching their wide-screen tvs and smoking and drinking at the taxpayers expense. There's a certain small-minded mindset that just can't deal with other people getting one over on them. It might not be racist or sexist but its the same prejudice of 'people who aren't like me' having any sort of advantage.


It really isn't.  It's because suddenly a fucking bike appears in your peripheral vision, and your heart stops because you're suddenly being forced to share a small, insufficiently-safe carriageway  with a really vulnerable road user, who you're horribly aware you could end up squishing.  

As a motorist, your job is to look out for danger ahead, and all the things that upset me when driving, are when other people (cyclist, motorist, pedestrian) behave in a way that undermines your mindful precautions. It's similar to the anger when a car pulls out suddenly in front of you, or cuts you up... but it's worse because if some twat of a car user causes me to hit them, I'm vanishingly unlikely to kill them.  So I'm just cross. 

The argument about cyclists not needing guidelines on safe overtaking distances seemed to hinge on the twin justifications of "the cyclist is putting themselves in more danger" and "we mustn't discourage cycling" - and while both those things are undeniably true, where is the consideration and protection towards me not having to live with killing someone who misjudged a gap?


----------



## maomao (Jul 30, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> It really isn't.  It's because suddenly a fucking bike appears in your peripheral vision, and your heart stops because you're suddenly being forced to share a small, insufficiently-safe carriageway  with a really vulnerable road user, who you're horribly aware you could end up squishing.
> 
> As a motorist, your job is to look out for danger ahead, and all the things that upset me when driving, are when other people (cyclist, motorist, pedestrian) behave in a way that undermines your mindful precautions. It's similar to the anger when a car pulls out suddenly in front of you, or cuts you up... but it's worse because if some twat of a car user causes me to hit them, I'm vanishingly unlikely to kill them.  So I'm just cross.
> 
> The argument about cyclists not needing guidelines on safe overtaking distances seemed to hinge on the twin justifications of "the cyclist is putting themselves in more danger" and "we mustn't discourage cycling" - and while both those things are undeniably true, where is the consideration and protection towards me not having to live with killing someone who misjudged a gap?


What's any of that got to do with filtering which by definition happens when traffic is stopped?


----------



## spanglechick (Jul 30, 2017)

I thought it was the same term for when it happens during moving traffic, but at any rate 95% of my driving happens in London, where the classification of stationary and moving traffic is frequently entirely fluid.


----------



## maomao (Jul 30, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> I thought it was the same term for when it happens during moving traffic, but at any rate 95% of my driving happens in London, where the classification of stationary and moving traffic is frequently entirely fluid.


No it's not. You're either stopped and it's legal for two wheeled vehicles to filter or you're moving and they should follow the rules of the highway code for overtaking. IME adherance to the highway code is in very similar proportions for all road users it's only the way in which they break it that tends to differ.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 30, 2017)

spanglechick said:


> It really isn't.  It's because suddenly a fucking bike appears in your peripheral vision, and your heart stops because you're suddenly being forced to share a small, insufficiently-safe carriageway  with a really vulnerable road user, who you're horribly aware you could end up squishing.
> 
> As a motorist, your job is to look out for danger ahead, and all the things that upset me when driving, are when other people (cyclist, motorist, pedestrian) behave in a way that undermines your mindful precautions. It's similar to the anger when a car pulls out suddenly in front of you, or cuts you up... but it's worse because if some twat of a car user causes me to hit them, I'm vanishingly unlikely to kill them.  So I'm just cross.
> 
> The argument about cyclists not needing guidelines on safe overtaking distances seemed to hinge on the twin justifications of "the cyclist is putting themselves in more danger" and "we mustn't discourage cycling" - and while both those things are undeniably true, where is the consideration and protection towards me not having to live with killing someone who misjudged a gap?



I don't know about proportions, but the attitude definitely exists.

The national standards for cycling do set guidelines:



> The choice of whether to pass or wait rests with the trainee who must judge if there is sufficient space and time to do so safely



from outcome 4 of this document: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9191/nsct-level-three.pdf

It's always a bit odd to compare to the highway code because the national standards for cycling are set out as a document for instructors, rather than directly as a set of rules/guidelines for cyclists, but it's generally clear how it would be rewritten to be set out like the highway code.

Worth remembering the highway code does not set a distance for drivers overtaking cyclists - there is a picture showing the driver using the oncoming traffic lane and wording something like leaving as much space as you would when passing a car. It's the police who have set the distance of 1.5m at 30mph, because they want/need some exact measure to make prosecutions easier. They chose 1.5m because as cycling police offices that is the distance they felt was right - it's at the upper end of the global set of distances which are usually 1m or 1.5m or 3ft, 4ft or 4.5ft.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 30, 2017)

maomao said:


> What's any of that got to do with filtering which by definition happens when traffic is stopped?





maomao said:


> No it's not. You're either stopped and it's legal for two wheeled vehicles to filter or you're moving and they should follow the rules of the highway code for overtaking. IME adherance to the highway code is in very similar proportions for all road users it's only the way in which they break it that tends to differ.


Another cyclist who doesn't have a clue.
Filtering is legal if you're doing it in slow moving traffic.

See, this is why training should be compulsory. Too many cyclists haven't got a clue about how to use the roads safely and legally.


----------



## maomao (Jul 30, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Another cyclist who doesn't have a clue.
> Filtering is legal if you're doing it in slow moving traffic.
> 
> See, this is why training should be compulsory. Too many cyclists haven't got a clue about how to use the roads safely and legally.


I'm not a cyclist.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 30, 2017)

maomao said:


> I'm not a cyclist.


I thought I remembered you saying you were a cycle courier. Maybe I was mistaken.


----------



## maomao (Jul 30, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> I thought I remembered you saying you were a cycle courier. Maybe I was mistaken.


Many years ago. I don't even own a bicycle now and haven't since I gave it to an urbanite 10 years ago. These days I'm a pedestrian and parent who gets fed up of breathing exhaust fumes (my two year old has suspected asthma already, cyclists didn't give her that) and drivers who speed and jump red lights when I'm out and about with my kid in a buggy. I do see the odd twat on a bike but 99.9% of them are no threat to me or my family. I'm also not dumb enough to attribute occasional errant behaviour to a whole group of people.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 30, 2017)

maomao said:


> Many years ago. I don't even own a bicycle now and haven't since I gave it to an urbanite 10 years ago. These days I'm a pedestrian and parent who gets fed up of breathing exhaust fumes (my two year old has suspected a start already, cyclists didn't give her that) and drivers who speed and jump red lights when I'm out and about with my kid in a buggy. I do see the odd twat on a bike but 99.9% of them are no threat to me or my family. I'm also not dumb enough to attribute occasional errant behaviour to a whole group of people.


Suspected a start?


----------



## maomao (Jul 30, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Suspected a start?


Asthma. Typo.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 30, 2017)

maomao said:


> Many years ago.


You used to be a professional courier.
If a murderer suddenly stops killing, is he no longer a murderer?
You're a cyclist. Every post you've made on this thread is proof.


----------



## maomao (Jul 30, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> You used to be a professional courier.
> If a murderer suddenly stops killing, is he no longer a murderer?
> You're a cyclist. Every post you've made on this thread is proof.



A cyclist is someone who rides a bicycle. I don't. Are you a nappy wearer or a thumb sucker?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 30, 2017)

maomao said:


> A cyclist is someone who rides a bicycle. I don't. Are you a nappy wearer or a thumb sucker?


Being a cyclist is also a state of mind, as you've shown on this thread.


----------



## maomao (Jul 30, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Being a cyclist is also a state of mind, as you've shown on this thread.


As is being a wanker as you've amply demonstrated yourself. I was just commenting on BigTom 's post. I'm not really interested in being the target of your sub Clarkson shitposting.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 30, 2017)

maomao said:


> As is being a wanker as you've amply demonstrated yourself. I was just commenting on BigTom 's post. I'm not really interested in being the target of your sub Clarkson shitposting.


Awww bless. Did the bad man upset the cyclist?
You see, this is exactly the sort of angry reply I'd expect from an angry cyclist.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 30, 2017)

maomao said:


> What's any of that got to do with filtering which by definition happens when traffic is stopped?





maomao said:


> No it's not. You're either stopped and it's legal for two wheeled vehicles to filter or you're moving and they should follow the rules of the highway code for overtaking. IME adherance to the highway code is in very similar proportions for all road users it's only the way in which they break it that tends to differ.


Anyway, back to this.
An (ex) professional cyclist doesn't even know how to ride legally. Is it any wonder 'normal' cyclists haven't a clue about correct/legal road use!


----------



## maomao (Jul 30, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Awww bless. Did the bad man upset the cyclist?
> You see, this is exactly the sort of angry reply I'd expect from an angry cyclist.



Who's angry? I just think this thread is really shit and boring with occasional good posts from BigTom and Orang Utan. 

But you just keep jabbing your angry fingers at people. At least it keeps you off the rest of the boards.


----------



## souljacker (Jul 30, 2017)

hash tag said:


> With ride London, putney and Wadsworth are in chaos. Putney Hill with Putney High Street are both closed for the ride. A major crossroads, upper Richmond road remais open! It is controlled by people who are clueless. There has been one accident and ambulance was required.
> Car drivers have been getting physically aggressive towards cyclists in Wandsworth.



boo-fucking-hoo


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 30, 2017)

maomao said:


> Who's angry? I just think this thread is really shit and boring


Then please feel free to exercise your right to not read it. It'll be much better for your blood pressure.


----------



## maomao (Jul 30, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Then please feel free to exercise your right to not read it. It'll be much better for your blood pressure.


My blood pressure is fine thanks. What you're experiencing is known in the psychological profession as 'projection'.


----------



## maomao (Jul 30, 2017)

Lovely that you didn't find my daughter's asthma worth commenting on though. Any criticism of private car drivers and that vein in your temple starts throbbing and you start throwing insults about. Proper fucking sub Clarkson wanker.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 30, 2017)

maomao said:


> My blood pressure is fine thanks. What you're experiencing is known in the psychological profession as 'projection'.


A 'grown-up' version of "I know you are but what am I"



maomao said:


> Lovely that you didn't find my daughter's asthma worth commenting on though. Any criticism of private car drivers and that vein in your temple starts throbbing and you start throwing insults about. Proper fucking sub Clarkson wanker.


What does your daughter's asthma have to do with filtering?  
I corrected your incorrect assertion that filtering could only be performed in stationary traffic, and you decided that was your cue to go off on a rant and abuse me.
I think you need to calm down a little.


----------



## maomao (Jul 30, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> A 'grown-up' version of "I know you are but what am I"
> 
> 
> What does your daughter's asthma have to do with filtering?



Nothing. It was in response to your spittle flecked assertion that I must be a cyclist. Part of the conversation as a whole rather than the one little mistake you've managed to seize hold of and haven't stopped screeching about.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 30, 2017)

maomao said:


> Nothing. It was in response to your spittle flecked assertion that I must be a cyclist. Part of the conversation as a whole rather than the one little mistake you've managed to seize hold of and haven't stopped screeching about.


Have you read the thread title? 
I was, as you put it, "screeching on about" cyclists not knowing how to use the roads safely and legally. Even Big Tom 'liked' your incorrect assertion. 
Can you not see why this is a case for cyclists to undergo proper training before being allowed to mingle with traffic on our dangerous roads?


----------



## maomao (Jul 30, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Have you read the thread title?
> I was, as you put it, "screeching on about" cyclists not knowing how to use the roads safely and legally. Even Big Tom 'liked' your incorrect assertion.
> Can you not see why this is a case for cyclists to undergo proper training before being allowed to mingle with traffic on our dangerous roads?


Jesus fucking Christ you're a tedious arsehole. 

It's rather a pedantic point and doesn't actually spoil the meaning of my post. Filtering is also legal in slow or very slow moving traffic. The point remains that if you're moving fast enough to be in a situation where your failure to react fast enough might result in an injury to a cyclist as spanglechick was worried about then two wheeled vehicles should not be filtering. It's also the filtering party's responsibility to do so visibly and safely. 

I work with professional drivers and I maintain my original assertion that the majority of anti cycling rhetoric is just petty prejudice.  Your insistence that I must be a cyclist despite having spent plenty of time behind the wheel of a car in the past few years and not having put foot to pedal in over a decade has just cemented my opinion in this respect.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 30, 2017)

maomao said:


> Jesus fucking Christ you're a tedious arsehole.
> 
> It's rather a pedantic point and doesn't actually spoil the meaning of my post. Filtering is also legal in slow or very slow moving traffic. The point remains that if you're moving fast enough to be in a situation where your failure to react fast enough might result in an injury to a cyclist as spanglechick was worried about then two wheeled vehicles should not be filtering. It's also the filtering party's responsibility to do so visibly and safely.
> 
> I work with professional drivers and I maintain my original assertion that the majority of anti cycling rhetoric is just petty prejudice.  Your insistence that I must be a cyclist despite having spent plenty of time behind the wheel of a car in the past few years and not having put foot to pedal in over a decade has just cemented my opinion in this respect.


You seem incapable of criticism without falling into an enraged stupor and throwing insults around, which has also cemented my opinion that you must be a cyclist.


----------



## maomao (Jul 30, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> You seem incapable of criticism without falling into an enraged stupor and throwing insults around, which has also cemented my opinion that you must be a cyclist.


I don't think you know what rage is but whatever. Enjoy your shit thread full of hate.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 30, 2017)

Well this is plumbing new depths of ugliness. Always interesting to see the old_ deliberately provoke an angry response then mock the angry response _dynamic at work. Trololololol etc.


----------



## hegley (Jul 30, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Can you not see why this is a case for cyclists to undergo proper training before being allowed to mingle with traffic on our dangerous roads?


But the vast majority of (adult) cyclists *have *undergone proper training; they have a driving license.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 30, 2017)

hegley said:


> But the vast majority of (adult) cyclists *have *undergone proper training; they have a driving license.


Ah, that old chestnut. 
Owning a bike does not a cyclist make.


----------



## maomao (Jul 30, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Ah, that old chestnut.
> Owning a bike does not a cyclist make.


But someone who hasn't ridden a bike in ten years is, beccoz yoo sez so.

Knuckle dragging creep.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 30, 2017)

maomao said:


> But someone who hasn't ridden a bike in ten years is, beccoz yoo sez so.
> 
> Knuckle dragging creep.


Back with the insults. 
If you can't engage without resorting to insults, maybe the internet isn't for you?


----------



## maomao (Jul 30, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Back with the insults.
> If you can't engage without resorting to insults, maybe the internet isn't for you?


You made the first offensive remark. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 30, 2017)

maomao said:


> You made the first offensive remark. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.


OK, I apologise for referring to you as a cyclist. I can see how that could be construed as offensive.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Jul 30, 2017)

Wait til these take off....


----------



## OzT (Jul 31, 2017)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Wait til these take off....
> 
> View attachment 112470


 
I think that tyre needs pumping up for a start, and he shourt be wearing some sort of aerofoil to generate lift for take off, imho .. . .  ..


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2017)

maomao said:


> Knuckle dragging creep.


how adult.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 31, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> Well this is plumbing new depths of ugliness. Always interesting to see the old_ deliberately provoke an angry response then mock the angry response _dynamic at work. Trololololol etc.


It was fun when it was a bit of ribald piss-taking but it's all got rather nasty.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> It was fun when it was a bit of ribald piss-taking but it's all got rather nasty.


cyclists taking it into the gutter again


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 31, 2017)

Now now, son


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 31, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> You used to be a professional courier.
> If a murderer suddenly stops killing, is he no longer a murderer?
> You're a cyclist. Every post you've made on this thread is proof.



A cyclist who doesn't own a bike?


----------



## maomao (Jul 31, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> It was fun when it was a bit of ribald piss-taking but it's all got rather nasty.


You mean it was fun when it was one-way abuse from the pound shop Richard Hammonds.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2017)

maomao said:


> You mean it was fun when it was one-way abuse from the pound shop Richard Hammonds.


yeh thought you were more a fortnums man.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 31, 2017)

maomao said:


> You mean it was fun when it was one-way abuse from the pound shop Richard Hammonds.


No. I generally see this thread as one not to take too seriously and to engage in a bit of ribbing. Occasionally both "camps" are guilty of overdoing the banter and this happens.


----------



## maomao (Jul 31, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> No. I generally see this thread as one not to take too seriously and to engage in a bit of ribbing. Occasionally both "camps" are guilty of overdoing the banter and this happens.



At least 90% of what people call 'banter' is either tedious back slapping or borderline bullying.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 31, 2017)

maomao said:


> At least 90% of what people call 'banter' is either tedious back slapping or borderline bullying.


Sounds like a Tobyjug fact


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 31, 2017)

maomao said:


> You mean it was fun when it was one-way abuse from the pound shop Richard Hammonds.


And like him, all a bit pathetic.


----------



## maomao (Jul 31, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> And like him, all a bit pathetic.


They wish they were pound shop Jeremy Clarksons.


----------



## eoin_k (Jul 31, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Sounds like a Tobyjug fact


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 31, 2017)

(Those bike lanes are a pisstake - rode along the one on the A11 out of town City to Stratford, and the kerbed bits simply acted as riverbanks, half the blue tracked sections were flooded  )


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 31, 2017)

Ted Striker said:


> (Those bike lanes are a pisstake - rode along the one on the A11 out of town City to Stratford, and the kerbed bits simply acted as riverbanks, half the blue tracked sections were flooded  )



The camber of roads is designed to push water to the edges, yet another reason why bike lanes in the gutter are a terrible idea.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 31, 2017)




----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


>


----------



## maomao (Jul 31, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


>


96% of accidents involving an injury to a pedestrian caused by a road user jumping a red light are caused by a motor vehicle. The most serious injuries caused by red light jumping are caused almost exclusively by motor vehicles. Car drivers run reds constantly, they just tend to do it at the most dangerous point ie. when they've just changed. Cyclists meander through empty junctions and trigger the Daily Mail response in all the drivers sat at the lights, their own frequent transgressions forgotten at the sight of someone getting an unfair advantage. 

I'm sure your comical GIFs would go down a storm on the Top Gear forums.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 31, 2017)

maomao said:


> 96% of accidents involving an injury to a pedestrian caused by a road user jumping a red light are caused by a motor vehicle. The most serious injuries caused by red light jumping are caused almost exclusively by motor vehicles. Car drivers run reds constantly, they just tend to do it at the most dangerous point ie. when they've just changed. Cyclists meander through empty junctions and trigger the Daily Mail response in all the drivers sat at the lights, their own frequent transgressions forgotten at the sight of someone getting an unfair advantage.



We've had this bollocks before. I  have never jumped a red light in my car and almost never see any other cars doing so either, so made up facts based on something that doesn't happen sound a bit hollow.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2017)

maomao said:


> 96% of accidents involving an injury to a pedestrian caused by a road user jumping a red light are caused by a motor vehicle. The most serious injuries caused by red light jumping are caused almost exclusively by motor vehicles. Car drivers run reds constantly, they just tend to do it at the most dangerous point ie. when they've just changed. Cyclists meander through empty junctions and trigger the Daily Mail response in all the drivers sat at the lights, their own frequent transgressions forgotten at the sight of someone getting an unfair advantage.
> 
> I'm sure your comical GIFs would go down a storm on the Top Gear forums.


So it it's fine to jump a red light as long as no one's injured and it's not done at speed. Cheers for that.


----------



## maomao (Jul 31, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> We've had this bollocks before. I  have never jumped a red light in my car and almost never see any other cars doing so either, so made up facts based on something that doesn't happen sound a bit hollow.



The stats I quoted are from CTC. You can look them up or I can do later (weekend. I hate c&ping on phone).

Not sure I really believe you given that you've already admitted to being convicted of breaching the highway code already. Those were just the three occasions you were caught. God knows how many times you've broken the speed limit and jumped red lights really.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 31, 2017)

maomao said:


> Car drivers run reds constantly ... Cyclists meander through empty junctions ...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 31, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I have never jumped a red light in my car and almost never see any other cars doing so either


SCIENCE

Personally I have never nonced or known anyone to nonce ergo it never happens.


----------



## maomao (Jul 31, 2017)

Spymaster said:


>


What about your rap sheet Spymaster? How many points have you had on your license?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2017)

maomao said:


> convicted of breaching the highway code already.


you can't be convicted of breaching the highway code, being as it is not a criminal offence


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 31, 2017)

maomao said:


> What about your rap sheet Spymaster? How many points have you had on your license?


It's clean at the moment but I've been done for drinking and driving (32 years ago), and had quite a few FPs for speeding. I can't recall ever deliberately running a red light though and don't see any evidence of other drivers doing so "constantly", mainly because it's a staggeringly fucking stupid thing to do. 

What about you?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> It's clean at the moment but I've been done for drinking and driving (32 years ago), and had quite a few FPs for speeding. I can't recall ever deliberately running a red light though and don't see any evidence of other drivers doing so "constantly", mainly because it's a staggeringly fucking stupid thing to do.
> 
> What about you?


being as he thinks breaching the highway code's a criminal offence i doubt you'll get much wisdom out of him, pa


----------



## maomao (Jul 31, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> It's clean at the moment but I've been done for drinking and driving (32 years ago), and had quite a few FPs for speeding. I can't recall ever deliberately running a red light though and don't see any evidence of other drivers doing so "constantly", mainly because it's a staggeringly fucking stupid thing to do.
> 
> What about you?



My driving license is entirely clean. It is a provisional though. 

I see drivers speeding up on orange and passing the light in the first second or two of the red light so often that I think that a proportion of them don't know they're doing it.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 31, 2017)

maomao said:


> The stats I quoted are from CTC.



As in cyclists touring club?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> As in cyclists touring club?


dunno


----------



## maomao (Jul 31, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> As in cyclists touring club?


Nah. The Congres du Travail du Canada. 

Where should I get my stats? The Automobile Association? The Royal Automobile Club? Or do we have a definitive impartial source?


----------



## maomao (Jul 31, 2017)

It's funny that. Traffic statistics being compiled by organisations who represent road users. Who'd have thunk it?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 31, 2017)

maomao said:


> I see drivers speeding up on orange and passing the light in the first second or two of the red light so often that I think that a proportion of them don't know they're doing it.


Yes, it's interesting how frequently defenders of cyclists see this happening. 

I drive every day and see it happen infrequently enough that when it does it's notable. Cyclists on the other hand seem to do it as a matter of course.


----------



## High Voltage (Jul 31, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> . . . defenders of cyclists . . .



I believe that they're referred to as "Cyclist deniers"

If one wishes to ratchet up the rhetoric a few clicks more


----------



## maomao (Jul 31, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Yes, it's interesting how frequently defenders of cyclists see this happening.
> 
> I drive every day and see it happen infrequently enough that when it does it's notable. Cyclists on the other hand seem to do it as a matter of course.


What you seem to be suggesting is that we're all guilty of identifying strongly with people in our own position and that within these groups we reinforce our own petty prejudices. Is that what you're saying spy? It's hardly epic bantz but I think I could agree with that.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 31, 2017)

maomao said:


> Is that what you're saying spy?


No. I'm saying that your assertion that motorists constantly run red lights, while cyclists merely "meander through empty junctions", is bollocks.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 31, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> No. I'm saying that your assertion that motorists constantly run red lights, while cyclists merely "meander through empty junctions", is bollocks.


I think he garners his 'facts' from the fortune cookies in the cyclist monthly lucky bag. Either that or he just makes shit up as he goes along.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> I think he garners his 'facts' from the fortune cookies in the cyclist monthly lucky bag. Either that or he just makes shit up as he goes along.


The latter if his ridiculous claim people are convicted of breaching the highway code's anything to go by


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 31, 2017)

I see it very often, several times a day, and I see it when I'm driving too. Maybe it's a location thing, but this is in and around Bristol I'm talking about. Every main set of traffic lights has one or two who dash through at the last moment, often during the first bit of the red, pretty regularly, mainly when the roads are quiet and traffic's moving freely.

Though in heavy traffic there are the ones who stop on crossings because they misjudged or just don't care, the ones who stop halfway out into junctions because they misjudged or just don't care. Not every blockable junction has a yellow box.

I see all that stuff every day, especially when I'm driving the van at work and I'm high up enough to get a good view of junctions.

/edited slightly and also to add: There seems be be starting a trend now of drivers edging out into moving traffic and making it stop instead of waiting for a gap.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 31, 2017)

tbf though, I'm not into the whataboutism of all this, I think everyone needs to chill the fuck out on the road. no group of vehicle users has a monopoly on cuntery IMO and IME


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 31, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> I see it very often, several times a day, and I see it when I'm driving too. Maybe it's a location thing, but this is in and around Bristol I'm talking about. Every main set of traffic lights has one or two who dash through at the last moment, often during the first bit of the red, pretty regularly, mainly when the roads are quiet and traffic's moving freely.
> 
> Though in heavy traffic there are the ones who stop on crossings because they misjudged or just don't care, the ones who stop halfway out into junctions because they misjudged or just don't care. Not every blockable junction has a yellow box.
> 
> ...


Boo! You're off our team.

Get over there with the cyclist deniers


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 31, 2017)

As I said though, I drive a white van when this is happening. I'm already on the losing side


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 31, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> no group of vehicle users has a monopoly on cuntery IMO and IME


Nobody is suggesting otherwise. _However,_ 98% of cyclists engage in regular cuntery, whilst just 22% of motorists have been shown to do the same. So it's a virtual monopoly.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 31, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Yes, it's interesting how frequently defenders of cyclists see this happening.
> 
> I drive every day and see it happen infrequently enough that when it does it's notable. Cyclists on the other hand seem to do it as a matter of course.



Unless this is a weird london <-> everywhere else difference, I don't understand how this can be true about drivers. I use 5 traffic light controlled junctions on my commute to work and I would say that every day there is 
one (sometimes two) driver who crosses after the lights have turned red on 3 or 4 of those junctions. At least one of them every day will have someone cross after lights have turned red (one is a big 3 lane each way dual carriageway but the others are smaller junctions, one is actually a t-junction, the others effectively are due to one-way streets). I'll try to remember to count tomorrow but it's school holidays and the lights in town where you go into one-way streets may not have any drivers using them.

As a pedestrian I regularly see drivers cross pedestrian crossings as the lights turn red and never cross until I see the driver(s) are definitely stopping/have stopped.

Generally speaking I would say it's absolutely normal to see at least one driver cross after the light has turned red at most junctions when there is a reasonable level of traffic (ie: times when you are almost certainly going to have a driver approaching the junction as the light is turning from green -> amber -> red).


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jul 31, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Boo! You're off our team.
> 
> Get over there with the cyclist deniers


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 31, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Nobody is suggesting otherwise. _However,_ 98% of cyclists engage in regular cuntery, whilst just 22% of motorists have been shown to do the same. So it's a virtual monopoly.



The source data is impeccable of course


----------



## maomao (Jul 31, 2017)

bbc said:
			
		

> Jumping red lights is becoming a frighteningly common occurrence - with the latest figures showing that traffic cameras in London are catching almost 10,000 drivers every month.


BBC NEWS | Magazine | Caught red handed




			
				 Daily Heil said:
			
		

> Overall more than 67,000 motorists – or 184 per day - were given points for failing to stop at traffic lights in 2015 with UK police forces reporting a eight per cent increase in the number of offences - equivalent to an additional 5,023 motorists – compared to the previous year.


(daily mail link broken) UK roads where the most drivers are caught running red lights revealed | This is Money The-roads-drivers-caught-running-red-lights-revealed.html




			
				Guardian said:
			
		

> As road users we would like to see road traffic laws be enforced for the safety of everyone, but let's not forget that the risk imposed by cyclists is minimal when compared to red light jumping drivers.
> Of pedestrians injured in London in a collision caused by red light jumping only 4% involve cyclists, whereas 71% occur when a car driver jumps a red light and 13% when a motorcyclist does.


Lies, damn lies, and statistics about red light jumping


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 31, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> The source data is impeccable of course




It's funny that. Cuntery statistics being compiled by Cunty Simon. Who'd have thunk it?


----------



## maomao (Jul 31, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> The source data is impeccable of course


The source data is a convicted drunk driver with so many speeding convictions he's lost count.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 31, 2017)

BigTom said:


> As a pedestrian I regularly see drivers cross pedestrian crossings as the lights turn red ...


See, this is just weird. As a ped I very rarely see motorists drive through pedestrian crossings on red. It happens (I recently saw a cunt actually _overtake a car that was already stopped_ at a crossing to blast through) but not often. Cyclists on the other hand almost never stop. On zebra crossings the best you can hope for is that they swerve behind you as you're going across.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 31, 2017)

maomao said:


> The source data is a convicted drunk driver with so many speeding convictions he's lost count.


And that's just the ones I've been caught for!


----------



## maomao (Jul 31, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> And that's just the ones I've been caught for!


Well exactly.


----------



## lefteri (Jul 31, 2017)

What does everyone think of vegan cyclists?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 31, 2017)

lefteri said:


> What does everyone think of vegan cyclists?


They're all fucking vegans.


----------



## maomao (Jul 31, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> See, this is just weird. As a ped I very rarely see motorists drive through pedestrian crossings on red. It happens (I recently saw a cunt actually _overtake a car that was already stopped_ at a crossing to blast through) but not often. Cyclists on the other hand almost never stop. On zebra crossings the best you can hope for is that they swerve behind you as you're going across.


Yet a police survey done at five busy junctions in London, the very epicentre of red light jumping cycling if our pound shop Nick Ferraris and Richard Hammonds are to be believed, shows that it's actually about 15% of cyclists who jump red lights. 
Stats on Cycling Through Red Lights  |  Cycling UK


Meanwhile around 48% of drivers routinely break speed limits in free flowing traffic of whom only a tiny proportion are ever given penalty points:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...file/209104/free-flow-vehicle-speeds-2012.pdf

But of course it's the cyclists who are the problem. Especially the law abiding 85%.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 31, 2017)

maomao said:


> Yet a police survey done at five busy junctions in London, the very epicentre of red light jumping cycling if our pound shop Nick Ferraris and Richard Hammonds are to be believed, shows that it's actually about 15% of cyclists who jump red lights.
> Stats on Cycling Through Red Lights  |  Cycling UK


That's a 5 year old article using 10 year old stats.
The problem has grown exponentially in recent years.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 31, 2017)

This proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that 100% of cyclists run red lights.


----------



## maomao (Jul 31, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> This proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that 100% of cyclists run red lights.



It proves 7 cyclists run red lights.


----------



## maomao (Jul 31, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> That's a 5 year old article using 10 year old stats.
> The problem has grown exponentially in recent years.


At least I've got a statistic. Where's yours?


----------



## BigTom (Jul 31, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> See, this is just weird. As a ped I very rarely see motorists drive through pedestrian crossings on red. It happens (I recently saw a cunt actually _overtake a car that was already stopped_ at a crossing to blast through) but not often. Cyclists on the other hand almost never stop. On zebra crossings the best you can hope for is that they swerve behind you as you're going across.



I mean, I just went for a walk round the park, to get into the park I use a toucan crossing across a road with 3 lanes total, which was not hugely busy but with some traffic. I saw three phase changes, on the one as I was walking towards the junction, a driver went through on amber, possibly just red, there were no other drivers anywhere near the crossing. On the one I used to enter the park a driver from my right crossed just as the light changed to red (could safely have stopped for amber) and there was no traffic to my left, on the way out neither direction had any traffic by the lights as they changed and both directions stopped when they reached the red light. Across all three phases there was a single cyclist and they stopped for the red light.
I paid attention to this having just posted on this thread. The above is typical ime.


----------



## maomao (Jul 31, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I mean, I just went for a walk round the park, to get into the park I use a toucan crossing across a road with 3 lanes total, which was not hugely busy but with some traffic. I saw three phase changes, on the one as I was walking towards the junction, a driver went through on amber, possibly just red, there were no other drivers anywhere near the crossing. On the one I used to enter the park a driver from my right crossed just as the light changed to red (could safely have stopped for amber) and there was no traffic to my right, on the way out neither direction had any traffic by the lights as they changed and both directions stopped when they reached the red light. Across all three phases there was a single cyclist and they stopped for the red light.
> I paid attention to this having just posted on this thread. The above is typical ime.


I pick my daughter up from nursery most days. She wants to walk but I carry her along the short part of the journey that's on a busy road with a puffin crossing. At least once a week I end up screaming blue murder at a motorist who crosses it _as the pips are sounding_. This is with an adult carrying an infant about to cross the road in full view. It also offers them no advantage whatsoever as they end up in the same place in the queue at the roundabout 100 yards down the road.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 31, 2017)

maomao said:


> Yet a police survey done at five busy junctions in London, the very epicentre of red light jumping cycling if our pound shop Nick Ferraris and Richard Hammonds are to be believed, shows that it's actually about 15% of cyclists who jump red lights.
> Stats on Cycling Through Red Lights  |  Cycling UK


Those are traffic junctions (and some of the busiest in London, at that), not pelicans and zebras, which is what we were talking about.




			
				http://content.tfl.gov.uk/traffic-note-8-cycling-red-lights.pdf   said:
			
		

> The five sites were: • Vauxhall Bridge junction with Millbank, Vauxhall Bridge and Grosvenor Road • Balham High Road junction with Tooting Bec Road, Tooting Road and Trinity Road • Brixton Hill junction with Christchurch Road, Streatham Hill and Streatham Place • Camberwell Road junction with, Camberwell Church Street, Denmark Hill and Camberwell New Road • Greenwich South Street junction with Blackheath Hill, Lewisham Road and Blackheath Road


If 15% are going through some of the deadliest traffic junctions in town on red, how many are going through smaller, less dangerous ones, and pedestrian crossings?

Even cyclists realise that you're more likely to get killed busting a red light controlling vehicles than one controlling pedestrians. But it's interesting the way that your source, Cycling UK , has spun the study to suggest that it's ALL red lights.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 31, 2017)

I've done 100 miles on my bike this last week, around Birmingham and up to Lichfield. I haven't seen a single other cyclist jump a red light.

This is a London thing. You're all fucking idiots down there.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2017)

maomao said:


> At least I've got a statistic. Where's yours?


Lies
Damned lies
Auld statistics


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2017)

maomao said:


> Yet a police survey done at five busy junctions in London, the very epicentre of red light jumping cycling if our pound shop Nick Ferraris and Richard Hammonds are to be believed, shows that it's actually about 15% of cyclists who jump red lights.
> Stats on Cycling Through Red Lights  |  Cycling UK
> 
> 
> ...


Do you trust the police?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 31, 2017)

maomao said:


> At least I've got a statistic. Where's yours?


Try these statistics on for size.
An average of 61.9% and as high as 98.9%!!!
http://www.tara.tcd.ie/bitstream/handle/2262/74776/AAP-D-15-00423R1-3.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 31, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I've done 100 miles on my bike this last week, around Birmingham and up to Lichfield. I haven't seen a single other cyclist jump a red light.
> 
> This is a London thing. You're all fucking idiots down there.


Shut up, you


----------



## maomao (Jul 31, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Try these statistics on for size.
> An average of 61.9% and as high as 98.9%!!!
> http://www.tara.tcd.ie/bitstream/handle/2262/74776/AAP-D-15-00423R1-3.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y


That's not even in this country!


----------



## maomao (Jul 31, 2017)

What next? Saul Goodman posts up traffic statistics from Western Samoa to support his foul prejudice? Fucking joker.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 31, 2017)

maomao said:


> That's not even in this country!





maomao said:


> What next? Saul Goodman posts up traffic statistics from Western Samoa to support his foul prejudice? Fucking joker.


It's where I live, you gobshite.
Does the thread title ask "What have people got against UK cyclists?"
Tool.


----------



## maomao (Jul 31, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> It's where I live, you gobshite.
> Does the thread title ask "What have people got against UK cyclists?"
> Tool.


Well in that case I'm happy to accept that you seem to have a problem with red light jumping in Dublin based on the evidence you've provided. It's a UK based site and we were clearly discussing London and the UK where the same is not true.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 31, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Try these statistics on for size.
> An average of 61.9% and as high as 98.9%!!!
> http://www.tara.tcd.ie/bitstream/handle/2262/74776/AAP-D-15-00423R1-3.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y


Phwoar, nice find!


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 31, 2017)

maomao said:


> Well in that case I'm happy to accept that you seem to have a problem with red light jumping in Dublin based on the evidence you've provided. It's a UK based site and we were clearly discussing London and the UK where the same is not true.


Why do you think there would be such an enormous disparity between London and Dublin cyclist's behaviour?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 31, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Phwoar, nice find!


But apparently those figures are to be ignored, because it's Dublin, not London. 

A cyclist is a cyclist is a cyclist, and up-to-date figures prove that up to 99% of cyclists run red lights.
I'd guess the figure is even higher in London.


----------



## maomao (Jul 31, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Why do you think there would be such an enormous disparity between London and Dublin cyclist's behaviour?


Different countries have different traffic cultures. Try finding a cyclist who jumps red lights in Germany. Or one who stops for them in China. That's self evident. Apparently they have a problem with red light jumping in Dublin according to literally all of the evidence I've seen on the subject (ie. that one post). You won't find the same statistics for London because it's not true here. There might be the odd junction in Camden where there's a lot of wankers about but I rarely see cyclists  red light jumping in Romford where I live or E14 where I work. It's not the culture.

It is however the culture for car drivers to lump all cyclists together while denying their own well documented faults.


----------



## maomao (Jul 31, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> But apparently those figures are to be ignored, because it's Dublin, not London.
> 
> A cyclist is a cyclist is a cyclist, and up-to-date figures prove that up to 99% of cyclists run red lights.
> I'd guess the figure is even higher in London.


You're a proper thick cunt. You can join PM on the 'manual ignore' list. You'll thank me in the end. It doesn't seem to be very good for your blood pressure.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 31, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I mean, I just went for a walk round the park, to get into the park I use a toucan crossing across a road with 3 lanes total, which was not hugely busy but with some traffic. I saw three phase changes, on the one as I was walking towards the junction, a driver went through on amber, possibly just red, there were no other drivers anywhere near the crossing. On the one I used to enter the park a driver from my right crossed just as the light changed to red (could safely have stopped for amber) and there was no traffic to my left, on the way out neither direction had any traffic by the lights as they changed and both directions stopped when they reached the red light. Across all three phases there was a single cyclist and they stopped for the red light.
> I paid attention to this having just posted on this thread. The above is typical ime.


I just went to the offie. All of the cars at the main junction were stopped short of the ASBs and nobody jumped the reds. There were no cyclists to observe at the junction but two did ride down the pavement and another further up the road had no lights.


----------



## High Voltage (Jul 31, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> . . . I'd guess the figure is even higher in London.



Bound to be, there's almost certainly far more cyclists in London.


----------



## maomao (Jul 31, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> I just went to the offie.



Do yourself a favour. Put the car keys away.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 31, 2017)

maomao said:


> I pick my daughter up from nursery most days. She wants to walk but I carry her along the short part of the journey that's on a busy road with a puffin crossing. At least once a week I end up screaming blue murder at a motorist who crosses it _as the pips are sounding_. This is with an adult carrying an infant about to cross the road in full view. It also offers them no advantage whatsoever as they end up in the same place in the queue at the roundabout 100 yards down the road.



I walk my daughter to nursery every day and for the past two years have not once screamed at a car. Reckon you need to think about moving.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 31, 2017)

maomao said:


> You're a proper thick cunt. You can join PM on the 'manual ignore' list. You'll thank me in the end. It doesn't seem to be very good for your blood pressure.



The last bastion of the utterly humiliated 
Edit to add: I'll thank you now!


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 31, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I walk my daughter to nursery every day and for the past two years have not once screamed at a car. Reckon you need to think about moving.


He quite obviously has anger management issues.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 31, 2017)

maomao said:


> Do yourself a favour. Put the car keys away.


No worries there. The car's at a tuner having a nitrous kit fitted. I'm planning to get over those pesky speed markers before the photos gets taken.

VROOM!!!!


----------



## maomao (Jul 31, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I walk my daughter to nursery every day and for the past two years have not once screamed at a car. Reckon you need to think about moving.


Is there a main road between you and the nursery full of Londoners desperate to get home at six pm?

I've already chucked up loads of statistics on UK drivers jumping red lights. But you know better, fine.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 31, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> But apparently those figures are to be ignored, because it's Dublin, not London.


And the motorists in Ireland are comparable as well.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 31, 2017)

maomao said:


> Is there a main road between you and the nursery full of Londoners desperate to get home at six pm?



No, cos I moved out of London. If living there winds you up so much perhaps that is something you may wish to consider too.


----------



## Ted Striker (Jul 31, 2017)

Seriously, why the fuck are any of you bothering on this thread?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 31, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> And the motorists in Ireland are comparable as well.


100%


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 31, 2017)

Ted Striker said:


> Seriously, why the fuck are any of you bothering on this thread?


Fun


----------



## maomao (Jul 31, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> No, cos I moved out of London. If living there winds you up so much perhaps that is something you may wish to consider too.


I'd love to and I'm about ten miles further out than I started. Unfortunately work's here for both of us. 

And I'm not really a seething bag of anger all day long but I do challenge motorists who jump red lights because it's potentially my daughter's life.


----------



## maomao (Jul 31, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Fun


This. I've managed to turn U75s tedious top gear thread into a proper car crash in about forty eight hours. Couldn't be prouder.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 31, 2017)

maomao said:


> I've managed to turn U75s tedious top gear thread into a proper car crash in about forty eight hours.


Don't kid yourself. This thread has been a car crash since July 2, 2015


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 31, 2017)

maomao said:


> This. I've managed to turn U75s tedious top gear thread into a proper car crash in about forty eight hours. Couldn't be prouder.


That's a first. A cyclist admitting he caused the crash


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 31, 2017)

The study shows a majority of those surveyed saying that in their view cycling in Dublin was Not Safe Enough (55%) or Unsafe (12%). It could be argued that a motivator for much illegal behaviour on the part of the cyclists surveyed, is fear or insecurity.

Rather than say necessarily a callous disregard for other road users.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 31, 2017)

I'll never have a private vehicle that isn't a bike unless I win the lottery or invent something, so I shall be all the more satisfied when I'm over 50 (most of you in this thread will be knocking 65 then). Listening to you slightly older gummers lament that its all electric self drive cars these days 'oh me godsons a good boy, he can afford a private cars insurance. Takes me out on a track day on me birthday' *cough cough*
'Remember when we used to rip it out of cyclists eh old bob? eh?'

'good times jim, I remember the thrill of speeding up to kill a badger'

'and reversing back for the pups aye'

'we'll not see those days again'


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 31, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> The study shows a majority of those surveyed saying that in their view cycling in Dublin was Not Safe Enough (55%) or Unsafe (12%). It could be argued that a motivator for much illegal behaviour on the part of the cyclists surveyed, is fear or insecurity.
> 
> Rather than say necessarily a callous disregard for other road users.


Cyclists running red lights complain that they don't feel safe.
The irony burns


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 31, 2017)

Is it safe to assume you haven't ridden a bike on a public road recently?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 31, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> Is it safe to assume you haven't ridden a bike on a public road recently?


Not at all. I haven't owned a car for 16 years or so, and all of my journeys are done on 2 wheels.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 31, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> The study shows a majority of those surveyed saying that in their view cycling in Dublin was Not Safe Enough (55%) or Unsafe (12%). It could be argued that a motivator for much illegal behaviour on the part of the cyclists surveyed, is fear or insecurity.
> 
> Rather than say necessarily a callous disregard for other road users.


That could indeed be argued.

G'waan, give it a go


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 31, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> They're all fucking vegans.



They're not fucking anyone 'cept their right hands and their goats, which explains why they don't want to eat them.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 31, 2017)

Fair enough (to both posts above  )

I'm fit, strong and confident and I find cycling on _busy _roads pretty intimidating at times. There are times / places I definitely avoid on a bike. For someone less fit, strong and confident I can see how busy roads might at times scare them enough to feel they need to take a pavement shortcut, or go some way through a light on red to get a head start on the heat lined up behind.

I agree there are times people should dismount when they don't, and there are definitely some entitled wankers out there who just don't give a shit and feel their imagined ethical superiority on a non-polluting, fitness-encouraging bike makes them kings (more usually kings than queens, if the evidence is to be believed) of all they survey.

But I think a lot of _bad behaviour_ _is _driven by fear and insecurity, and that's not a problem that can necessarily be solved just by better rider training.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2017)

maomao said:


> This. I've managed to turn U75s tedious top gear thread into a proper car crash in about forty eight hours. Couldn't be prouder.


and this is why we'll never have a revolution in this country


----------



## joustmaster (Jul 31, 2017)

I drive and cycle in London. 

I jump about 75% of red lights on my bike. Never when there are people crossing, though. Just to get off quickly, so I am not crossing a junction with cars. Or if there's nothing about and it's quiet. 
I do it because I know the roads, it's clear and safe, and because I can get away with it. 

As a driver I am very laid back. I tend to rarely go through a red just as its changing. If it's amber I stop. But I would say that I see a driver jumping a red light as it's just changed at about three quarters of the time. I occasionally get beeped for not doing so myself


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 31, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Why do you think there would be such an enormous disparity between London and Dublin cyclist's behaviour?


Because in London they'll all be cunts and in Dublin they'll all be pissed.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 31, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> Fair enough (to both posts above  )
> 
> I'm fit, strong and confident and I find cycling on _busy _roads pretty intimidating at times. There are times / places I definitely avoid on a bike. For someone less fit, strong and confident I can see how busy roads might at times scare them enough to feel they need to take a pavement shortcut, or go some way through a light on red to get a head start on the heat lined up behind.
> 
> ...


Good points, but therein lies the rub. Motorists have to pass a test to prove they're capable and confident on the road. If you're not confident you'll likely fail the test, yet cyclists who aren't confident enough to ride on busy roads are still allowed to ride on busy roads.
I've absolutely no problem with confident cyclists like your good self, as I'm sure you're not a danger to other road/footpath users. It's the entitled wankers you mentioned above that I have a problem with. There are far too many who don't believe the rules apply to them.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 31, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Because in London they'll all be cunts and in Dublin they'll all be pissed.


Hard to refute logic like that, tbf.


----------



## Sue (Jul 31, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> Fair enough (to both posts above  )
> 
> I'm fit, strong and confident and I find cycling on _busy _roads pretty intimidating at times. There are times / places I definitely avoid on a bike. For someone less fit, strong and confident I can see how busy roads might at times scare them enough to feel they need to take a pavement shortcut, or go some way through a light on red to get a head start on the heat lined up behind.
> 
> ...



Tbh,  I don't really care what the bad behaviour is driven by. I just want to be able to walk along the pavement then cross at the green man without being menaced by pavement cyclists/cyclists going through when the green man is on.

I'm not a cyclist or a driver. I walk two hours a day on average and definitely see way more cyclists go through red lights than drivers.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 31, 2017)

joustmaster said:


> I occasionally get beeped for not doing so myself



Not to mention overtaken while doing 20 in a 20 zone. That's hilarious and it happened to me recently. Ditto when I was doing just over 30 in a 30 zone.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 31, 2017)

Sue said:


> Tbh,  I don't really care what the bad behaviour is driven by. I just want to be able to walk along the pavement then cross at the green man without being menaced by pavement cyclists/cyclists going through when the green man is on.
> 
> I'm not a cyclist or a driver. I walk two hours a day on average and definitely see way more cyclists go through red lights than drivers.


Here's an impartial source for maomao


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 31, 2017)

Not to mention the massive number of people at 80/90 on the motorway these days. Some people think driving a German car makes the road German too...

Anyway, driving standards thread -->


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 31, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> Not to mention the massive number of people at 80/90 on the motorway these days. Some people think driving a German car makes the road German too...
> 
> Anyway, driving standards thread -->


In fairness, 80-90 should be the limit on a motorway. The limits being used are from a time when people were running on cross-ply tyres, with drum, servoless brakes. It's time the limits were raised, but that's another thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2017)

Sue said:


> Tbh,  I don't really care what the bad behaviour is driven by. I just want to be able to walk along the pavement then cross at the green man without being menaced by pavement cyclists/cyclists going through when the green man is on.
> 
> I'm not a cyclist or a driver. I walk two hours a day on average and definitely see way more cyclists go through red lights than drivers.


You only want the moon


----------



## Sue (Jul 31, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> You only want the moon


On a stick to boot.


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 31, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> In fairness, 80-90 should be the limit on a motorway.



I reckon everyone has a thing or two they think should or should not be true about the roads. This whole thread is based in that area of things, people doing what they should not do, but what a lot of them believe they should be able to do.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 31, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> I reckon everyone has a thing or two they think should or should not be true about the roads. This whole thread is based in that area of things, people doing what they should not do, but what a lot of them believe they should be able to do.


Yes, cyclists


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 31, 2017)

And drivers, going at 80/90 on motorways etc
But as already stated at least twice now, Driving Standards thread --->

So back on topic, surprisingly that's what people have got against cyclists who take the piss too. Whodathunkit


----------



## mojo pixy (Jul 31, 2017)

When we have teleportation, there'll be people who complain that other teleporters don't get out of the booth quick enough. Teleportation Rage incidents will soar, and people will arrive home with the wrong heads or genitals because of last-moment tussles.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 31, 2017)

Sue said:


> Tbh,  I don't really care what the bad behaviour is driven by. I just want to be able to walk along the pavement then cross at the green man without being menaced by pavement cyclists/cyclists going through when the green man is on.
> 
> I'm not a cyclist or a driver. I walk two hours a day on average and definitely see way more cyclists go through red lights than drivers.


Welcome to _Team Top Gear_, Sue.


----------



## Sue (Jul 31, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Welcome to _Team Top Gear_, Sue.


I'm on Team Shanks Pony.

Oh, and Team Take the Bus.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Welcome to _Team Top Gear_, Sue.


Top shelf, pa. Team top shelf.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> Different countries have different traffic cultures. Try finding a cyclist who jumps red lights in Germany. Or one who stops for them in China. That's self evident. Apparently they have a problem with red light jumping in Dublin according to literally all of the evidence I've seen on the subject (ie. that one post). You won't find the same statistics for London because it's not true here. There might be the odd junction in Camden where there's a lot of wankers about but I rarely see cyclists  red light jumping in Romford where I live or E14 where I work. It's not the culture.


By the way, this is a bollocks explanation as to why Dublin cyclists and London cyclists differ. I think it might even be a bit racist.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> By the way, this is a bollocks explanation as to why Dublin cyclists and London cyclists differ. I think it might even be a bit racist.


Wtf? 

If you're going to accuse me of racism I'd really appreciate a little more explanation of your workings out.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

If behaviour on the road isn't cultural what is it? What's your explanation for different behaviour on the road in different countries and even different areas of the same country? How is commenting that different cultures are different culturally racist?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2017)

Well you're effectively saying that Irish people break the law because it's their culture to do so. "Racist" might be overreaching but it's a bit dodgy, no?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Well you're effectively saying that Irish people break the law because it's their culture to do so. "Racist" might be overreaching but it's a bit dodgy, no?


Dublin and London are very similar, and the standard of riding is very similar in both places. I've sat at traffic lights in London and watched at the vast majority of cyclists rode straight through on red.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> Different countries have different traffic cultures. Try finding a cyclist who jumps red lights in Germany. Or one who stops for them in China. That's self evident. Apparently they have a problem with red light jumping in Dublin according to literally all of the evidence I've seen on the subject (ie. that one post). You won't find the same statistics for London because it's not true here. There might be the odd junction in Camden where there's a lot of wankers about but I rarely see cyclists  red light jumping in Romford where I live or E14 where I work. It's not the culture.
> 
> It is however the culture for car drivers to lump all cyclists together while denying their own well documented faults.


Yeh Germans are clinically efficient and that  you're very keen on your national stereotypes  I'll just leave this here Ignoring the Rules of the Road - SPIEGEL ONLINE


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Well you're effectively saying that Irish people break the law because it's their culture to do so. "Racist" might be overreaching but it's a bit dodgy, no?


And it gets worse pa, with his dated stereotypes of germans


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Well you're effectively saying that Irish people break the law because it's their culture to do so. "Racist" might be overreaching but it's a bit dodgy, no?


So am I being racist against UK residents by pointing out how many car drivers run red lights over here. 

Have you ever been to Italy or Greece? Are you suggesting that the standards of driving in those countries are a racial trait? I just don't even get what you're trying to say. Behaviour in public is one of the most basic and obvious parts of what we understand as culture and behaviour on the road is a subset of that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> So am I being racist against UK residents by pointing out how many car drivers run red lights over here.
> 
> Have you ever been to Italy or Greece? Are you suggesting that the standards of driving in those countries are a racial trait? I just don't even get what you're trying to say. Behaviour in public is one of the most basic and obvious parts of what we understand as culture and behaviour on the road is a subset of that.


So cyclists and drivers form distinct and discrete subcultures


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> So cyclists and drivers form distinct and discrete subcultures


I can't believe I'm bothering with you. 

But no. They don't. Certainly not discrete.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Well you're effectively saying that Irish people break the law because it's their culture to do so. "Racist" might be overreaching but it's a bit dodgy, no?


I'm Irish, and the standard of driving is better here, hard as that is to believe.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Aug 1, 2017)

It's a _proven fact_ that cyclists are fitter, stronger and much sexier than non-cyclists.  Source:  Sexy Cycling UK


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> I can't believe I'm bothering with you.
> 
> But no. They don't. Certainly not discrete.


So how come pedestrians behave pretty much the same around the world while you see, as you've pointed out, such differences among drivers?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 1, 2017)

The irony of Team Top Gear playing the race card.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> The irony of Team Top Gear playing the race card.


The disappointment of having to point out blatant stereotyping


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> So am I being racist against UK residents by pointing out how many car drivers run red lights over here.


You said in a previous post that car drivers are scum, so we know where you stand on car drivers, but more recently you said:


maomao said:


> Apparently they have a problem with red light jumping in Dublin according to literally all of the evidence I've seen on the subject (ie. that one post). You won't find the same statistics for London because it's not true here. There might be the odd junction in Camden where there's a lot of wankers about but I rarely see cyclists  red light jumping in Romford where I live or E14 where I work. It's not the culture.


So you're saying everyone in Dublin is a wanker?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2017)

sleaterkinney said:


> I'm Irish, and the standard of driving is better here, hard as that is to believe.


And your proof of this is ..... ?

I've driven thousands of miles in Ireland and haven't seen a noticeable difference in driving standards to here.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 1, 2017)

I've lived in both countries. The standard of driving is similar in both, as is the standard of riding.
The only major difference is we have worse roads in Ireland.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> So how come pedestrians behave pretty much the same around the world while you see, as you've pointed out, such differences among drivers?


Where's your evidence that pedestrians behave pretty much the same around the world? Have you ever been to another country? Even walking gait differs from place to place. When I first came back from China it took me a few months to train myself to not cross busy roads in silly places and when I lived in the US for a year as a child I was constantly stopped for jaywalking.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> And your proof of this is ..... ?
> 
> I've driven thousands of miles in Ireland and haven't seen a noticeable difference in driving standards to here.


Are you sure his here is here pa?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> Where's your evidence that pedestrians behave pretty much the same around the world? Have you ever been to another country? Even walking gait differs from place to place. When I first came back from China it took me a few months to train myself to not cross busy roads in silly places and when I lived in the US for a year as a child I was constantly stopped for jaywalking.


Sorry, what's the point you think you're making? Not sure you know what gait is either.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> You said in a previous post that car drivers are scum, so we know where you stand on car drivers, but more recently you said:


I was told that this was the epic ban thread but apparently it's one way bantz only.



> So you're saying everyone in Dublin is a wanker?


No. Though I have evidence there's at least one massive wanker there.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Sorry, what's the point you think you're making? Not sure you know what gait is either.


What is gait then clever clogs?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> So am I being racist against UK residents by pointing out how many car drivers run red lights over here.


No, you're just being inaccurate. You're also not ascribing the law breaking to English culture.

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not for one second calling you a racist. You've just been clumsy. You need to be very, very careful when attributing illegal behaviour to national _cultures. _Actually, it's not on to do it at all.


----------



## High Voltage (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> . . . when I lived in the US for a year as a child I was constantly stopped for jaywalking.





maomao said:


> When I first came back from China it took me a few months to train myself to not cross busy roads in silly places . . .





> *“Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man.”*


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Are you sure his here is here pa?


I think SK lives in London, son.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Well yes. But both were different compared to British standards. In small-town California jaywalking just isn't done.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> I was told that this was the epic ban thread but apparently it's one way bantz only.
> 
> No. Though I have evidence there's at least one massive wanker there.


I don't recall anyone referring to cyclists as scum. I certainly haven't!
You should try Xanax. It might help


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> What is gait then clever clogs?[/QUOp





maomao said:


> What is gait then clever clogs?


The pattern of one's movement: how one walks physically, as opposed to how one walks in a certain space


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> The pattern of one's movement: how one walks physically, as opposed to how one walks in a certain space


That's what I meant.


----------



## mojo pixy (Aug 1, 2017)

To be fair, from my own travelling experiences I would agree that using the road can be a different experience from country to country. Behaviour on the road in my view definitely has cultural aspects. Driving in Cairo is not like driving in London, and it's not just the quality of the road and density of signage that makes it different.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> That's what I meant.


Yet you adduce evidence of something quite different. But I see you've abandoned any defence of the point you thought you were making in 3307


----------



## mojo pixy (Aug 1, 2017)

Having said what I said above, I have to wonder if there are 'cultural differences' within the UK that we might blame for some of the observations on this thread. If so then I wonder what exactly they might be.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yet you adduce evidence of something quite different. But I see you've abandoned any defence of the point you thought you were making in 3307


Seeing as you're so sure what I'm trying to say perhaps you could explain it to me and everyone else while I get on with the job I'm actually paid to do. 

Failing that, go to China and look at people's legs. If you're very observant you don't even need to go that far. 

Sociocultural differences in gait.  - PubMed - NCBI


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> To be fair, from my own travelling experiences I would agree that using the road can be a different experience from country to country. Behaviour on the road in my view definitely has cultural aspects. Driving in Cairo is not like driving in London, and it's not just the quality of the road and density of signage that makes it different.


But that's not the case with road use in Ireland is it. Ireland is very similar to the UK in terms of infrastructure, culture, and driving. Apart from the road signs being in Irish as well as English you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference if you were parachuted in without knowing where you were. To say that Irish cyclists break the law more often than English cyclists because it's their culture is well dodgy.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> I don't recall anyone referring to cyclists as scum. I certainly haven't!
> You should try Xanax. It might help


Bahnhof Strasse has. It's okay though. It was just epic bantz.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Aug 1, 2017)

This thread is just trolling bullshit, isn't it. Time to leave.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> Seeing as you're so sure what I'm trying to say perhaps you could explain it to me and everyone else while I get on with the job I'm actually paid to do.
> 
> Failing that, go to China and look at people's legs. If you're very observant you don't even need to go that far.
> 
> Sociocultural differences in gait.  - PubMed - NCBI


Yeh. What's this got to do with your ostensible claim pedestrians behave differently round the world? Why, your two examples show you acting just the same in two very different environments.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

Don't think your much-vaunted article does what you'd like to think it does chuck. You couldn't be arsed to speak to it so I can't be arsed to read it.


maomao said:


> Seeing as you're so sure what I'm trying to say perhaps you could explain it to me and everyone else while I get on with the job I'm actually paid to do.
> 
> Failing that, go to China and look at people's legs. If you're very observant you don't even need to go that far.
> 
> Sociocultural differences in gait.  - PubMed - NCBI


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. What's this got to do with your ostensible claim pedestrians behave differently round the world? Why, your two examples show you acting just the same in two very different environments.



No they don't.

And what does environment mean? Do traffic regulation grow on trees where you come from? Or are you just widely swerving the word culture cause you know your wrong.


Pickman's model said:


> Don't think your much-vaunted article does what you'd like to think it does chuck. You couldn't be arsed to speak to it so I can't be arsed to read it.



Yes it does. It shows there's an observable ,measurable difference in the gait, measured by stride length and walking speed, of residents of two European towns less than 500 miles apart.


----------



## mojo pixy (Aug 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> But that's not the case with road use in Ireland is it. Ireland is very similar to the UK in terms of infrastructure, culture, and driving. Apart from the road signs being in Irish as well as English you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference if you were parachuted in without knowing where you were. To say that Irish cyclists break the law more often than English cyclists because it's their culture is well dodgy.



Yeah fair enough. The main things that tell you you're in Eire rather than say Wales or the west of England, are the writing on road signs and the look of registration plates. Everything else is pretty much the same (I've only been around the south coast, Rosslare / Waterford / Cork, and have to admit it all struck me as about 95% like western Britain)


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> No they don't.
> 
> And what does environment mean? Do traffic regulation grow on trees where you come from? Or are you just widely Wervin the word culture cause you know your wrong.


no, i am not Widely Wervin, though i have heard the name before.
what does environment mean? i can't be arsed to explain every fucking word to you. look it up, the internet is replete with dictionaries.
traffic regulations? much of this thread is about people ignoring traffic regulations, namely riding on pavements, going through red lights etc etc. don't mention traffic regulations as something to do with pedestrian behaviour, i've never heard such nonsense.
as far as i am concerned this correspondence is at an end, not because i suspect or believe i am wrong, but because you're a vexatious twat whose posts where they are legible are unspeakable nonsense.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> Bahnhof Strasse has. It's okay though. It was just epic bantz.



This is true. However what you don't understand is I do almost as many miles per year on my bike as in my car and I am, undoubtedly scum, hence:


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> no, i am not Widely Wervin, though i have heard the name before.
> what does environment mean? i can't be arsed to explain every fucking word to you. look it up, the internet is replete with dictionaries.
> traffic regulations? much of this thread is about people ignoring traffic regulations, namely riding on pavements, going through red lights etc etc. don't mention traffic regulations as something to do with pedestrian behaviour, i've never heard such nonsense.
> as far as i am concerned this correspondence is at an end, not because i suspect or believe i am wrong, but because you're a vexatious twat whose posts where they are legible are unspeakable nonsense.


Thank fuck for that. 

People make typos by the way. It happens. Discovering them is not the same as winning an argument.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> Thank fuck for that.
> 
> People make typos by the way. It happens. Discovering them is not the same as winning an argument.


yeh. most people present an argument by building up a case. you by contrast present a barrage of unspeakable nonsense and call it an argument. the only coherent bits in your posts are the typos.

on your way now, sling your hook.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> Yeah fair enough. The main things that tell you you're in Eire rather than say Wales or the west of England, are the writing on road signs and the look of registration plates. Everything else is pretty much the same (I've only been around the south coast, Rosslare / Waterford / Cork, and have to admit it all struck me as about 95% like western Britain)


Well quite. Which brings us back to the study that Maomao was looking to debunk because it was Irish. Given that, plus the traffic study he shot himself in the foot with yesterday, the only sensible conclusion is that incidents of cyclists busting red lights are several orders of magnitude more frequent than our pedal-powered friends would have us believe.

But everyone else knew that anyway.


----------



## mojo pixy (Aug 1, 2017)

Maybe we should just switch the bloody things off (at certain times in certain places, anyway)

Traffic Light Switch-Off Explained As Experts Take Opposing Views


----------



## hash tag (Aug 1, 2017)

So there I was cruising from Garratt Lane into Wandsworth High Street yesterday afternoon. Wandsworth High Street is always very busy and this bit was 4 lanes. I saw a cyclist, cycling right down the middle of the outside lane.....trouble with this is that Wandsworth High Street is one way. The dear cyclist was cycling towards the traffic. Just how thick and how stupid do you need to be?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

hash tag said:


> So there I was cruising from Garratt Lane into Wandsworth High Street yesterday afternoon. Wandsworth High Street is always very busy and this bit was 4 lanes. I saw a cyclist, cycling right down the middle of the outside lane.....trouble with this is that Wandsworth High Street is one way. The dear cyclist was cycling towards the traffic. Just how thick and how stupid do you need to be?


on the bright side at least they weren't on the pavement


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

hash tag said:


> The dear cyclist


----------



## mojo pixy (Aug 1, 2017)

hash tag said:


> I saw a cyclist, cycling right down the middle of the outside lane.....trouble with this is that Wandsworth High Street is one way. The dear cyclist was cycling towards the traffic. Just how thick and how stupid do you need to be?



Step aside, Mert. This fucker's having himself an accident.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2017)

hash tag said:


> So there I was cruising from Garratt Lane into Wandsworth High Street yesterday afternoon. Wandsworth High Street is always very busy and this bit was 4 lanes. I saw a cyclist, cycling right down the middle of the outside lane.....trouble with this is that Wandsworth High Street is one way.


Worse than Hitler.


----------



## 2hats (Aug 1, 2017)

mojo pixy said:


> Maybe we should just switch the bloody things off (at certain times in certain places, anyway)
> 
> Traffic Light Switch-Off Explained As Experts Take Opposing Views


Once self-driving vehicles overwhelmingly dominate we won’t need them anyway. Autonomous networked vehicles could all negotiate timings with each other as they approach the same junctions. You can, as you are, or the article is, argue they are largely not needed now. Driving around I can think of a lot of junctions where traffic lights strike me as superfluous (either their position and/or their operation at certain times of the day); they simply appear to contribute to congestion and pollution (have never understood the recent mania for adding traffic lights to roundabouts, both approaches and on the roundabout itself, which can render some of them impassable over multiple light cycles).


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2017)

2hats said:


> Driving around I can think of a lot of junctions where traffic lights strike me as superfluous (either their position and/or their operation at certain times of the day); they simply appear to contribute to congestion and pollution (have never understood the recent mania for adding traffic lights to roundabouts, both approaches and on the roundabout itself, which can render some of them impassable over multiple light cycles).


Traffic lights on roundabouts is an example of road planners trolling us.

Whilst we're on roundabouts, is anyone familiar with this:











It's a laugh to drive around but someone was on drugs when that was designed. Seems to work quite well though.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. most people present an argument by building up a case. you by contrast present a barrage of unspeakable nonsense and call it an argument. the only coherent bits in your posts are the typos.
> 
> on your way now, sling your hook.


Oh. You edited. 

I did see the first version though and was massively encouraged. 

The only reason we got bogged down on a tangent was because you repeatedly accused me of not understanding what I was saying when the truth was you were just too dull-minded to grasp it. 

I'd still be very happy if you did want to ignore me and the only reason I took _ you_ off ignore is because you're a vexatious twat who couldn't help having little digs to see if you really were still on ignore or not.


----------



## 2hats (Aug 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Traffic lights on roundabouts is an example of road planners trolling us.
> 
> Whilst we're on roundabouts, is anyone familiar with this:
> 
> ...


Is that the one in Hemel? Easier to navigate than the magic roundabout in Swindon methinks because it is straightforward to blank out the setup/other traffic (often largely obscured by shrubbery) and treat each as an individual junction whereas in Swindon (bare cluster of mini-roundabouts) you have traffic seemingly coming from all directions in your peripheral visual field which is a tad distracting.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2017)

2hats said:


> Is that the one in Hemel? Easier to navigate than the magic roundabout in Swindon methinks because it is straightforward to blank out the setup/other traffic (often largely obscured by shrubbery) and treat each as an individual junction whereas in Swindon (bare cluster of mini-roundabouts) you have traffic seemingly coming from all directions in your peripheral visual field which is a tad distracting.


Yes, it's Hemel. They missed a trick though. You should be able to drive through it too with a mini roundabout in the middle of the main one.


----------



## 2hats (Aug 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Yes, it's Hemel. They missed a trick though. You should be able to drive through it too with a mini roundabout in the middle of the main one.


Hamburger roundabout with a donut?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> Oh. You edited.
> 
> I did see the first version though and was massively encouraged.
> 
> ...


this is where you deploy your usual tactic of rewriting history. i think you'll find i said i wasn't sure you understood what gait is: your post is rather equivocal on the matter. that's but one example, you always do this but normally i just let it slide. it's like where you went on about circular arguments. you like the sound of it but devil take me if you can ever produce an example of it. so let me correct myself: you're not simply a vexatious twat, but a mendacious vexatious twat.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> this is where you deploy your usual tactic of rewriting history. i think you'll find i said i wasn't sure you understood what gait is: your post is rather equivocal on the matter. that's but one example, you always do this but normally i just let it slide. it's like where you went on about circular arguments. you like the sound of it but devil take me if you can ever produce an example of it.


Any argument with you is circular or at least curved cause there's no fucking point.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2017)

I didn't know there was one in Swindon too.






I'd loved to have been there when the designer first took that piece of paper to his boss.

And how did those pedestrians get in the middle? They'll have to cross between 5 and 7 traffic lanes to get out.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> Any argument with you is circular or at least curved cause there's no fucking point.


no fucking point with you, you lie as easy as you breathe. not to mention your dubious deployment of national stereotypes and your routine assumption of superiority ("have you ever been to another country?").

so in short, when you say circular argument, you mean something rather different to its generally accepted meaning.


----------



## 2hats (Aug 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> I didn't know there was one in Swindon too.







The Magic Roundabout. It works but can be a bit of a mindfuck. If you don’t stay in the outer orbit, you find yourself going the ‘wrong way round’ the inner roundabout orbit at some point and, as you can see from the aerial plan shots, there is no shrubbery/large street furniture to block your view of the other traffic which isn’t relevant to your immediate concerns (unlike in Hemel) and this can be distracting.

e2a: photo + must be great fun for cyclists (to stay on thread topic).


----------



## hash tag (Aug 1, 2017)

Don't forget, there is THE magic roundabout in Colchester Magic Roundabout (Colchester) - Wikipedia


----------



## 2hats (Aug 1, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Don't forget, there is THE magic roundabout in Colchester Magic Roundabout (Colchester) - Wikipedia


I spy shubbery. Probably not the mindfuck Swindon’s one is.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2017)

2hats said:


> The Magic Roundabout. It works but can be a bit of a mindfuck. If you don’t stay in the outer orbit, you find yourself going the ‘wrong way round’ the inner roundabout orbit at some point and, as you can see from the aerial plan shots, there is no shrubbery/large street furniture to block your view of the other traffic which isn’t relevant to your immediate concerns (unlike in Hemel) and this can be distracting.
> 
> e2a: photo + must be great fun for cyclists (to stay on thread topic).



Yes, so you can see all the other traffic swirling around randomly. I like it! I'm going to take a drive down there this weekend.

I particularly like all the spectators around the edges.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Yes, so you can see all the other traffic swirling around randomly. I like it! I'm going to take a drive down there this weekend.
> 
> I particularly like all the spectators around the edges.


you'll be in the centre, pa, dancing like a manic zebedee


----------



## 2hats (Aug 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Yes, so you can see all the other traffic swirling around randomly. I like it! I'm going to take a drive down there this weekend.
> 
> I particularly like all the spectators around the edges.


Definitely worth a visit with any American friend when they are driving (and have paid for) the hire car (preferably _stick shift_ for extra shits and giggles).


----------



## cupid_stunt (Aug 1, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> I've lived in both countries. The standard of driving is similar in both, as is the standard of riding.
> The only major difference is we have worse roads in Ireland.



Having spent a few years living in the Republic I would agree with that.

Although, unless MOTs have been introduced in more recent years, the other major difference back in the 80s was the state of some of the fucking cars.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> no fucking point with you, you lie as easy as you breathe. not to mention your dubious deployment of national stereotypes and your routine assumption of superiority ("have you ever been to another country?").
> 
> so in short, when you say circular argument, you mean something rather different to its generally accepted meaning.


I haven't done any of that you deluded prick. You're back on manual ignore.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> I haven't done any of that you deluded prick. You're back on manual ignore.


denial is not disproof, chuck.



maomao said:


> Different countries have different traffic cultures. Try finding a cyclist who jumps red lights in Germany. Or one who stops for them in China.


not stereotypes, eh?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Aug 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> I didn't know there was one in Swindon too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You didn't know about the world famous Magic Roundabout? 

The central roundabout goes around the wrong way, it's nuts.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Aug 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Yes, so you can see all the other traffic swirling around randomly. I like it! I'm going to take a drive down there this weekend.
> 
> I particularly like all the spectators around the edges.





Pickman's model said:


> you'll be in the centre, pa, dancing like a manic zebedee



Just dose up on some magic mushrooms, and you'll be fine, spy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

cupid_stunt said:


> Just dose up on some magic mushrooms, and you'll be fine, spy.


he powders them and takes them like snuff. but he's careful not to leave his 'shroom box lying round after the time ma thought it was a spice and sprinkled it liberally on gran's welsh rarebit


----------



## cupid_stunt (Aug 1, 2017)




----------



## 2hats (Aug 1, 2017)

cupid_stunt said:


>



As the video hints - the mistake is to overthink it. Just go with the flow, be cautious, generous and yield. Then it works. Something of the shared space approach of having to make eye contact with other road users rather than assuming right of way about it, perhaps.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> denial is not disproof, chuck.
> 
> not stereotypes, eh?


No. They're not.


----------



## planetgeli (Aug 1, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Don't forget, there is THE magic roundabout in Colchester Magic Roundabout (Colchester) - Wikipedia
> 
> View attachment 112574



I can see my old flat, from when I was a student, in that photo. That monstrosity wasn't there back then. There was, however, an equally dangerous big single roundabout at the bottom of Avon Way where my friend hit a bus late one evening and just carried on driving up to the university with his wheel sticking into the rim. When he got to the uni he tried to free the wheel and burned his hands badly on the hot metal. 

True story to cheer up the cyclists who seem to be losing this thread badly. Carry on.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Aug 1, 2017)

2hats said:


> As the video hints - the mistake is to overthink it. Just go with the flow, be cautious, generous and yield. Then it works. Something of the shared space approach of having to make eye contact with other road users rather than assuming right of way about it, perhaps.



Yeah, and that's why you don't see any cyclists attempting it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> No. They're not.


ywstwy


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

planetgeli said:


> I can see my old flat, from when I was a student, in that photo. That monstrosity wasn't there back then. There was, however, an equally dangerous big single roundabout at the bottom of Avon Way where my friend hit a bus late one evening and just carried on driving up to the university with his wheel sticking into the rim. When he got to the uni he tried to free the wheel and burned his hands badly on the hot metal.
> 
> True story to cheer up the cyclists who seem to be losing this thread badly. Carry on.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

So


Pickman's model said:


> ywstwy


So explain why Chinese road fatalities are five times the rate of German ones. Emergency health care there is quite good, not at European levels but not bad enough to account for that kind of disparity.

And it's a fact that Chinese cyclists dont stop for red lights. Look where the cycling group critical mass got their name from.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2017)

cupid_stunt said:


> You didn't know about the world famous Magic Roundabout?


Not the one in Swindon, no. I regularly go for a spin round the one in Hemel when I'm in the area but I don't think I've ever been to Swindon. It's a place I've only been past.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> So
> 
> So explain why Chinese road fatalities are five times the rate of German ones. Emergency health care there is quite good, not at European levels but not bad enough to account for that kind of disparity.
> 
> And it's a fact that Chinese cyclists dont stop for red lights. Look where the cycling group critical mass got their name from.


don't know from whence you're getting the 5x bit. certainly isn't wikipedia.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 1, 2017)

cupid_stunt said:


> Having spent a few years living in the Republic I would agree with that.
> 
> Although, unless MOTs have been introduced in more recent years, the other major difference back in the 80s was the state of some of the fucking cars.


They (finally) introduced the NCT (MOT equiv) here about 15 or so years ago. Not before time!
There were some heaps of shite on the road!


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> So explain why Chinese road fatalities are five times the rate of German ones.


Yet Ireland and the UK have almost identical figures for road deaths per capita and per mile travelled.
What were you saying about cultural differences?


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> don't know from whence you're getting the 5x bit. certainly isn't wikipedia.



4.37 times by population with a lower level of vehicle ownership.

Over fifteen times the rate per vehicle owned.

You should have stuck with my half-remembered 'five times' .

Explain the difference without referencing culture.

Incidentally. Ireland's rates of accidents are 50% higher than the UK's in but categories.  Presumably partly because it's more rural but it shows the blanket statements above about the countries' roads being indestinguishable to be a load of old toss.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Aug 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Not the one in Swindon, no. I regularly go for a spin round the one in Hemel when I'm in the area but I don't think I've ever been to Swindon. It's a place I've only been past.



TBF, unless you want a spin on the Magic Roundabout, Swindon is best by-passed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> Explain the difference without referencing culture.











one thing you might notice about china is it is the third largest country in the world, which means that many of the casualties will be miles from a hospital, being as hundreds of millions of chinese live in the countryside.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> Ireland's rates of accidents are 50% higher than the UK's in but categories.  Presumably partly because it's more rural but it shows the blanket statements above about the countries' roads being indestinguishable to be a load of old toss.


No it doesn't 

It's precisely because of what you said; rural roads, and possibly poorer road surfaces.

Or are you going to try to tell us that it's because it's in their culture to drive worse than the English?

Ffs, give it up man.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> No it doesn't
> 
> It's precisely because of what you said; rural roads, and possibly poorer road surfaces.
> 
> ...


you said the c word, pa, when maomao expressly didn't want to hear it


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> No it doesn't
> 
> It's precisely because of what you said; rural roads, and possibly poorer road surfaces.


That's exactly why our road death figures are slightly higher. That and the fact you're probably too far away from a hospital when you crash.
If someone crashed outside my front door, it would take an ambulance over an hour to arrive. I think that's called the Golden Hour.
The emergency/health services here are a joke.



Spymaster said:


> Ffs, give it up man.


If only.


----------



## mojo pixy (Aug 1, 2017)

I've been around the Swindon Magic Roundabout but only ever in the middle of the night, thankfully.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> one thing you might notice about china is it is the third largest country in the world, which means that many of the casualties will be miles from a hospital, being as hundreds of millions of chinese live in the countryside.


Just to clarify you are maintaining that there is no difference between the standards of behaviour of German/Irish/UK road users and those in China and that any difference is entirely down to the different levels of infrastructure?

Incidentally most road deaths in the UK also occur in rural areas.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> Just to clarify you are maintaining that there is no difference between the standards of behaviour of German/Irish/UK road users and those in China and that any difference is entirely down to the different levels of infrastructure?


just to clarify: no


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> Incidentally most road deaths in the UK also occur in rural areas.


Incidentally, what does this have to do with any of the preceding arguments?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Incidentally, what does this have to do with any of the preceding arguments?


he's trying to muddy the waters, pa


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> just to clarify: no


So what are you arguing? 

I've stated my position clearly.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> So what are you arguing?
> 
> I've stated my position clearly.


have you? where?


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> have you? where?


Yes. But for the slow of thinking:

All a survey of cyclists in Dublin proves is the behaviour of cyclists in Dublin. Behaviour in public, of which behaviour on the road and in traffic is a part differs significantly from place to place and to point this out is not racist or 'using steteotypes'. 

Put up a counter argument or fuck off.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> Yes. But for the slow of thinking:
> 
> All a survey of cyclists in Dublin proves is the behaviour of cyclists in Dublin. Behaviour in public, of which behaviour on the road and in traffic is a part differs significantly from place to place and to point this out is not racist or 'using steteotypes'.
> 
> Put up a counter argument or fuck off.


you seem to have confused me for someone else. i have not posted about ireland at all in this thread.

but when you declared that people in germany never run red lights and i posted a spiegel story about them so doing, you were very quiet about your 'steteotype' being disproved.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> So what are you arguing?
> 
> I've stated my position clearly.


I'm not sure what you are arguing, tbh.

So far we've had: Irish cyclists break the law more than English ones because it's their culture ; the higher death rate on Irish roads proves that their roads don't look the same as English ones ; and now you seem to be going down the 'the Irish are culturally poorer drivers than the English' route .  

If I have any of that wrong, perhaps you can clarify exactly what the fuck you are on about?


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> I'm not sure what you are arguing, tbh.
> 
> So far we've had: Irish cyclists break the law more than English ones because it's their culture ; the higher death rate on Irish roads proves that their roads don't look the same as English ones ; and now you seem to be going down the 'the Irish are culturally poorer drivers than the English' route .
> 
> If I have any of that wrong, perhaps you can clarify exactly what the fuck you are on about?


I haven't made any value judgements on Irish driving. You have.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> Yes. But for the slow of thinking:
> 
> All a survey of cyclists in Dublin proves is the behaviour of cyclists in Dublin. Behaviour in public, of which behaviour on the road and in traffic is a part differs significantly from place to place and to point this out is not racist or 'using steteotypes'.


But what you haven't done is explain why there would be such a huge difference between Ireland and England except for some condescending shit about Irish culture. This, despite Irish people on the the thread telling you there's little difference to here. 

The truth is there is no massive cultural difference between British and Irish road users. You're just deluded (or dishonest) about the behaviour of UK cyclists.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> But what you haven't done is explain why there would be such a huge difference between Ireland and England except for some condescending shit about Irish culture. This, despite Irish people on the the thread telling you there's little difference to here.
> 
> The truth is there is no massive cultural difference between British and Irish road users. You're just deluded (or dishonest) about the behaviour of UK cyclists.


not to mention germans, pa.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> I haven't made any value judgements on Irish driving.


I was clearly preempting it. 

Why else would you bring up the fact that there are 50% more road deaths in Ireland than the UK?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> I was clearly preempting it.
> 
> Why else would you bring up the fact that there are 50% more road deaths in Ireland than the UK?


spoken like a true irishman, pa.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> But what you haven't done is explain why there would be such a huge difference between Ireland and England except for some condescending shit about Irish culture. This, despite Irish people on the the thread telling you there's little difference to here.
> 
> The truth is there is no massive cultural difference between British and Irish road users. You're just deluded (or dishonest) about the behaviour of UK cyclists.


Again. I've made no value judgements about Irish driving so I don't know where you get condescending from. If red light jumping was at 99%  that would suggest to me it was uncontroversial and acceptable behaviour in Ireland which strikes me as a positive thing.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> I was clearly preempting it.
> 
> Why else would you bring up the fact that there are 50% more road deaths in Ireland than the UK?


To counter your claim that the road sin the two countries were indistinguishable and I clearly stated that most of it was due to the higher proportion of rural driving when I brought it up.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

I'm no longer acknowledging Pickman's Model because:

a) He is not interested in the argument,  just petty point scoring. Yet when he's proved wrong (that I do know what a gait is and that it does differ culturally) it's brushed under the carpet. The result is the constant digging up of irrelevant points and an argument that goes in circles rather than towards a conclusion. It's a fundamentally dishonest way to communicate and life is too short. 

b) the 'pa' shit. I just don't get it and it makes me sick up a little bit at the back of my throat.. I think everyone here knows he has a friend now. The only possible purpose is to increase the atmosphere of cliquey bullying around here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> I'm no longer acknowledging Pickman's Model because:
> 
> a) He is not interested in the argument,  just petty point scoring.


present a fucking argument and we'll see where we go from there.



> Yet when he's proved wrong (that I do know what a gait is and that it does differ culturally) it's brushed under the carpet.


i wasn't "proved wrong" as i said i wasn't sure you knew what a gait was. the proved wrong bollocks is er bollocks and of a piece with your lies _passim_


> b) the 'pa' shit. I just don't get it and it makes me sick up a little bit at the back of my throat.. I think everyone here knows he has a friend now. The only possible purpose is to increase the atmosphere of cliquey bullying around here.


if you don't get it why not ask about it, and all will be made clear.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> present a fucking argument and we'll see where we go from there.


I have. You havent. You deluded fool. Bye.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> I have. You havent. You deluded fool. Bye.


you've demanded answers to things which i haven't mentioned, e.g. the ireland bit and when you don't like the answers you start off with another round of insults.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> To counter your claim that the road sin the two countries were indistinguishable ...


You mean this one ...


> Ireland is very similar to the UK in terms of infrastructure, culture, and driving. Apart from the road signs being in Irish as well as English you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference if you were parachuted in without knowing where you were.


How does 'there are 50% more road deaths in Ireland' counter the above?


> ... and I clearly stated that most of it was due to the higher proportion of rural driving when I brought it up.


Oooh, that's a cheeky little backpedal. What you actually said was:


> Presumably partly because it's more rural but it shows the blanket statements above about the countries' roads being indestinguishable to be a load of old toss.


Your statement boils down to '50% more road deaths in Ireland show that Spy's statement that the roads in Ireland look practically the same as the ones in England is a load of old toss'.

Which is fucking nuts!


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> The only possible purpose is to increase the atmosphere of cliquey bullying around here.


Do you feel you're being bullied?

Aren't you just having two disagreements, one with PM and another with me? As far as I can tell they're not even about the same thing.

Did you not notice that I left you alone for most of the afternoon? I thought you were beleaguered enough so didn't really engage you until you suggested that a point of mine was "a load of old toss" at #3375.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Do you feel you're being bullied?
> 
> Aren't you just having two disagreements, one with PM and another with me? As far as I can tell they're not even about the same thing.


I don't think either of you are capable of bullying me. I'm not the only poster you two communicate with though.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> I don't think either of you are capable of bullying me. I'm not the only poster you two communicate with though.


So what the fuck are you banging on about now then? You're all over the place. You seem to specialise in posting in non-sequiturs.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> So what the fuck are you banging on about now then? You're all over the place. You seem to specialise in posting in non-sequiturs.


I know it's a little bit beyond your private car loving brain but I was expressing concern for other posters and the boards as a whole. There's a reason PM is the most ignored active poster on the boards.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> I know it's a little bit beyond your private car loving brain but I was expressing concern for other posters and the boards as a whole. There's a reason PM is the most ignored active poster on the boards.


Yeh by 43.5 posters

You can tell a lot about a man who follows phildwyer and none of it to his credit


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> I know it's a little bit beyond your private car loving brain but I was expressing concern for other posters and the boards as a whole. There's a reason PM is the most ignored active poster on the boards.


But you seem to be implying that he and I bully people in some sort of joint enterprise. 

Can you substantiate that with some examples?


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

I chucked up statistics from several sources regarding red light jumping by motorists and cyclists in the UK yesterday all ignored because the pound shop top gear team found a survey from another country  that supports their prejudice. No wonder the thread can only descend into abuse.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> But you seem to be implying that he and I bully people in some sort of joint enterprise.
> 
> Can you substantiate that with some examples?


Belboid a few months ago. That was ugly. I'm not going through your posting history though. Fwiw I think he's a real bully and you just like a scrap.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> Belboid a few months ago. That was ugly. I'm not going through your posting history though. Fwiw I think he's a real bully and you just like a scrap.


Belboid and I had beef for many years (hatchet now buried) and yes, we went at it hammer and tongs. That wasn't bullying, it was just a knife fight between the two of us. Pickman's wasn't even involved.

I thought PM and Belboid are actually friendly with each other.

Feel free to trawl my posting history. I'll be very surprised if you can find any examples of bullying. I'm happy to be known as a troll, an annoying arsehole, or any number of other things, but not a bully.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Belboid and I had beef for many years (hatchet now buried) and yes, we went at it hammer and tongs. That wasn't bullying, it was just a knife fight between the two of us. Pickman's wasn't even involved.
> 
> I thought PM and Belboid are actually friendly with each other.


Just checked the TPT thread and he's snapping away from behind your skirts throughout the whole fight. 

I don't think it's a planned joint campaign of bullying because that's nut how bullying works.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> Just checked the TPT thread and he's snapping away from behind your skirts throughout the whole fight.
> 
> I don't think it's a planned joint campaign of bullying because that's nut how bullying works.


I honestly can't recall being aware that PM was even there at the time. Again, that wasn't bully, it was beef (swidt? )

I don't think you believe that either. You've taken a bit of a hiding today and you're lashing out with silly claims.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> Belboid a few months ago. That was ugly. I'm not going through your posting history though. Fwiw I think he's a real bully and you just like a scrap.


bully for you. I don't recall this thing with belboid, if indeed it occurred


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> Just checked the TPT thread and he's snapping away from behind your skirts throughout the whole fight.
> 
> I don't think it's a planned joint campaign of bullying because that's nut how bullying works.


What's a tpt thread?

E2A tara palmer tomkinson?


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> What's a tpt thread?


Throttle Pickman's Tosaer
Tedious Pickman's Twat
Totally Preposterous Tosspot


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> Throttle Pickman's Tosaer
> Tedious Pickman's Twat
> Totally Preposterous Tosspot


And all I have is mendacious maomao


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> What's a tpt thread?
> 
> E2A tara palmer tomkinson?


Yes. Not a particularly edifying performance from any of us but I've just been through it. You were on it but you and I weren't even engaging the same people so I'm not sure what he's on about.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Yes. Not a particularly edifying performance from any of us but I've just been through it. You were on it but you and I weren't even engaging the same people so I'm not sure what he's on about.


He does like his cross-thread beef, pa, heavy on the horseradish


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh by 43.5 posters


So you're up to 43 ignorers now. It was 30 odd just before xmas!


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Yes. Not a particularly edifying performance from any of us but I've just been through it. You were on it but you and I weren't even engaging the same people so I'm not sure what he's on about.





Pickman's model said:


> sneaky, pa





Pickman's model said:


> which is why you're on this thread no doubt. if you really were showing a complete lack of interest you wouldn't have posted this on the subject:
> 
> "no loss at all" doesn't indicate complete apathy on tpt's death. so if pa's lying he's got you keeping him company.





Pickman's model said:


> i've demonstrated you've lied on this thread, now you're down the old ad hominem route. no surprise.



We can't be thinking of the same thread. Like a little psycho puppy getting excited at his master being in a scrap. Nipping out from behind your heels to take nips at your opponent. I'd be ashamed if I were you.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> I chucked up statistics from several sources regarding red light jumping by motorists and cyclists in the UK yesterday all ignored because the pound shop top gear team found a survey from another country  that supports their prejudice. No wonder the thread can only descend into abuse.


Er, hold on. Just seen this. 

I responded to those stats (see post #3230). They were irrelevant to what was being argued. You ignored my response.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> We can't be thinking of the same thread.


I think not. Can you PM me a link to the one you mean. Genuinely interested.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Er, hold on. Just seen this.
> 
> I responded to those stats (see post #3230). They were irrelevant to what was being argued. You ignored my response.



You responded to one set of stats. I posted up links to four articles with clear quotes to show what they related to.

And in response red light jumpers are just as likely to jump large large multi phase junctions because there are tonnes of gaps where there's no traffic. Given that 15% of them did jump your assertion can't be right. They'd all be dead and they're not.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> I think not. Can you PM me a link to the one you mean. Genuinely interested.


Follow any quote in my post above. They're all from that thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> We can't be thinking of the same thread. Like a little psycho puppy getting excited at his master being in a scrap. Nipping out from behind your heels to take nips at your opponent. I'd be ashamed if I were you.


Yeh, you should be ashamed. If you've a point to make make it on the right thread.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> I just went to the offie. All of the cars at the main junction were stopped short of the ASBs and nobody jumped the reds. There were no cyclists to observe at the junction but two did ride down the pavement and another further up the road had no lights.



Just to go back to this conversation from yesterday, which is now 5 pages ago!
Forgot we had driver training today so I was in early and there was very little traffic around. 
So I rode home that way I ride in (normally go different ways for different hill profiles - long, shallow uphill on the way in, short steep downhill on the way out plus no traffic lights).
jct 1: two black cab drivers crossed after the red phase - wasn't very busy, just them two and a bus ahead of them waiting to turn right, plus traffic going the other way, maybe 10 cars, I wasn't counting.
jct 2: null result - I went straight through a green phase and did not see a phase change
jct 3: null result - no drivers near the junction when the lights changed
jct 4: someone in the ASL I went into (after filtering past a traffic jam), driver on the other road went into the ASL when their lights changed. No RLJs.
jct 5: this is the big 3 lane each way and had one person RLJ. Unusually low, but made up for it with spectacular lateness, as they were using the left filter lane (which actually makes the road 7 lanes in total) to turn into the road I was heading into and I was halfway across the junction when they drove through the red light!

I had 7 other cyclists around me on my way home, 5 for all the lights, 2 for some of them. Nobody jumped any of the red lights.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> And in response red light jumpers are just as likely to jump large large multi phase junctions because there are tonnes of gaps where there's no traffic. Given that 15% of them did jump your assertion can't be right. They'd all be dead and they're not.


I'm not sure that you realise what my assertion was then. It was that 15% of cyclists are jumping dangerous junctions more will be jumping less dangerous ones, and that the study you quoted referred only to traffic junctions, whereas the lights that were being discussed at the time were pedestrian lights.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Just to go back to this conversation from yesterday, which is now 5 pages ago!
> Forgot we had driver training today so I was in early and there was very little traffic around.
> So I rode home that way I ride in (normally go different ways for different hill profiles - long, shallow uphill on the way in, short steep downhill on the way out plus no traffic lights).
> jct 1: two black cab drivers crossed after the red phase - wasn't very busy, just them two and a bus ahead of them waiting to turn right, plus traffic going the other way, maybe 10 cars, I wasn't counting.
> ...


It doesn't count because it's not London but London is exactly the same as Dublin.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> I'm not sure that you realise what my assertion was then. It was that 15% of cyclists are jumping dangerous junctions more will be jumping less dangerous ones, and that the study you quoted referred only to traffic junctions, whereas the lights that were being discussed at the time were pedestrian lights.


Large multi phase junctions aren't dangerous. Especially if you know the phases.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> It doesn't count because it's not London but London is exactly the same as Dublin.



The problem here is clearly capital cities. Perhaps we should examine Paris, Berlin and Canberra and see if everyone is cunt on the roads there too?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Just to go back to this conversation from yesterday, which is now 5 pages ago!
> Forgot we had driver training today so I was in early and there was very little traffic around.
> So I rode home that way I ride in (normally go different ways for different hill profiles - long, shallow uphill on the way in, short steep downhill on the way out plus no traffic lights).
> jct 1: two black cab drivers crossed after the red phase - wasn't very busy, just them two and a bus ahead of them waiting to turn right, plus traffic going the other way, maybe 10 cars, I wasn't counting.
> ...


I'm going out soon. I'm sure I'll trump you later.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> I'm going out soon. I'm sure I'll trump you later.



I'm sure you will - but I think it's interesting to have a sort of straw poll of the different behaviours in Birmingham and London, as they do seem really different, and I find that kind of odd, that drivers have an apparently higher standard of behaviour in London, and cyclists worse. If both were better or worse that would make sense but to be going different directions, it's strange.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> It doesn't count because it's not London but London is exactly the same as Dublin.


Well it doesn't count because it's anecdotal but Tom realises that and is playing the game. 

You on the other hand, seem intent on burying yourself all over again!


----------



## BigTom (Aug 1, 2017)

Does anyone know how traffic light phase timings work? Are they regulated by DfT? I've just had the thought that maybe in London, TfL have shorter times where all lights are red (which would make sense to increase traffic movement in such a congested city) so drivers have learnt they really can't jump the red, whereas that bit is longer elsewhere so drivers know that most of the time they can cross just after it's turned red and the other direction won't be on green yet.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Bury St West crossing the A10 into Bury Street in Edmonton is the most dangerous junction I know. Unpredictable sensor controlled phases maintaining traffic on the dual carriageway with pedestrian crossings set well back from the main crossing. Because it's sensor controlled a lone bicycle can't trigger a green light leaving the cyclist to a) cross a stream of 60mph traffic which is not how red light jumping works b) cycle on a pedestrian crossing or c) walk an extra100 metres or so.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Well it doesn't count because it's anecdotal but Tom realises that and is playing the game.
> 
> You on the other hand, seem intent on burying yourself all over again!


Burying myself? I've put your yappy dog back on ignore and I'm having a great time.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> And in response red light jumpers are just as likely to jump large large multi phase junctions because there are tonnes of gaps where there's no traffic. Given that 15% of them did jump your assertion can't be right. They'd all be dead and they're not.


Incorrect assumption. If you'd bothered to read the report I posted, you'd see that cyclists are massively more likely to run red lights at pedestrian crossings than they are at junctions. Which suggests that cyclists do value life, but only their own.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> So you're up to 43 ignorers now. It was 30 odd just before xmas!


Got no idea how many, tbh, nor do I care. The 0.5 is auld maomao who swivels between slavish following and affecting ignoring.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> Bury St West crossing the A10 into Bury Street in Edmonton is the most dangerous junction I know. Unpredictable sensor controlled phases maintaining traffic on the dual carriageway with pedestrian crossings set well back from the main crossing. Because it's sensor controlled a lone bicycle can't trigger a green light leaving the cyclist to a) cross a stream of 60mph traffic which is not how red light jumping works b) cycle on a pedestrian crossing or c) walk an extra100 metres or so.



oh yeah. You learn the sensor junctions that don't work on a bike, annoying.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Incorrect assumption. If you'd bothered to read the report I posted, you'd see that cyclists are massively more likely to run red lights at pedestrian crossings than they are at junctions. Which suggests that cyclists do value life, but only their own.


I'm speaking as an ex cyclist and red light jumper and as a pedestrian who clocks up 10-15 miles a week in the main area this thread is discussing.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Incorrect assumption. If you'd bothered to read the report I posted, you'd see that cyclists are massively more likely to run red lights at pedestrian crossings than they are at junctions. Which suggests that cyclists do value life, but only their own.


He's conveniently ignoring that.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Got no idea how many, tbh, nor do I care. The 0.5 is auld maomao who swivels between slavish following and affecting ignoring.


When have I slavishly followed you? You're the worst thing about these boards.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> He's conveniently ignoring that.


No-one bothered reading my statistics on motorists red light jumping it was just 'no, doesn't happen'. Maybe I'll read the whole thing when I get some answers to that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> When have I slavishly followed you? You're the worst thing about these boards.


I rest my case, and so soon after assuring pa 


maomao said:


> Burying myself? I've put your yappy dog back on ignore and I'm having a great time.


You can't help your little lies, can you?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> No-one bothered reading my statistics on motorists red light jumping it was just 'no, doesn't happen'. Maybe I'll read the whole thing when I get some answers to that.


Lol!  

Good swerve


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> I rest my case, and so soon after assuring pa
> 
> You can't help your little lies, can you?


Just demonstrating that you can't help taking little digs when someone tells you you're on ignore. Where have I slavishly followed you?

How fucking old are you anyway? It's fucking telling that you've only just started writing the odd post in capital letters because you realised how shit your lower case affectation looks in a post of more than two sentences. All you've ever contributed to these boards is sly digs and bullying. Why don't you do us all a favour and ram your rancid keyboard up your arsehole and leave it there.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Lol!
> 
> Good swerve


So do you like this 'pa' nonsense? It amuses you and you can't see how it adds a cliquey bullying atmosphere to every thread the two of you post on? I'd find it embarrassing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> Just demonstrating that you can't help taking little digs when someone tells you you're on ignore. Where have I slavishly followed you?
> 
> How fucking old are you anyway? It's fucking telling that you've only just started writing the odd post in capital letters because you realised how shit your lower case affectation looks in a post of more than two sentences. All you've ever contributed to these boards is sly digs and bullying. Why don't you do us all a favour and ram your rancid keyboard up your arsehole and leave it there.


No, the capital letters are because that's what the phone does. I hadn't seen your you're on ignore post before I submitted the slavishly following one, and for you to fall at the first ignoring hurdle - again - speaks volumes about your strength of mind. You're very curious about me - how auld I am, whether i've travelled abroad... Makes me curious about your motives in seeking this information.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> No, the capital letters are because that's what the phone does. I hadn't seen your you're on ignore post before I submitted the slavishly following one, and for you to fall at the first ignoring hurdle - again - speaks volumes about your strength of mind. You're very curious about me - how auld I am, whether i've travelled abroad... Makes me curious about your motives in seeking this information.



What do you get out of it? The vast majority of your posts are shit stirring nasty bollocks and the only thing you can say for your time here is that you're the most hated poster on the boards.

I've reported some of your shit above and requested mutual ignore.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> What do you get out off it? The vast majority of your pots are shit stirring nasty bollocks and the only thing you can say for your time here is that you're the most hated poster on the boards.
> 
> I've reported some of your shit above and requested mutual ignore.


Yeh? I see from your posts you've disliked me for some time. Your privilege, I don't feel the same about you. You say I'm the most hated poster. I don't see or feel that. You want to ignore me? Go on then, if you think you can. But wr2 your reporting, all my posts are grounded in fact: for example you have lied, repeatedly. Your vile abuse is of a quite different quality. You're often an interesting poster, but as far as I'm concerned you've built up a view of me which doesn't match the reality, imo. But have it your way, your loss chuck.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Just to go back to this conversation from yesterday, which is now 5 pages ago!
> Forgot we had driver training today so I was in early and there was very little traffic around.
> So I rode home that way I ride in (normally go different ways for different hill profiles - long, shallow uphill on the way in, short steep downhill on the way out plus no traffic lights).
> jct 1: two black cab drivers crossed after the red phase - wasn't very busy, just them two and a bus ahead of them waiting to turn right, plus traffic going the other way, maybe 10 cars, I wasn't counting.
> ...


Just got back. A bit of a dearth of treaders this evening but there was one on the pavement who used the (non-toucan) pedestrian crossing, and another doing that balancing whilst standing on his pedals _in front_ of the ASB.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh? I see from your posts you've disliked me for some time. Your privilege, I don't feel the same about you. You say I'm the most hated poster. I don't see or feel that. You want to ignore me? Go on then, if you think you can. But wr2 your reporting, all my posts are grounded in fact: for example you have lied, repeatedly. Your vile abuse is of a quite different quality. You're often an interesting poster, but as far as I'm concerned you've built up a view of me which doesn't match the reality, imo. But have it your way, your loss chuck.


Why do 40-odd people have you on ignore then? Maybe you should take a fucking look at yourself.

And I never knowingly lie in conversation here. I may make occasional errors but then you can't distinguish between a misuse of a word and an 'assertion' so fuck knows what you think counts as a lie.

43 people have you on ignore because you're a bully. Bullies aren't Gripper Stebson types. They're people like you that try to use their position in a community to decide who gets left alone and who gets picked on. Have a fucking look in the mirror.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> So do you like this 'pa' nonsense? It amuses you and you can't see how it adds a cliquey bullying atmosphere to every thread the two of you post on? I'd find it embarrassing.


Nah, it's just a bit of fun based on an old thread.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Does anyone know how traffic light phase timings work? Are they regulated by DfT? I've just had the thought that maybe in London, TfL have shorter times where all lights are red (which would make sense to increase traffic movement in such a congested city) so drivers have learnt they really can't jump the red, whereas that bit is longer elsewhere so drivers know that most of the time they can cross just after it's turned red and the other direction won't be on green yet.


I think it's probably more to do with the fact that so many lights have cameras on them here you're highly likely to get busted if you make a habit of it. Plus it's fucking stupid.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> Why do 40-odd people have you on ignore then? Maybe you should take a fucking look at yourself.
> 
> And I never knowingly lie in conversation here. I may make occasional errors but then you can't distinguish between a misuse of a word and an 'assertion' so fuck knows what you think counts as a lie.
> 
> 43 people have you on ignore because you're a bully. Bullies aren't Gripper Stebson types. They're people like you that try to use their position in a community to decide who gets left alone and who gets picked on. Have a fucking look in the mirror.


i don't know why 40-odd people have me on ignore. maybe some of them feel as you say they do, maybe not. you don't know and neither do i.

if you never knowingly lie in conversation, then it's strange you've not corrected yourself when you declare i've said things i haven't, and i've pointed out i haven't.

if you want to ignore me, get the fuck on and ignore me. you won't hurt my feelings. otherwise abandon the attempt and we'll see if we can work out how to get along.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't know why 40-odd people have me on ignore. maybe some of them feel as you say they do, maybe not. you don't know and neither do i.
> 
> if you never knowingly lie in conversation, then it's strange you've not corrected yourself when you declare i've said things i haven't, and i've pointed out i haven't.
> 
> if you want to ignore me, get the fuck on and ignore me. you won't hurt my feelings. otherwise abandon the attempt and we'll see if we can work out how to get along.


No. I'm going to hang around and call out your bullying every time I see it.

And I still don't know what you think I've lied about.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 1, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> I think it's probably more to do with the fact that so many lights have cameras on them here you're highly likely to get busted if you make a habit of it. Plus it's fucking stupid.



ah, that would explain it. I can think of one junction with red light cameras in Birmingham, there's probably others, but it's not common at all (and hugely advertised at that junction, which I assume had two fatalities in 12 months (I think that's the requirement for an automatic examination with eye to change of a junction), caused by RLJer(s) and put the cameras there as a result.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> No. I'm going to hang around and call out your bullying every time I see it.
> 
> And I still don't know what you think I've lied about.


perhaps you should pm editor and let him know you've changed your mind about the mutual ignore then.

as for the other, why not reread the thread.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps you should pm editor and let him know you've changed your mind about the mutual ignore then.
> 
> as for the other, why not reread the thread.


There were no lies. Your arguments are circular because they never reach a conclusion. And you questioned whether I knew what a word meant that I demonstrably did. I don't know what the fuck other petty shit you could possibly be on about but it's ample demonstration that you have no interest in any argument as a whole only in picking up on miniscule typos and inconsistencies to the point where the original topic is obscured.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Really. You are such a tedious, frustrating waste of fucking bandwidth that if I were to hear tomorrow that you'd caught both your hands in a threshing machine and could never post again I'd break my not inconsiderable period of sobriety to take a drink in celebration.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> ... if I were to hear tomorrow that you'd caught both your hands in a threshing machine and could never post again I'd break my not inconsiderable period of sobriety to take a drink in celebration.


Ffs. No need for that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> Really. You are such a tedious, frustrating waste of fucking bandwidth that if I were to hear tomorrow that you'd caught both your hands in a threshing machine and could never post again I'd break my not inconsiderable period of sobriety to take a drink in celebration.


what a big man you are.

fortunately, there're voice recognition apps so i'd not have your relapse on my conscience.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

Poor hard done by Pickmans. Boo fucking hoo.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> Poor hard done by Pickmans. Boo fucking hoo.


bore fucking hore more like. post something really imaginatively insulting.


----------



## snadge (Aug 1, 2017)

Bullies on the internet, LOL, click the cross in the corner of the browser, fuksake.


----------



## maomao (Aug 1, 2017)

snadge said:


> Bullies on the internet, LOL, click the cross in the corner of the browser, fuksake.


Yeah. Bedtime.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> Yeah. Bedtime.


sleep tight


----------



## hash tag (Aug 1, 2017)

cupid_stunt said:


> TBF, unless you want a spin on the Magic Roundabout, Swindon is best by-passed.



WRONG. The Steam museum is excellent Steam

Right next door to an NT Cafe!


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> I'm speaking as an ex cyclist and red light jumper and as a pedestrian who clocks up 10-15 miles a week in the main area this thread is discussing.


I've read back through your posts on this thread, and it's quite obvious you're nothing short of a cunt.
I'm not gonna put you on ignore, because that's childish, but I'm going to treat any further posts from you with the contempt they deserve.
Please exercise your right to go and fuck yourself


----------



## editor (Aug 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> I rest my case, and so soon after assuring pa
> 
> You can't help your little lies, can you?





maomao said:


> Just demonstrating that you can't help taking little digs when someone tells you you're on ignore. Where have I slavishly followed you?
> 
> How fucking old are you anyway? It's fucking telling that you've only just started writing the odd post in capital letters because you realised how shit your lower case affectation looks in a post of more than two sentences. All you've ever contributed to these boards is sly digs and bullying. Why don't you do us all a favour and ram your rancid keyboard up your arsehole and leave it there.


If you two don't stop this bunfight, you're going on forced ignore, y'hear?


----------



## hash tag (Aug 2, 2017)

editor said:


> If you two don't stop this bunfight, you're going on forced ignore, y'hear?



It's not their fault, they didn't start it!


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 2, 2017)

hash tag said:


> It's not their fault, they didn't start it!


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Aug 2, 2017)

maomao said:


> No they don't.
> 
> And what does environment mean? Do traffic regulation grow on trees where you come from? Or are you just widely swerving the word culture cause you know your wrong.
> 
> ...



The study groups were tiny...and they were looking at comparisons between parkinsons patients gait speed.

The only observation they made was that the Berliners walked faster.....
Hardly proof of anything much... 

An observation of a small sample of 47 is proof of nothing..it is merely observation.


----------



## maomao (Aug 2, 2017)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> The study groups were tiny...and they were looking at comparisons between parkinsons patients gait speed.
> 
> The only observation they made was that the Berliners walked faster.....
> Hardly proof of anything much...
> ...


Difference in gait from place to place is an obsession of the Chinese. There are old tales of people who learn new ways of walking or move from place to place so much they end up forgetting how to walk altogether. Foreigners are always referred to as walking 'straight legged' and right up to the twentieth century there are mentions of people returning from abroad 'walking like a foreigner'. It's not such a hot topic among Chinese young people but IME older Chinese people have a pronounced gait that is instantly recognisable. 

It's not something that's been studied widely as that paper points out though the little evidence it does present certainly supports what the Chinese have been saying for a couple of thousand years.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Aug 2, 2017)

maomao said:


> Difference in gait from place to place is an obsession of the Chinese. There are old tales of people who learn new ways of walking or move from place to place so much they end up forgetting how to walk altogether. Foreigners are always referred to as walking 'straight legged' and right up to the twentieth century there are mentions of people returning from abroad 'walking like a foreigner'. It's not such a hot topic among Chinese young people but IME older Chinese people have a pronounced gait that is instantly recognisable.
> 
> It's not something that's been studied widely as that paper points out though the little evidence it does present certainly supports what the Chinese have been saying for a couple of thousand years.



They don't have a pronounced gait. In fact as they age they have a shorter stride which is now known to lessen the incidence of gonarthrosis*....so they have learned to adjust their balance and stride to actively avoid knee injury. 
Also...I would imagine that different types of footwear may have an effect on how an indivudual walks....

A comparison of the gaits of Chinese and Caucasian women with particular reference to their heelstrike transients.  - PubMed - NCBI

I dont get the connection with cyclists though?? Maybe I missed something.



* gonarthrosis ...arthosis of the knee.


----------



## maomao (Aug 2, 2017)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> They don't have a pronounced gait. In fact as they age they have a shorter stride which is now known to lessen the incidence of gonarthrosis*....so they have learned to adjust their balance and stride to actively avoid knee injury.
> Also...I would imagine that different types of footwear may have an effect on how an indivudual walks....
> 
> A comparison of the gaits of Chinese and Caucasian women with particular reference to their heelstrike transients.  - PubMed - NCBI


Thank you. That's interesting. I'm at work now I'll have a proper look later. Is it your field?


> I dont get the connection with cyclists though?? Maybe I missed something.
> 
> 
> 
> * gonarthrosis ...arthosis of the knee.



It has very very little to do with cycling though I stand by the original sentence where I used it for the moment. It's prominence on the thread has everything to do with a certain poster's arguing style which relies entirely on trying to pick on minor errors to create the impression of some sort of debate while avoiding putting forward any sort of cogent argument himself. It's tedious and I will do my best to avoid getting dragged off at confusing and irrelevant tangents in future. If is difficult though when you're constantly being accused of lying and not knowing what you're talking about.

It is of course possible for me to be wrong _ and_ know what I'm talking about.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Aug 2, 2017)

maomao said:


> Thank you. That's interesting. I'm at work now I'll have a proper look later. Is it your field?
> 
> 
> It has very very little to do with cycling though I stand by the original sentence where I used it for the moment. It's prominence on the thread has everything to do with a certain poster's arguing style which relies entirely on trying to pick on minor errors to create the impression of some sort of debate while avoiding putting forward any sort of cogent argument himself. It's tedious and I will do my best to avoid getting dragged off at confusing and irrelevant tangents in future. If is difficult though when you're constantly being accused of lying and not knowing what you're talking about.
> ...




 



Exits thread stage left.......>>>>>>>


Edited to remove Jackie Chan and replaced with the rabbit.


----------



## maomao (Aug 2, 2017)

Reported for racism


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Aug 2, 2017)

maomao said:


> Reported for racism


Eh????


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Aug 2, 2017)

maomao said:


> Reported for racism


Wtf?


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Aug 2, 2017)

You're the one going on about gait differences between Chinese and the rest of the world ....
Jackie Chan is my favourite actor  ever..and nobody else says it better.....


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Aug 2, 2017)

Confused.....


----------



## maomao (Aug 2, 2017)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> You're the one going on about gait differences between Chinese and the rest of the world ....
> Jackie Chan is my favourite actor  ever..and nobody else says it better.....


So posting up foreign strereotypes speaking in broken English is fine is it? Whatever. I'm sick of this place.


----------



## maomao (Aug 2, 2017)

You know my family is Chinese. You posted on my recent thread about my wife.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 2, 2017)

maomao said:


> So posting up foreign strereotypes speaking in broken English is fine is it? Whatever. I'm sick of this place.



I'd certainly take a break from this thread. Its not healthy at the moment.


----------



## maomao (Aug 2, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> I'd certainly take a break from this thread. Its not healthy at the moment.


I'm on the point of posting up foul abuse just to get myself banned to tell the truth.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 2, 2017)

maomao said:


> Reported for racism


Oh shut up you big silly.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 2, 2017)

maomao said:


> I'm on the point of posting up foul abuse just to get myself banned to tell the truth.



I've seen a couple of your other posts away from this thread.  You've got some stressful shit to be dealing with, you don't need this on top. Take a break for a bit maybe.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 2, 2017)

BigTom said:


> ah, that would explain it. I can think of one junction with red light cameras in Birmingham, there's probably others, but it's not common at all (and hugely advertised at that junction, which I assume had two fatalities in 12 months (I think that's the requirement for an automatic examination with eye to change of a junction), caused by RLJer(s) and put the cameras there as a result.


That's what it is by the looks of it. Have a look at here. The red dots are traffic light cameras. You've got about 20 in Birmingham, Wolverhampton, and Solihull, whereas we seem to have about 10 billion in central London alone.

The difference in speed cameras (green dots) is interesting too.


----------



## maomao (Aug 2, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Oh shut up you big silly.


So me suggesting behaviour might differ from place to place is dodgy borderline racism but slapping up photos of Chinese people speaking in pidgin English to some ne with a Chinese family is just fucking fine. 

Sick in the fucking head the lot of you.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 2, 2017)

maomao said:


> So me suggesting behaviour might differ from place to place is dodgy borderline racism but slapping up photos of Chinese people speaking in pidgin English to some ne with a Chinese family is just fucking fine.


It's not fine, it was thoughtless, but she wasn't being intentionally racist. Same as you weren't yesterday when you suggested that Irish cyclists are culturally inclined to law breaking.

Bubbles is Irish so I reckon you two are about even.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Aug 2, 2017)

[QUOTE="maomao, post: 15173942, member: 1845"]You know my family is Chinese. You posted on my recent thread about my wife.[/QUOTE]

I responded to your post here where you wrote about differences between european and Chinese gait...I found that weird...



maomao said:


> So me suggesting behaviour might differ from place to place is dodgy borderline racism but slapping up photos of Chinese people speaking in pidgin English to some ne with a Chinese family is just fucking fine.
> 
> Sick in the fucking head the lot of you.



Are you saying that it is fine for you to write about gait differences between Chinese and Germans ....because you have Chinese background?
But a picture of Jackie Chan getting cross with the nonsense you posted is racism because ...... I'm not Chinese? .... .


----------



## BigTom (Aug 2, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> That's what it is by the looks of it. Have a look at here. The red dots are traffic light cameras. You've got about 20 in Birmingham, Wolverhampton, and Solihull, whereas we seem to have about 10 billion in central London alone.
> 
> The difference in speed cameras (green dots) is interesting too.



Yeah, that's a huge difference. iirc red light cameras are speed cameras as well, didn't Bahnhof Strasse get done by one recentlyish? Not surprising london drivers stop for red then as the potential for a fine is there which just is not the case in Birmingham.

The speed camera map is wrong for Birmingham anyway. They turned off all the GATSO cameras a couple of years back and earlier this year they setup a handful of average speed cameras instead.


----------



## maomao (Aug 2, 2017)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> [QUOTE="maomao, post: 15173942, member: 1845"]You know my family is Chinese. You posted on my recent thread about my wife.



I responded to your post here where you wrote about differences between european and Chinese gait...I found that weird...



Are you saying that it is fine for you to write about gait differences between Chinese and Germans ....because you have Chinese background?
But a picture of Jackie Chan getting cross with the nonsense you posted is racism because ...... I'm not Chinese? .... . 
[/QUOTE]
Yes I'm saying it's absolutely fine to discuss aspects of culture that don't involve value judgements or stereotypes. Especially when it's made clear throughout that you're talking about groups of people as communities not fucking races.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 2, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Yeah, that's a huge difference. iirc red light cameras are speed cameras as well, didn't Bahnhof Strasse get done by one recentlyish?



Yes, was just outside of London, but within the M25.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Aug 2, 2017)

[QUOTE="maomao, post: 15174013,
Yes I'm saying it's absolutely fine to discuss aspects of culture that don't involve value judgements or stereotypes. Especially when it's made clear throughout that you're talking about groups of people as communities not fucking races.[/QUOTE]

Well...it wasnt so clear to me...and the references you made about Germans and Chinese differences were to do with gait which is a physical terminology.....
I used Jackie Chan's meme to show my confusion.. as it did seem a weird post...

I apologise for any upset...it would never be my intention to cause offence.


----------



## maomao (Aug 2, 2017)

> Well...it wasnt so clear to me...and the references you made about Germans and Chinese differences were to do with gait which is a physical terminology.....


It still has fuck all to do with cycling but if I say that I believe gait can be influenced by culture it's possible that I'm wrong but I'm clearly not talking about a physical trait.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 2, 2017)

BigTom said:


> ... iirc red light cameras are speed cameras as well, didn't Bahnhof Strasse get done by one recentlyish?


Yeah. 


> The speed camera map is wrong for Birmingham anyway. They turned off all the GATSO cameras a couple of years back and earlier this year they setup a handful of average speed cameras instead.


The speed camera one is wrong for London also. They got rid of loads of the really cynical GATSO's recently here too. I think they now have to show a reason for installing them (that it's a traffic black spot) but there are still loads that aren't on that map.


----------



## planetgeli (Aug 2, 2017)

maomao said:


> I'm on the point of posting up foul abuse just to get myself banned to tell the truth.



Hold on, that's bollocks and you know it. You don't need to get banned to get away from here. There's a little x to click. Therefore if you are really on the point of posting foul abuse it's because of a desire within you to be nasty, foul and abusive. Not great traits. You need to get the fuck off this thread, it's not doing you any good. Click the x.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 2, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Yeah.
> 
> The speed camera one is wrong for London also. They got rid of loads of the really cynical GATSO's recently here too. I think they now have to show a reason for installing them (that it's a traffic black spot) them but there are still loads that aren't on that map.



Its all gone average speed camera in my part of London.  They all sprung up about a year ago and are everywhere now.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 2, 2017)

planetgeli said:


> Hold on, that's bollocks and you know it. You don't need to get banned to get away from here. There's a little x to click. Therefore if you are really on the point of posting foul abuse it's because of a desire within you to be nasty, foul and abusive. Not great traits. You need to get the fuck off this thread, it's not doing you any good. Click the x.



Not exactly a helpful contribution.


----------



## planetgeli (Aug 2, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Not exactly a helpful contribution.



Yesterday maomao  was talking about peoples hands in threshing machines, today it's threats to post abuse. All in response to what is basically a thread where Spymaster is having a laugh. I've seen decent posts from maomao in other threads. Something tells me I'm not being unreasonable in trying to get him away from his own posts in this one.


----------



## maomao (Aug 2, 2017)

I'll put the thread on ignore when my racism complaint has been dealt with. I'm steaming about that. 

The couple of things I've mentioned in other threads is less than half the shit in my life that's stressing me out at the moment.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 2, 2017)

maomao said:


> I'll put the thread on ignore when my racism complaint has been dealt with. I'm steaming about that.


Oh ffs. She did no worse than you did yesterday. She's even apologised to you for unintentionally causing offence, whereas you haven't. Perhaps an Irish poster should go back and report your own faux pas?


----------



## maomao (Aug 2, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Oh ffs. She did no worse than you did yesterday. She's even apologised to you for unintentionally causing offence, whereas you haven't. Perhaps an Irish poster should go back and report your own faux pas?


Could you quote this apology? I can't find it. 

And that's bollocks. It was the other wannabe Richard Hammond who posted up stats about Irish traffic not me. You're quite happy to say that BigTom 's experience doesn't apply to London but suddenly when it's Dublin and I say it it's racist? Piss off and stop stirring.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 2, 2017)

maomao said:


> Could you quote this apology? I can't find it.


post 3498:


bubblesmcgrath said:


> I apologise for any upset...it would never be my intention to cause offence.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Aug 2, 2017)

maomao said:


> I'll put the thread on ignore when my racism complaint has been dealt with. I'm steaming about that.
> .





maomao said:


> Could you quote this apology? I can't find it..



I think you need to take a step back for a while.
You're definitely misrepresenting me......

You've received an apology by pm hours ago......yet you proceeded to be abusive towards me. ...and indeed you decided everyone else here was racist too...

You also received a clear apology on this
thread for any offence caused by the Jackie Chan post...which I reitterate, was posted purely in response to the nonsense about Chinese vs German gaits.


----------



## maomao (Aug 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> post 3498:


That's not an apology. It's blaming me for being upset.


----------



## maomao (Aug 2, 2017)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> You also received a clear apology on this
> thread for any offence caused by the Jackie Chan post...which I reitterate, was posted purely in response to the nonsense about Chinese vs German gaits.



And again it's my fault for making her be racist.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Aug 2, 2017)

maomao said:


> And again it's my fault for making her be racist.



Who is "her"?


----------



## maomao (Aug 2, 2017)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Who is "her"?


You are her.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 2, 2017)

maomao said:


> That's not an apology. It's blaming me for being upset.


if you're looking at it that way then nothing bubbles offers will be good enough. people often apologise for any offence caused, as bubbles has, and ime these apologies are generally accepted.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Aug 2, 2017)

maomao said:


> And again it's my fault for making her be racist.



Again...you misrepresent me.

Good luck.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 2, 2017)

maomao said:


> Could you quote this apology? I can't find it.
> 
> And that's bollocks. It was the other wannabe Richard Hammond who posted up stats about Irish traffic not me. You're quite happy to say that BigTom 's experience doesn't apply to London but suddenly when it's Dublin and I say it it's racist? Piss off and stop stirring.


That's not how things have gone down _at all_, you lying wanker. And we now find that Bubbles has even PM'd you _another_ apology, so that's three now. And I'm fucking stirring????  If you want to go again, we can, but I suggest you wind your fucking neck in and fuck off for a bit. Twat.


----------



## maomao (Aug 2, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> That's not how things have gone down _at all_, you lying wanker. And we now find that Bubbles has even PM'd you _another_ apology, so that's three now. And I'm fucking stirring????  If you want to go again, we can, but I suggest you wind your fucking neck in and fuck off for a bit. Twat.


No. You fuck off. And take your tag team with you.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 2, 2017)

maomao said:


> No. You fuck off. And take your tag team with you.


There is no team, much as you want to believe there is. It's just loads of people who think you're being a dick.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 2, 2017)

Well, this interesting, respectful, finely debated and educational thread has certainly gone downhill of late.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 2, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Well, this interesting, respectful, finely debated and educational thread has certainly gone downhill of late.


after 2 years and a month the biggest surprise is it isn't in the bin


----------



## Ted Striker (Aug 2, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> There is no team, much as you want to believe there is. It's just loads of people who think you're being a dick.



For balance, there's also probably a fair few that can't be arsed getting stuck into 'Son and pa (and guests)' willing to do a thousand posts (ffs) on the tried and tested trolling/baiting/bullying(ish) routine


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Aug 2, 2017)

Post 3479 edited ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 2, 2017)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Post 3479 edited ...


bit of a car crash of a thread


----------



## cupid_stunt (Aug 2, 2017)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Post 3479 edited ...



Fair play. 

Can't help thinking the thread got out of control, because of stuff happening out in the real world. 

Shit happens, with luck everyone can move on.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 2, 2017)

Three apologies and the removal of the offending post.

Can't say fairer than that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 2, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Three apologies and the removal of the offending post.
> 
> Can't say fairer than that.


you'd have thought not.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Aug 2, 2017)

Can it just be left there now?


----------



## maomao (Aug 2, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Three apologies and the removal of the offending post.



And a big old pile of aggressive PMs from you.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Aug 2, 2017)

I give up.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Aug 2, 2017)

maomao said:


> And a big old pile of aggressive PMs.




What??????

Ive not sent you a single aggressive pm...
Jesus...that's not fair....at all..


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 2, 2017)

cupid_stunt said:


> I give up.


never mind, eh. see my pm


----------



## maomao (Aug 2, 2017)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> What??????
> 
> Ive not sent you a single aggressive pm...
> Jesus...that's not fair....at all..


Edited


----------



## weltweit (Aug 2, 2017)

Last week on a busy A road I saw a cyclist struggling up a hill.

Behind them was a quarry lorry, going about as slow as it could, unable to pull out to overtake and behind the quarry lorry there were about 20 cars.

I am not anti cyclist, but it did look pretty ridiculous.


----------



## maomao (Aug 2, 2017)

Though I don't know why anyone would have thought I meant bubbles.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Aug 2, 2017)

[QUOTE="maomao, post: 15174705, member: 1845"]Though I don't know why anyone would have thought I meant bubbles.[/QUOTE]

Here's why...



Spymaster said:


> Three apologies and the removal of the offending post.
> Can't say fairer than that.



Then  your pre edited comment on that was...
"*And a big old pile of aggressive pms"*...

You added it to spymasters list of my apologies and my action  to remove the post.

So ...it read as if you were saying that I was sending you aggressive pms.

I'm off to bed.
This is definitely not doing my health any favours.
Hope you will feel a lot less upset about everything soon....


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 2, 2017)

Come on everyone. Lets calm down.

We've had this racist jackie chan shite before on Atonic Suplex's thread about his niece.
A few people seem not to have thought about the racist connotations. 

Bubbles is obviously sorry, if not defensive and cross. They seem to understand that the image is not OK.
Maomao is understandably furious. 

Lets let it go, and get back to trying to decide if its ok to knacker a cunts car with a bike lock.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 2, 2017)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> What??????
> 
> Ive not sent you a single aggressive pm...
> Jesus...that's not fair....at all..


He means me.

Another poster PM'd me and asked me to back-off Maomao because he's having a tough time personally at the moment. I PM'd him proposing a ceasefire and apologising for my post #3516. He went on a rant about Bubbles post being racist and thought it personal because of his family situation. I said it wasn't personal, just a bit careless and that she didn't mean to offend. It got fractious and I ended up calling him a cunt and telling him to fuck off.

He's completely unreasonable as this thread very clearly shows.

Fuck him.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Aug 2, 2017)

joustmaster said:


> Come on everyone. Lets calm down.
> 
> We've had this racist jackie chan shite before on Atonic Suplex's thread about his niece.
> A few people seem not to have thought about the racist connotations.
> ...



I wasnt defensive or cross...just confused.
I've apologised publicly and privately...and removed the post.... there was nothing deliberate about the post...I wouldnt want to hurt anyone...
.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 2, 2017)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> I wasnt defensive or cross...just confused.
> I've apologised publicly and privately...and removed the post.... there was nothing deliberate about the post...I wouldnt want to hurt anyone...
> .


Everyone else realises that. You're fine.


----------



## maomao (Aug 2, 2017)

bubblesmcgrath has made an apology which I've accepted and I will not be pursuing any complaint.


----------



## maomao (Aug 3, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> He means me.
> 
> Another poster PM'd me and asked me to back-off Maomao because he's having a tough time personally at the moment. I PM'd him proposing a ceasefire and apologising for my post #3516. He went on a rant about Bubbles post being racist and thought it personal because of his family situation. I said it wasn't personal, just a bit careless and that she didn't mean to offend. It got fractious and I ended up calling him a cunt and telling him to fuck off.
> 
> ...



This is less than half true. I was told I should suck it up on the basis that I had made racist posts myself and that you were going to report them. I'm still waiting for details of my racist posts so that I can apologise for them.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2017)

maomao said:


> This is less than half true. I was told I should suck it up on the basis that I had made racist posts myself and that you were going to report them. I'm still waiting for details of my racist posts so that I can apologise for them.


See, this is a perfect example of the way this twat spins things. The post wasn't a half truth it was an accurate précis of a longer conversation.

I told him that he WASN'T racist and that his posts regarding Irish cyclists and their "culture" was similarly THOUGHTLESS and "not malicious". Nothing that I haven't said to him openly on this thread. I said I'd report his posts too and let the mods decide, to point out how stupid he was being.  (I haven't reported him).

What was intended to be an apology to him was thrown back at me and turned into a private bunfight!

If anyone can be arsed, and wants to see just what this bullshitting turd is playing at, let me know and I'll invite you to the conversation.


----------



## maomao (Aug 3, 2017)

It's not a very good precis if you leave out all the juicy bits is it? Invite who you want, I know it's hard to be a bully when you don't have your tag team to turn to.

Anyway less waffle and bung up those racist posts of mine. There must be some, you were going to report them. If you dont want to be a grass give me the post numbers and I'll report them myself. There's no place for racism on U75.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2017)

You really want to do this?

After I've clearly said multiple times they WEREN'T racist but _thoughtless_?

Really?

And again with this bullying shit. You and I are having a (very public) disagreement. There's no bullying going on here. You are utterly delusional.


----------



## maomao (Aug 3, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> You really want to do this?
> 
> After I've clearly said multiple times they WEREN'T racist but thoughtless?
> 
> Really?


They're either racist or they're not. If they're racist then report them.


----------



## maomao (Aug 3, 2017)

Or maybe just apologise for being a smearing bully. 

*taps feet*


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2017)

maomao said:


> They're either racist or they're not. If they're racist then report them.


Are you feeling alright?

What does the second sentence in post #3544 say?

But fuck it. It's clear you just want another row and it's going to be a quiet day here, so let's go for it.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2017)

maomao said:


> Or maybe just apologise for being a smearing bully.
> 
> *taps feet*


That'll never happen as it's as untrue as you are deluded and deceitful.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2017)

maomao said:


> Different countries have different traffic cultures. Try finding a cyclist who jumps red lights in Germany. Or one who stops for them in China.


It was then pointed out to you by multiple people, some of them Irish, that there is no such_ culture_ in Ireland, that their _culture_ is very similar to the the British one, and that red light jumping there is just as illegal as it is here. Regarding your ludicrous stereotyping of Germans, another poster posted an article from _Der Speigel_ showing that cyclists jumping red lights there is indeed an issue, and again you had made a thoughtless, pigeonholing blunder. What's next, 'black folk can't swim'?


----------



## maomao (Aug 3, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> It was then pointed out to you by multiple people, some of them Irish, that there is no such_ culture_ in Ireland, that their _culture_ is very similar to the the British one, and that red light jumping there is just as illegal as it is here. Regarding your ludicrous stereotyping of Germans, another poster posted an article from _Der Speigel_ showing that cyclists jumping red lights there is indeed an issue and again you had made a thoughtless blunder. What's next, 'black folk can't swim'?



So if standards of behaviour in public aren't part of culture what are they? Racial traits? 'Surveys suggest that the people of Dublin jump more red lights than Londoners' is hardly Mein fucking Kampf is it you muppet. This thread's full of you and your yappy little dog friend telling people that stuff doesn't apply because it's not London. Orang Utan was terrorised for daring to post a survey from a local paper because it couldn't apply to anywhere but Yorkshire but the moment I say that one survey taken in one place doesn't prove anything about other places you can start smearing me as a racist? You're a sick dishonest wannabe bully.

You told me in PMs that you were going to report my racist posts and you specifically said it wouldn't be that one. You still haven't invited anyone to witness your abuse and it turns out there's fuck all in your hand but your own shrivelled dick.

Now you may fancy a scrap today but this is my first day off since Friday and I'm fucked if I'm wasting my own time arguing with a dull bully like you so you'll have to try and pick on someone else.

If you're going to keep up this tasteless smear campaign I suggest you dig up something a bit better than that shit by the time I get back.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 3, 2017)

maomao said:


> This thread's full of you and your yappy little dog friend telling people that stuff doesn't apply because it's not London.


yeh. this is another of your lies. i know you read editor's post about this 'bunfight' because you liked it. but you've been continuing it altho up to now i haven't bitten. i look forward to your apology for your lies, of which this is but the latest example: i have nowhere in the thread said, intimated, suggested or implied that stuff doesn't count because it's not london.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 3, 2017)

ALL CYCLISTS ARE CUNTS

ALL CAR DRIVERS ARE MURDERING BASTARDS


NOW PLEASE CAN YOU ALL SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GET THIS VERY IMPORTANT THREAD BACK ON TRACK


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 3, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> NOW PLEASE CAN YOU ALL SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GET THIS VERY IMPORTANT THREAD BACK ON TRACK


the first part of the sentence seems at odds with the second part


----------



## OzT (Aug 3, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> ALL CYCLISTS ARE CUNTS
> 
> ALL CAR DRIVERS ARE MURDERING BASTARDS
> 
> ...


 
you left out vegans . . . . 

No, keep it up guys, it's fun reading in an otherwise boring ticket office now the rush hour's finished!


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 3, 2017)

Wow! Talk about rewriting history!!!


maomao said:


> 'Surveys suggest that the people of Dublin jump more red lights than Londoners' is hardly Mein fucking Kampf is it you muppet.


That's not the point at all, you dullard. The suggestion is that the surveys are unreliable and the disparities are likely due to factors (conditions in which they were done, sample sizes, junction types, time of day ... etc) *other than* the race or cultures of the offenders. Irish cyclists are not _culturally_ more inclined to break the law than English ones and the suggestion is offensive. One of the surveys you posted didn't even refer to the same fucking type of road system as the one under discussion!


> This thread's full of you and your yappy little dog friend telling people that stuff doesn't apply because it's not London.


I'm pretty sure that my yappy little dog friend has said nothing of the sort. You on the other hand attempted to dismiss the Dublin survey because it wasn't a London one. You're getting confused. Chill a bit and try to think clearly. Maybe have a lie down.


> Orang Utan was terrorised for daring to post a survey from a local paper because it couldn't apply to anywhere but Yorkshire ...


Lol! OU wasn't terrorised, you hysterical fraud. More or less the same people have been posting back and forth on this thread for 2 years without you. Before you came along it occasionally got a bit irritable but in the main was a piss-take by both sides. Nobody is forced to read it or post on it, and posters like Joustmaster, BigTom, and other treaders, have given as good as they've received in the general spirit of proceedings. Nobody has shat their nappy, stuffed their hand in, and scoffed the contents, like you have!


> ... but the moment I say that one survey taken in one place doesn't prove anything about other places you can start smearing me as a racist?


Another hallucination. The moment you started attributing illegal cycling behaviour to Irish _culture _you got pulled on it and are now chucking your toys around. Boo hoo.


> You told me in PMs that you were going to report my racist posts and you specifically said it wouldn't be that one.


Another example of selective understanding. I told you in PM that _the posts I was referring to_ were the ones about Irish culture, not the German one that YOU brought up. To be honest, the German stereotyping kind of passed me by on the thread until you mentioned it in PM, but it is another example of your fondness for nationality typecasting, so if the cap fits ...


> You still haven't invited anyone to witness your abuse and it turns out there's fuck all in your hand but your own shrivelled dick.


I haven't had my shrivelled dick in my hand since about 6am. The reason I've invited nobody to witness your astonishing lack of self awareness on the PM convo yet, is simply because nobody has taken me up on the offer and asked me to do so. Actually that's not quite true. Pickman's Model did but I declined, knowing that you'd start whining about bullying if he joined the conversation. Again, you're not being bullied, you're just being a strutting cock with Trumpesque critical faculties and stamping your feet because you're not getting your way. Diddums.

If _anyone else_ wants to see the conversation let me know. It won't break FAQs because Maomao is agreeing to it.


----------



## maomao (Aug 3, 2017)

I really wasn't coming back on here today but I read that Dublin cycling PDF that none of you have ever read over coffee just now and I couldn't help it:




			
				Prof. Brian Caulfield said:
			
		

> Thom and Clayton (1992) and Wu et al. (2012) similarly found that approximately half the cyclists in Washington D.C. and Beijing respectively, comply with traffic lights. This is still an alarmingly low rate of compliance which, compared with research findings in other major cities (see Table 1) ranks cyclist behaviour in Dublin quite poorly. Due to the sizable proportion of ill-disciplined cyclists, it is therefore unsurprising that the majority of questionnaire respondents (55.1%) think it is ‘not safe enough’ to cycle in the City Centre.



This bit's even better:


> Red light running has clearly become part of Dublin’s cycling *culture*. It is vital to address this issue now since the volume of cyclists in the City is higher than ever and continues to rise. First of all, there needs to be more awareness raised and education for cyclists on the fact that breaking the lights, although may seem safe to do so in certain situations, is against the law. The lack of enforcement to date has allowed a *culture* develop where red light running is acknowledged by many as acceptable 15 cyclist behaviour. There is an urgent need for more police involvement to deter illegal cyclist behaviour and punish offenders. When on-the-spot fines for cyclists are introduced later this year, police should regularly conduct random spot checks at busy junctions along popular cycling routes. Recently this schem of on-the-spot fines for red light running has been announced in Ireland and the success of this measure is something that will need to be measured once the legislation is enacted and the fines applied.



So who's gonna call the prof up and let him know he's racist?


----------



## Sue (Aug 3, 2017)

I know it's Urban and all, but any chance we can draw a line under who said what and move on. 

Those involved may (or may not) be enjoying it but it's really fucking tedious for the rest of us.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Aug 3, 2017)

You know...I was going to let this go too...but someone has decided that Dublin cyclists are worse than London.



maomao said:


> . *Apparently they have a problem with red light jumping in Dublin* according to literally all of the evidence I've seen on the subject (ie. that one post). *You won't find the same statistics for London because it's not true here.* There might be the odd junction in Camden where there's a lot of wankers about but I rarely see cyclists  red light jumping in Romford where I live or E14 where I work. It's not the culture.



Well.....the.first search I made and this came up...and plenty more there...in London..
Looks like London isn't so great after all.





The article below is worth reading...if someone wants a broad look at the world's cities in terms of cycling. It is clear that some cities are far more prepared for cyclists...with designated lanes etc. Some cities impose their laws with more diligence and this effects cycling styles...that's not a cultural difference ..... it's a legal one....and an economical one.

Some cities prioritise cycists....these are generally those with stronger local economies who have poured funds into infrastructure for cyclists....and they have the funds to go after cyclists who break the law.

How safe are the world's cities for cyclists?

The idea that an individual "culture"; (such as the example given of the Irish one) makes someone  break the law more so than a person living in an English culture...say, in London..., is nonsense..and groundless.....and rather unfair.

It's clear that countries/cities who can spend the money on cycling lanes and cycling traffic lights and on imposing the rule of law, these cities will have safer cyclists and safer road users...
It is always about economics....

I live in an Irish city...not Dublin. I have rarely seen a cyclist run a red light in the past 10 years.... The majority of drivers and cyclists tend to follow the rule of law.... Then again, the.cycling infrastructure has changed significantly in the past 10 years...there are dedicated cycling lanes where I live ...in my view this reflects the economy and the fact that there is funding available to create a safe cycling experience.


It's about economy.....not culture


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Aug 3, 2017)

Now...i'm fucking off this thread as someone has decided he cant let shit go.


----------



## maomao (Aug 3, 2017)

It does seem true that the rest of Ireland has a positive and law abiding cycling culture.

Only 1-in-8 cyclists run red lights says study of 60 Irish junctions






That's a couple of hundred kids on a charity ride (#fingerscrossedforSasha) being very very silly. Never seen anything like it in my life. Not normal for anywhere.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 3, 2017)

Love the way they're all coming through pulling wheelies and what not and then one trundles through on a Santander Bike.  Yeah, lets see you pull a wheelie on that bad boy.

ETA: It's not the kids fault really.  They take their lead from adults and this shit has been normalised in London (obviously not to this extent).  I'm not trolling or trying to piss about it just has.


----------



## maomao (Aug 3, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> ETA: It's not the kids fault really. They take their lead from adults and this shit has been normalised in London. I'm not trolling or trying to piss about it just has.


The first few maybe but by the time the black cabs start turning across them they're just being silly and trying not to get broken up. Most of them have probably never ridden in the west end or central London before given that they're raising money for a leukemia victim from Thamesmead.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 3, 2017)

maomao said:


> The first few maybe but by the time the black cabs start turning across them they're just being silly and trying not to get broken up. Most of them have probably never ridden in the west end or central London before given that they're raising money for a leukemia victim from Thamesmead.



Yeah, for sure.  It was some pretty crazy stuff but fair play for them getting out there and doing it just maybe not the safest route to choose.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 3, 2017)

maomao said:


> So if standards of behaviour in public aren't part of culture what are they? Racial traits? 'Surveys suggest that the people of Dublin jump more red lights than Londoners' is hardly Mein fucking Kampf is it you muppet. This thread's full of you and your yappy little dog friend telling people that stuff doesn't apply because it's not London. Orang Utan was terrorised for daring to post a survey from a local paper because it couldn't apply to anywhere but Yorkshire but the moment I say that one survey taken in one place doesn't prove anything about other places you can start smearing me as a racist? You're a sick dishonest wannabe bully.
> 
> You told me in PMs that you were going to report my racist posts and you specifically said it wouldn't be that one. You still haven't invited anyone to witness your abuse and it turns out there's fuck all in your hand but your own shrivelled dick.
> 
> ...


Now, about that apology...


----------



## maomao (Aug 3, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Now, about that apology...


Apologise away. I'll take you off ignore for a bit so you can get it out.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 3, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. this is another of your lies. i know you read editor's post about this 'bunfight' because you liked it. but you've been continuing it altho up to now i haven't bitten. i look forward to your apology for your lies, of which this is but the latest example: i have nowhere in the thread said, intimated, suggested or implied that stuff doesn't count because it's not london.


maomao you may recall the claim you made in your post 3550


----------



## maomao (Aug 3, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> maomao you may recall the claim you made in your post 3550


This really doesn't sound like an apology....

Back on ignore you go.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 3, 2017)

maomao said:


> This really doesn't sound like an apology....
> 
> Back on ignore you go.


Yeh that's it, good auld maomao, loves his lies, won't apologise

You make out how I'm such a cunt with all my nasty ways, and you're so much better. But you're worse than me with your lies, your claims I've repeatedly done something or I've filled the thread with bollocks about not london. Not to mention your dubious use of national stereotypes and your disgraceful treatment of bubblesmcgrath...


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 3, 2017)

Christ almighty, just drop it, nobody gives a fuck.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 3, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Christ almighty, just drop it, nobody gives a fuck.




You're quite right. 

Dk why I was getting exercised over some no-mark off the interweb

Thank you


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 4, 2017)

Just to throw the cat amongst the anti-cyclist wankerpigeons:
Inside the fearless bike movement tearing up London


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 4, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Just to throw the cat amongst the anti-cyclist wankerpigeons:
> Inside the fearless bike movement tearing up London



Seems dangerous to me.  Just as well no teens are ever killed on London roads.  Phew.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Just to throw the cat amongst the anti-cyclist wankerpigeons:
> Inside the fearless bike movement tearing up London


thought you'd like it


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 4, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Just to throw the cat amongst the anti-cyclist wankerpigeons:
> Inside the fearless bike movement tearing up London


The most annoying thing about that is the photo caption "Jake takes a break in front of London Bridge".

NO HE FUCKING HASN'T


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> The most annoying thing about that is the photo caption "Jake takes a break in front of London Bridge".
> 
> NO HE FUCKING HASN'T



no indeed


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 4, 2017)

Jake don't know where the fuck he is. Clueless twat.


----------



## planetgeli (Aug 4, 2017)

The opening lines of the article reference London Bridge too though the picture just below is Westminster Bridge.

Maybe they meant to say *a *London bridge all the way through.

Anyway. Man dem does wheelies. Fascinating.


----------



## souljacker (Aug 4, 2017)

There was a big bunch of kids riding around Neath while I was there this week. I assumed they were up to no good but maybe they were just doing this. They didn't seem to be aggressive, just riding around popping wheelies and getting in the way of traffic.


----------



## maomao (Aug 4, 2017)

I can see London Bridge in that photo and he is in front of it. Mostly obscured by Tower Bridge admittedly. 

I don't really get what it is that they're doing. Is it like a bicycle version of parkour or something?


----------



## T & P (Aug 4, 2017)

Anyone "swerving at the last moment to avoid oncoming vehicles", as the article claims these charming chaps do, would feature at the top of my 'most despicable cunts ever' list. 

I doubt this will become a thing, but if it did I would predict a dramatic increase in collisions (for which the motor vehicle driver will undoubtedly be blamed) and road rage incidents whereby the joyful rider in question has seven shades of shit kicked out of him.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2017)

maomao said:


> I can see London Bridge in that photo and he is in front of it. Mostly obscured by Tower Bridge admittedly.
> 
> I don't really get what it is that they're doing. Is it like a bicycle version of parkour or something?


No. You cannot see London Bridge in that picture. Why not? Have a look at a map.


----------



## maomao (Aug 4, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> No. You cannot see London Bridge in that picture. Why not? Have a look at a map.


So where's that taken from if it's not Butlers Wharf? Don't need a map cheers.


----------



## maomao (Aug 4, 2017)

Though the horizontal line that is clearly not part of tower bridge may be part of the rail bridge between the two. I thought that was lower than the road bridges though. Humpbacked rail bridges don't work so well. 

If I'm wrong am I going to be accused of lying again?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2017)

maomao said:


> So where's that taken from if it's not Butlers Wharf? Don't need a map cheers.


How do you see through hms Belfast? Oh, and it's plainly not taken from any wharf.


----------



## plurker (Aug 4, 2017)

The London Critical Mass are being infiltrated by the 'wheelie kids' each month and the old CM lot don't like it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2017)

maomao said:


> Though the horizontal line that is clearly not part of tower bridge may be part of the rail bridge between the two. I thought that was lower than the road bridges though. Humpbacked rail bridges don't work so well.
> 
> If I'm wrong am I going to be accused of lying again?


There is no intervening bridge between London and tower Bridge.


----------



## maomao (Aug 4, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> How do you see through hms Belfast? Oh, and it's plainly not taken from any wharf.


Are they parking it across the river instead of along it now?


----------



## maomao (Aug 4, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> There is no intervening bridge between London and tower Bridge.


I'm terrible at rail bridges. Normally when I'm wrong it's because of a rail bridge. Road bridges I can name down to Kew before I start having to think.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2017)

maomao said:


> Are they parking it across the river instead of along it now?


Just look at a map. From the angle you'd miss half of London Bridge straight away and the remainder either obscured by hms Belfast, Tower Bridge or London Bridge city pier.


----------



## maomao (Aug 4, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Just look at a map. From the angle you'd miss half of London Bridge straight away and the remainder either obscured by hms Belfast, Tower Bridge or London Bridge city pier.



I'm on a four inch screen in a dark room with a hiccuping child who won't fucking sleep. I might have a look on the telly tomorrow. I suppose the line could be part of the pier.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 4, 2017)

maomao said:


> I'm on a four inch screen in a dark room with a hiccuping child who won't fucking sleep. I might have a look on the telly tomorrow. I suppose the line could be part of the pier.


Have a look tomorrow, now maybe not the moment. Hope the kid drops off soon.


----------



## T & P (Aug 4, 2017)

plurker said:


> The London Critical Mass are being infiltrated by the 'wheelie kids' each month and the old CM lot don't like it.


I saw CM going through Chelsea a few months ago and the levels of cockiness, aggression and plain vandalism displayed by many of the riders will have done no favours to the plight of cyclists and the general perception of them held by anyone who witnessed that ride.


----------



## plurker (Aug 4, 2017)

T & P said:


> I saw CM going through Chelsea a few months ago and the levels of cockiness, aggression and plain vandalism displayed by many of the riders will have done no favours to the plight of cyclists and the general perception of them held by anyone who witnessed that ride.



Yeah, that's the general consensus it seems. The old Massers see the new influx and attitudes as ruining the ride


----------



## maomao (Aug 5, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Have a look tomorrow, now maybe not the moment. Hope the kid drops off soon.


I'll let you have that. My head map has the first four bridges in a dead straight line but of course it's not, rivers are crooked. It's just part of Tower Bridge.

He is however sitting at the back of Butlers Wharf with Butlers Wharf Pier in full view in the near foreground so I'm not sure where he is if he's not at Butlers Wharf.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 5, 2017)

maomao said:


> I'll let you have that. My head map has the first four bridges in a dead straight line but of course it's not, rivers are crooked. It's just part of Tower Bridge.i
> 
> He is however sitting at the back of Butlers Wharf with Butlers Wharf Pier in full view in the near foreground so I'm not sure where he is if he's not at Butlers Wharf.


He's between the wharf and George's stairs. Although I'll give you that as Wikipedia says the name used for the historic building and surrounding area; the map I looked at (knowledge a-z) indicates the pier as the wharf.


----------



## maomao (Aug 5, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> He's between the wharf and George's stairs. Although I'll give you that as Wikipedia says the name used for the historic building and surrounding area; the map I looked at (knowledge a-z) indicates the pier as the wharf.



Thank you for editing, I was about to do a paint file with arrows and shit.


----------



## maomao (Aug 5, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> He's between the wharf and George's stairs.


He's a maximum of six lamposts back from the pier. He is on the riverfront bang in front of the building itself. If he looks up it says Butlers Wharf at the top of the wall.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 5, 2017)

maomao said:


> He's a maximum of six lamposts back from the pier. He is on the riverfront bang in front of the building itself. If he looks up it says Butlers Wharf at the top of the wall.


Yeh and maybe if the picture had been taken from the top of the wall it might have included London Bridge.


----------



## snadge (Aug 5, 2017)

Orang Utan said:


> Just to throw the cat amongst the anti-cyclist wankerpigeons:
> Inside the fearless bike movement tearing up London



From the article.



> Kizzy admits he’s not as skilful as many of the other riders, and isn’t hoping to make a career from it, but he’s earned a rep for his aggressive style of dicing with oncoming traffic. He’s currently recovering from keyhole surgery on his knee after smashing into the back of a lorry on a friend’s motorbike.



So alongside being overtly dangerous, the group is also filled with incompetency.


----------



## maomao (Aug 5, 2017)

snadge said:


> From the article.
> 
> 
> 
> So alongside being overtly dangerous, the group is also filled with incompetency.




Well they are a bit crap. If there was a hundred of them doing this through the city I'd be impressed:


----------



## High Voltage (Aug 5, 2017)

Where do you fucking start with that video:-

Cunt rides just about every where BAR on the road that he should be riding on
No lights
No hi Viz so if he ever did deign to ride where he's meant to no doubt it would, once again, be the car drivers fault when he gets hit
No awareness of what's going on around him, seems to only be able to concentrate one thing
If young children see this and try to copy him he could very well have blood on his hands. Irresponsible.
About the only thing he does do right is wear a helmet although why he bothers lord alone knows


----------



## maomao (Aug 5, 2017)

I don't think you _could_ ride a bike like that on the road. It's got one tiny gear and a saddle around ankle height.


----------



## plurker (Aug 5, 2017)

High Voltage said:


> Where do you fucking start with that video:-
> 
> Cunt rides just about every where BAR on the road that he should be riding on
> No lights
> ...



You don't need lights in the day - typical ignorant motorist comment


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 5, 2017)

Why not? What happens when visibility is reduced during the daytime if you don't have lights?


----------



## High Voltage (Aug 5, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Why not? What happens when visibility is reduced during the daytime if you don't have lights?



Lucky for "people like this" the car industry is continually improving safety aids with things like active braking and night vision cameras linked into the braking system. Just as well I suppose as there seems to have been precious little safety innovation going on in the push bike world, they seem to want to concentrate on fashion wear where they mimick their favoured drug addict or on electronic do dahs that get used for timing themselves as they race around in a wanton and furious manner with scant regard for others, let alone their own, safety and well being


----------



## keybored (Aug 5, 2017)

maomao said:


> Well they are a bit crap. If there was a hundred of them doing this through the city I'd be impressed:




Crowded cities are no place for those shenanigans.


----------



## maomao (Aug 6, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Try these statistics on for size.
> An average of 61.9% and as high as 98.9%!!!
> http://www.tara.tcd.ie/bitstream/handle/2262/74776/AAP-D-15-00423R1-3.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y


Now that things have calmed down a bit. As possibly the only person who's actually read this I'd like to explain why this is such a load of toss.

The survey observes 4 junctions, none of which are pedestrian only and all involve crossing streams of traffic. The average given is for the four junctions considered together. 2 of the junctions are normal and two of the junctions are a bit odd. The rates of red light jumping for the two normal junctions are 17.3% and 20.5%. Not much higher than figures quoted for London in the paper itself. There is no junction for which the average is "61.9%". There are two junctions where cyclists are behaving normally except for the usual law-breaking minority and two junctions where almost every cyclist (at one of the junctions literally all but one cyclist) are ignoring the red light.

The other two junctions look like this:


This is the Charlemont Bridge site, the other site is very very similar. I've ringed and arrowed the red light they are supposedly jumping.
Not the bloody great normal traffic light hanging over the cycle track but the little noddy light halfway up the lamppost for cyclists only.

I have a few possible explanations as to why they are jumping the cycle light (possibly the phase, possibly because it requires them to stop down a gradient in a position where they can't see any traffic) but none of them are because it's a quiet pedestrian junction as stated earlier. It's a bloody great major junction in the centre of a capital city.

I'll leave my guesswork out of it for the moment but I will suggest that if 20% of cyclists are jumping red lights then there's something wrong with those cyclists. If 50% of cyclists are jumping red lights (as in the figures the report gives for Beijing) then there's probably something wrong with the cycling culture there. If 99% of cyclists are jumping 2 lights in particular, in a city where rates of red light jumping aren't particularly high, then there's something wrong with the bloody junction.


----------



## plurker (Aug 6, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Why not? What happens when visibility is reduced during the daytime if you don't have lights?



We put on our special glasses. Watch the eclipse. And then ride onwards


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 6, 2017)

maomao said:


> I'll leave my guesswork out of it for the moment


Waits one moment


maomao said:


> but I will suggest that if 20% of cyclists are jumping red lights then there's something wrong with those cyclists. If 50% of cyclists are jumping red lights (as in the figures the report gives for Beijing) then there's probably something wrong with the cycling culture there. If 99% of cyclists are jumping 2 lights in particular, in a city where rates of red light jumping aren't particularly high, then there's something wrong with the bloody junction.


That was a very short moment 

I couldn't be bothered responding to the rest of the post. There are far too many guesses coming from the cyclist apologist side. Instead I'll leave this here.



> The overall results from the observational surveys suggest that an average of 61.9% of cyclists break the lights in Dublin City Centre. This figure is similar to results from other observational studies internationally (Yang et al, 2012; Tuckel and Milczarski, 2013 and Cole et al, 2012). It is important to note that the rate of red light running was substantially higher along the Grand Canal cycle track than the cycle lane. An average of 97.8% of cycle track users broke the lights *with the large majority of violations occurring during the pedestrian green phase*.


----------



## maomao (Aug 7, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Waits one moment
> 
> That was a very short moment
> 
> I couldn't be bothered responding to the rest of the post. There are far too many guesses coming from the cyclist apologist side. Instead I'll leave this here.


When would they jump them other than at the pedestrian phase? The alternative would involve throwing themselves under oncoming traffic (of course a minority will jump during the oncoming traffic phase but only when there's no traffic, the majority of time available to jump the light is during the pedestrian phase). But thank you Captain Obvious for making it as far as the conclusion. Did you read the bit in the middle? Both sets of junctions have pedestrian phases so that can't be the reason for the difference. 

The three studies that he claims to have found a similar rate of jumping to don't relate to European cities. In Beijing the cycling culture is very very different (I lived there for four years) and I would need to see the two US reports to comment; I've only lived in California where all types of traffic are generally very well-behaved.


----------



## snadge (Aug 7, 2017)

maomao said:


> I've only lived in California where all types of traffic are generally very well-behaved.



Traffic lights are not sentient and they do not change to red because they are trying to piss off cyclists, they are red because either pedestrians have right of way or traffic is moving elsewhere.

Even if there are no pedestrians crossing, you are breaking the law by going through a pelican red light, that is why there are usually cameras on them to catch vehicle licence plates for future prosecution.

That doesn't stop cyclists breaking the law though as they cross a red light, weaving through pedestrians crossing the road because they have no identifying features on their bikes.


----------



## maomao (Aug 7, 2017)

snadge said:


> Traffic lights are not sentient and they do not change to red because they are trying to piss off cyclists, they are red because either pedestrians have right of way or traffic is moving elsewhere.
> 
> Even if there are no pedestrians crossing, you are breaking the law by going through a pelican red light, that is why there are usually cameras on them to catch vehicle licence plates for future prosecution.
> 
> That doesn't stop cyclists breaking the law though as they cross a red light, weaving through pedestrians crossing the road because they have no identifying features on their bikes.


Who suggested traffic lights are sentient? Are you drunk? 

And no-one is denying the bad behaviour of a hardcore minority of cyclists (though there's been plenty of denial of the bad behaviour of a hard core minority of motorists). The question is whether it's true of all cyclists or not.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 7, 2017)

maomao said:


> Who suggested traffic lights are sentient? Are you drunk?
> 
> And no-one is denying the bad behaviour of a hardcore minority of cyclists (though there's been plenty of denial of the bad behaviour of a hard core minority of motorists). The question is whether it's true of all cyclists or not.


What do you mean by hardcore?


----------



## maomao (Aug 7, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> What do you mean by hardcore?


It needs a space. I'm not paying you for proofreading you know.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 7, 2017)

maomao said:


> It needs a space. I'm not paying you for proofreading you know.


Hardcore cyclists / hard core motorists. What do you mean by hardcore / hard core?


----------



## maomao (Aug 7, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Hardcore cyclists / hard core motorists. What do you mean by hardcore / hard core?


If you have a point to make, spit it out. Or address the argument itself. I'm not willing to argue with you in this manner any more.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 7, 2017)

maomao said:


> If you have a point to make, spit it out. Or address the argument itself. I'm not willing to argue with you in this manner any more.


You've never argued with me anyway, contradiction famously not argument.


----------



## maomao (Aug 7, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> You've never argued with me anyway, contradiction famously not argument.


So you don't have a point to make?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 7, 2017)

maomao said:


> So you don't have a point to make?


I was asking a question as a first step toward making a point. This point not necessarily in opposition to your post. Just curious why you seem to think it's dedicated or stalwart cyclists who run red lights.


----------



## maomao (Aug 7, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> I was asking a question as a first step toward making a point. This point not necessarily in opposition to your post.


I've seen you do it too often to other posters and myself. You pick on minor semantic points having the effect of frustrating and angering posters and derailing the conversation. If this isn't your intention I suggest you adjust your approach. If you make a substantial point I'm happy to engage.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 7, 2017)

maomao said:


> I've seen you do it too often to other posters and myself. You pick on minor semantic points having the effect of frustrating and angering posters and derailing the conversation. If this isn't your intention I suggest you adjust your approach. If you make a substantial point I'm happy to engage.


Yeh. Cos obvs my simple question has made you stretch this out. It is strange to me that you seem to think dedicated or stalwart cyclists run red lights. You've been a hard core cyclist yourself of course, as a courier: did you run red lights then?


----------



## maomao (Aug 7, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. Cos obvs my simple question has made you stretch this out. It is strange to me that you seem to think dedicated or stalwart cyclists run red lights. You've been a hard core cyclist yourself of course, as a courier: did you run red lights then?


I meant committed to bad cycling rather than committed to riding bicycles. I used the same word about motorists.

And yes I did. Until approx 2005, a year or two before I gave up cycling. I was committed to jumping red lights unlike the majority of cyclists who often verbally reproached me for it.

But for what it's worth I never cycled on pavements and I never ever challenged a pedestrian for space on a crossing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 7, 2017)

maomao said:


> I meant committed to bad cycling rather than committed to riding bicycles. I used the same word about motorists.
> 
> And yes I did. Until approx 2005, a year or two before I gave up cycling. I was committed to jumping red lights unlike the majority of cyclists who often verbally reproached me for it.
> 
> But for what it's worth I never cycled on pavements and I never ever challenged a pedestrian for space on a crossing.


Thank you for explaining what you meant


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 7, 2017)




----------



## BigTom (Aug 7, 2017)

Fez909 said:


>




christ. I hope that the driver filming that got the company on the van's livery and reported them / sent that video to the police.
(b4 anyone asks what led up to that - the video starts halfway through and you can drop back and see absolutely nothing - the van was at the back of a traffic jam when the cyclist approached from behind, nothing had gone on before that).


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 7, 2017)

BigTom said:


> christ. I hope that the driver filming that got the company on the van's livery and reported them / sent that video to the police.
> (b4 anyone asks what led up to that - the video starts halfway through and you can drop back and see absolutely nothing - the van was at the back of a traffic jam when the cyclist approached from behind, nothing had gone on before that).


I did check the earlier minutes of the video before posting. Not that anything can justify that from the driver....


----------



## BigTom (Aug 7, 2017)

snadge said:


> Traffic lights are not sentient and they do not change to red because they are trying to piss off cyclists, they are red because either pedestrians have right of way or traffic is moving elsewhere.
> 
> Even if there are no pedestrians crossing, you are breaking the law by going through a pelican red light, *that is why there are usually cameras on them to catch vehicle licence plates* for future prosecution.
> 
> That doesn't stop cyclists breaking the law though as they cross a red light, weaving through pedestrians crossing the road because they have no identifying features on their bikes.



Are there? Is this a London thing? I don't think there are any pedestrian lights in Birmingham with ANPR cameras or CCTV of any kind. 

As a total aside, some pedestrian lights are kind of sentient, the newest type, are the called puffin crossings? Same as pelicon but they have sensors which detect pedestrian presence, keep the ped light green for as long as needed for people to cross, don't change lights if they detect ped has crossed on red in gap in traffic, change immediately if no road traffic (or if outside of a set minimum between ped green phases). They are cool and seem to work.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 7, 2017)

Fez909 said:


>



This is outrageous. I counted three cyclists on the pavement going in the opposite direction.


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 7, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Are there? Is this a London thing? I don't think there are any pedestrian lights in Birmingham with ANPR cameras or CCTV of any kind.


They have these up north, too. 

Saw some in Manc last week, and I'm fairly sure (not certain) that I've seen them in Leeds.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 7, 2017)

Fez909 said:


> They have these up north, too.
> 
> Saw some in Manc last week, and I'm fairly sure (not certain) that I've seen them in Leeds.



are you sure they are not the sensors on the new type of crossings? I know people here have mistaken them for ANPR/CCTV cameras. I don't know of anyone who has had a red light fine on a ped crossing, I would also have thought that the local police / road safety team would have advertised that they are installing them here if they did.


----------



## maomao (Aug 7, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> This is outrageous. I counted three cyclists on the pavement going in the opposite direction.


Shared use clearly marked just in case you weren't joking.


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 7, 2017)

BigTom said:


> are you sure they are not the sensors on the new type of crossings? I know people here have mistaken them for ANPR/CCTV cameras. I don't know of anyone who has had a red light fine on a ped crossing, I would also have thought that the local police / road safety team would have advertised that they are installing them here if they did.


I was driving and saw the signs. It said ANPR cameras are installed to detect both speed and jumping the red light. 

Can't remembered exactly what I saw it, but was most likely on Olham Broadway.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 7, 2017)

maomao said:


> Shared use clearly marked just in case you weren't joking.



ah, I bet the cunty van driver thinks the cyclist is required to use the pavement and feels justified to assault him for not doing so. Probably said something about road tax in the following exchange too (which I assume you can't hear, I have no sound on my work computer anyway).


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 14, 2017)

'Dangerous' cyclist killed pedestrian then blamed crash on her, court told

Charged with manslaughter, a first


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 14, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> 'Dangerous' cyclist killed pedestrian then blamed crash on her, court told
> 
> Charged with manslaughter, a first


Riding with no front brake. What a colossal cunt.


----------



## 1927 (Aug 15, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Riding with no front brake. What a colossal cunt.


and then blaming her on social media!


----------



## hash tag (Aug 15, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> 'Dangerous' cyclist killed pedestrian then blamed crash on her, court told
> 
> Charged with manslaughter, a first



Still more to come out about this; was he on the pavement or a cycle path or a shared use path?
Maybe more cases will follow.


----------



## hash tag (Aug 15, 2017)

The bus lane/cycle path in Ram Street Wandsworth is CLOSED. There are signs by the lights in Garratt Lane and signs accross the end of Ram Street.
This is because of building works. This leaves the street open to two lanes of traffic coming in the other direction. It is not possible to cycle in the other direction without going into the path of traffic using the street correctly. AND GUESS WHAT, cyclists are still using it, by the dozen. Stupid or what!


----------



## BigTom (Aug 15, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> 'Dangerous' cyclist killed pedestrian then blamed crash on her, court told
> 
> Charged with manslaughter, a first



I think it's the double charge of "wanton and furious driving" along with manslaughter that is the first, rather than manslaughter but there's been loads of confusion over what they've actually been charged with (the court announcement I saw yesterday said wanton and furious driving). idk the exact circumstances but I hope he does get done for manslaughter, as no front brake is clear negligence, so even if it was a situation where eg she'd stepped out from behind a van giving him no chance to stop, he still wouldn't have been able to stop. 
It'd be good to see more people who kill on our roads being charged with manslaughter or murder rather than lesser driving/cycling related charges.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 15, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Still more to come out about this; was he on the pavement or a cycle path or a shared use path?
> Maybe more cases will follow.



I think he was on the road and she was crossing it, but it's not clear if she was at a crossing or not. Everything I've seen about this I've seen on twitter so I can't easily go back and check what I read yesterday unfortunately. I expect we'll get details at the end of the case, but the guy was posting on forums and newspaper comment sections at the time, all now removed/deleted but remembered by people from the time.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 15, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I think he was on the road and she was crossing it, but it's not clear if she was at a crossing or not. Everything I've seen about this I've seen on twitter so I can't easily go back and check what I read yesterday unfortunately. I expect we'll get details at the end of the case, but the guy was posting on forums and newspaper comment sections at the time, all now removed/deleted but remembered by people from the time.




From that report he shouted at her to get out of the way, then ploughed in to her, leaving her two kids without a mum. 

Fully agree more road killers need charging with manslaughter, if you killed due to extreme negligence in any other manner that's what would happen.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 15, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> From that report he shouted at her to get out of the way, then ploughed in to her, leaving her two kids without a mum.
> 
> Fully agree more road killers need charging with manslaughter, if you killed due to extreme negligence in any other manner that's what would happen.



and then claimed he was 100% in the right afterwards on forum posts and evening standard newspaper article comment section! fuckwit of the highest order and I hope he gets a proper jail sentence.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 15, 2017)

.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 15, 2017)

Mrs Spy was hit by a cyclist last week. It was raining and she had her umbrella open and in front of her and didn't see the twat coming. The front tyre ripped her stocking and grazed her knee. Wanker told her to look where she was going and rode off. This happened on the pavement.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 15, 2017)

What a scumbag, hope she's OK now.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 15, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> What a scumbag, hope she's OK now.


Just pissed off.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 15, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Still more to come out about this; was he on the pavement or a cycle path or a shared use path?
> Maybe more cases will follow.



from witness in court:

"It made me look up immediately just in time to see a collision between a pedestrian and a cyclist and the cyclist was on the south side heading in a westerly direction.

"The pedestrian was not using the crossing and the collision occurred approximately 30 feet after the crossing. The cyclist flew through the air as the pedestrian fell at the point of impact.

Cyclist on trial for causing death by manslaughter of London pedestrian

So cyclist on the road, pedestrian crossing away from a crossing. Read some of the comments he made afterwards, also quoted in that article, what a fucking cunt. Yeah there can be times when a driver/cyclist hits a pedestrian and really that is the pedestrians fault, nothing they can do about it, but he had no front brake, and the time to shout at her twice. fucking wanker.


----------



## joustmaster (Aug 15, 2017)

Does the front brake make much difference on a fixed gear bike?

also, at Spymaster - Tell your mrs that next time remember she is armed with an umbrella and she should joust the christ out of the cyclist.


----------



## maomao (Aug 15, 2017)

joustmaster said:


> Does the front brake make much difference on a fixed gear bike?


Yes. It adds stopping power. It's still 'transferred' to the legs as your legs have to slow down. If u ask me a fixed gear without a front brake is a fucking circus bike. It's not legal anyway so hopefully he's fucked. 

I've been asked to prove my brakes worked by a copper before cause he thought he saw me braking with my feet (I wasn't but was happy to prove him wrong).


----------



## BigTom (Aug 15, 2017)

joustmaster said:


> Does the front brake make much difference on a fixed gear bike?
> 
> also, at Spymaster - Tell your mrs that next time remember she is armed with an umbrella and she should joust the christ out of the cyclist.



I've never ridden fixed gear but I can't think why the physics would be different - back brakes will not stop you quickly, when you're next with your bike, walk with it and use the brakes, see how you can easily drag the bike along with the rear brake applied, but cannot do it at all with the front brake. I can't see why having braking in the chain/pedals would affect this at all, it's certainly not different for v-brakes against disc brakes.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Aug 15, 2017)

how to make the back brake more effective....this takes practice


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Aug 15, 2017)

somehow this doesn't seem a very good test case forcycling wantonly or furiously, and heapingthe opprobrium on all the cyclists that might anticipate a green light now and again..  

OK the guy was an ass, yelling at her once she was knocked down....but if what he says is true, that she was looking at her phone, not using a nearby crossing.....he shouts and aims behind her, she steps back into his path....he's doing 18 mph.  I don't see manslaughter, or even furious cycling sticking, just having a non-legal bike.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 15, 2017)

He was riding without a front brake. Therefore riding something utterly unsuitable for the road. Fuck him.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 15, 2017)

pseudonarcissus said:


> somehow this doesn't seem a very good test case forcycling wantonly or furiously, and heapingthe opprobrium on all the cyclists that might anticipate a green light now and again..
> 
> OK the guy was an ass, yelling at her once she was knocked down....but if what he says is true, that she was looking at her phone, not using a nearby crossing.....he shouts and aims behind her, she steps back into his path....he's doing 18 mph.  I don't see manslaughter, or even furious cycling sticking, just having a non-legal bike.


So I'm driving through town in a car with brakes that I know to be inadequate and illegal. I run down and kill a pedestrian, probably because the brakes are shit. Should I just be done for dodgy brakes?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 15, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> So I'm driving through town in a car with brakes that I know to be inadequate and illegal. I run down and kill a pedestrian, probably because the brakes were shit. Should I just be done for dodgy brakes?


don't tell me your car's STILL not fixed, pa


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Aug 15, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> So I'm driving through town in a car with brakes that I know to be inadequate and illegal. I run down and kill a pedestrian, probably because the brakes were shit. Should I just be done for dodgy brakes?


I think you should be done for something, I'm not sure it's going to meet the threshold for manslaughter, though.  I'm not really trying to defend the guy, but this seems more a tragic low probability accident, exacerbated by dodgy brakes (we don't know how good the guy was at breaking on a fixie) rather than out and out recklessness.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Aug 15, 2017)

the press seem to be making it a cause celebre for general reckless cycling, cycling on pavements, jumping red lights etc


----------



## Sue (Aug 15, 2017)

pseudonarcissus said:


> the press seem to be making it a cause celebre for general reckless cycling, cycling on pavements, jumping red lights etc


Good.


----------



## weepiper (Aug 15, 2017)

pseudonarcissus said:


> I think you should be done for something, I'm not sure it's going to meet the threshold for manslaughter, though.  I'm not really trying to defend the guy, but this seems more a tragic low probability accident, exacerbated by dodgy brakes (we don't know how good the guy was at breaking on a fixie) rather than out and out recklessness.


Illegal brakes, not just dodgy. You MUST have a front brake fitted to ride on the public road. Other than that I agree with you (he wasn't riding faster than is reasonable on the road, he was on the road which is where he's supposed  to be, she stepped off the pavement into his path). I don't see how it's furious cycling or whatever. And why do the countless car drivers that kill pedestrians or cyclists by not paying attention or by looking at their phones not get charged with manslaughter rather than careless driving?


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 15, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Illegal brakes, not just dodgy. You MUST have a front brake fitted to ride on the public road. Other than that I agree with you (he wasn't riding faster than is reasonable on the road, he was on the road which is where he's supposed  to be, she stepped off the pavement into his path). I don't see how it's furious cycling or whatever. And why do the countless car drivers that kill pedestrians or cyclists by not paying attention or by looking at their phones not get charged with manslaughter rather than careless driving?



There is a duty of care on all road users to look out for other road users and the faster you are going the more this applies.  Where are you getting the information about his speed from?   Anybody who uses the road should be prepared for unexpected things to happen, a dog running into the street or a toddler making a dash for it or tripping or something.  You should be aware of potential problems around you and be prepared for them.  He had time to shout twice, she clearly didn't just step straight into him.   Anybody he spends any time on the roads of London will know pedestrians are everywhere and they're often distracted by phones of music.  This is an every minute occurrence when travelling through London.

This all goes for every road user.  The manslaughter thing does seem like a bit of square peg and round hole thing but I suspect that is because they are trying to use the laws that are there.  There is already specific laws to deal with driving which aren't in place for reckless cycling, the law (as ever) is taking its time to catch up.  If he was dangerously reckless that day there has to be some repercussion for his behavior.

If you want to talk about sentencing for things like reckless driving than I think we'd all agree its too lenient but that is not relevant to this case. Its not like it makes much difference to the women's family that it was a cyclist not a motorist that caused her death.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 15, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Illegal brakes, not just dodgy. You MUST have a front brake fitted to ride on the public road. Other than that I agree with you (he wasn't riding faster than is reasonable on the road, he was on the road which is where he's supposed  to be, she stepped off the pavement into his path). I don't see how it's furious cycling or whatever. And why do the countless car drivers that kill pedestrians or cyclists by not paying attention or by looking at their phones not get charged with manslaughter rather than careless driving?



illegal brakes = negligent = manslaughter for me, I think wanton and furious driving may be the highest cycling specific charge you can bring, I agree his actual cycling was unlikely to be wanton or furious, though I'm going by dictionary definition rather than the wording of the law which I don't know, but not having front brakes is negligent, and for me, causing death through negligence is either manslaughter or possibly murder. You'd have to prove that with a front brake he could not have braked enough in time and she would still have died:



> Edward Small, a crash investigator who studied CCTV of the incident, concluded that Alliston, who was then aged 18, would have been able to stop and avoid a collision if the bike had been fitted with a front brake.



London cyclist accused of killing woman 'shouted at her after collision'

They only talk about a mountain bike here but I saw a longer excerpt elsewhere that said they also tested a similar track bike with a front brake and the crash investigator also believed that bike would have stopped in time.

The press reaction to this is way beyond what they ever do for drivers, think it was front page sun and metro today. Always "cyclist..." and "car/van/truck...", you won't find headlines with driver in it. It's disproportionate compared to drivers, and indicitave of cyclists being in / made an outgroup.
I agree drivers who kill through negligence should be charged with manslaughter, the charges and sentences with drivers are a total joke almost all the time.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 15, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> There is a duty of care on all road users to look out for other road users and the faster you are going the more this applies.  Where are you getting the information about his speed from?   Anybody who uses the road should be prepared for unexpected things to happen, a dog running into the street or a toddler making a dash for it or tripping or something.  You should be aware of potential problems around you and be prepared for them.  He had time to shout twice, she clearly didn't just step straight into him.   Anybody he spends any time on the roads of London will know pedestrians are everywhere and they're often distracted by phones of music.  This is an every minute occurrence when travelling through London.
> 
> This all goes for every road user.  The manslaughter thing does seem like a bit of square peg and round hole thing but I suspect that is because they are trying to use the laws that are there.  There is already specific laws to deal with driving which aren't in place for reckless cycling, the law (as ever) is taking its time to catch up.  If he was dangerously reckless that day there has to be some repercussion for his behavior.
> 
> If you want to talk about sentencing for things like reckless driving than I think we'd all agree its too lenient but that is not relevant to this case. Its not like it makes much difference to the women's family that it was a cyclist not a motorist that caused her death.



In the Guardian article I linked above, crash test person reckoned he averaged 18mph on the sequence on CCTV, and somewhere else I saw he estimated was doing around 14mph at the time of the collision, I'll have to find the article with more quotes but I bet there's loads of articles now so I might not manage it.

Nobody would blink an eye at a driver doing 15-20mph, it's not a reckless speed for a cyclist at all, if you have front brakes. Likewise a driver doing 15-20mph on a phone should be hung out to dry killing a pedestrian in these kinds of circumstances. 

You're absolutely right about the responsibility for road users and travelling at a suitable speed, but the issue here is not the speed they were travelling at, it was the lack of front brake.

Also the shout twice thing I think I read that wrong earlier, I think one of the shouts was after the collision.


----------



## mojo pixy (Aug 15, 2017)

I wouldn't be surprised if the greater manslaughter charge is at least in part a reflection of his utter contempt and refusal to acknowledge his own part in someone's death. It can't be murder because he didn't exactly set out to do it, but he did crash into her on purpose and then publicly didn't give a fuck. It's about as serious a conviction as he could get under the circumstances. Which is good.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 15, 2017)

weepiper said:


> And why do the countless car drivers that kill pedestrians or cyclists by not paying attention or by looking at their phones not get charged with manslaughter rather than careless driving?


They _should_ be up for manslaughter or causing death by [something] driving. Same as this dick.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 15, 2017)

Cyclist ploughed into mother-of-two and shouted at her while she lay dying in the street, court hears

Here you are:



> Crash investigator Edward Small studied CCTV of the collision which was shown frame-by-frame in court.
> 
> He told jurors Alliston was seen in the footage beginning to swerve to take evasive action as he approached the pedestrian.
> 
> ...



(my emphasis)


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 15, 2017)

Thing is from what I've read it seems the attitude of the guy is pretty much exactly the same attitude that we see from some motorists after a cyclist gets killed.  _Ah well, silly fool, shouldn't have been on the road, own fault really etc etc
_
Given that I would hope that we would all agree that the guy's a dick and fully deserves his day in court.  Whether or not they can make any charge stick will be another thing given the gap in the law here.  It seems to me a that any reasonable brief may be able to make a decent defence based upon technicalities regarding the charges.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 15, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Nobody would blink an eye at a driver doing 15-20mph, it's not a reckless speed for a cyclist at all, if you have front brakes. Likewise a driver doing 15-20mph on a phone should be hung out to dry killing a pedestrian in these kinds of circumstances.
> 
> .



A suitable speed is dictated by road conditions.  There are conditions was 18mph-20mph is to fast.  It's worth bearing in mind that huge swathes of London now have maximum speed limits of 20mph due to the road conditions.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 15, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> A suitable speed is dictated by road conditions.  There are conditions was 18mph-20mph is to fast.  It's worth bearing in mind that huge swathes of London now have maximum speed limits of 20mph due to the road conditions.



Birmingham does too, almost every residential road will be 20mph by the end of the year I think (the areas near me were the first areas done about 6 months ago and so naturally I'm hazy on the timetable for everywhere else). West Mids Police actually enforce it too, with over 300 drivers done for speeding the past couple of months (highest speed was 56mph!).

The first sentence is absolutely right, but they key here for me is the crash examiner saying they would have been able to stop with front brakes. I don't know the road, and there's a QED statement that he was going too fast but if he was at 10-14mph at the time of the collision and I just can't really see that kind of speed being unreasonable on what is described as a busy road, I don't remember hearing anything about the weather so it must have been normal. The lack of front brakes has caused this rather than him going too fast iyswim. (well, his attitude has caused this really).


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 15, 2017)

weepiper said:


> I don't see how it's furious cycling or whatever.


"Wanton and furious" is just the name of the charge.

It basically means causing injury through wilful negligence.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 15, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> A suitable speed is dictated by road conditions.  There are conditions was 18mph-20mph is to fast.  It's worth bearing in mind that huge swathes of London now have maximum speed limits of 20mph due to the road conditions.


not, i think, due to the road conditions but due to markedly more people surviving a collision with a car doing 20 than 30.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 15, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> A suitable speed is dictated by road conditions.  There are conditions was 18mph-20mph is to fast.  It's worth bearing in mind that huge swathes of London now have maximum speed limits of 20mph due to the road conditions.



as i say, due to safety concerns
20mph Limit


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Aug 15, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> There are conditions was 18mph-20mph is to fast.  It's worth bearing in mind that huge swathes of London now have maximum speed limits of 20mph due to the road conditions.


I think this was the A501 near Old Street roundabout, not a side street, so presumably a 30 limit.
I live in Tower Hamlets where all roads are 20mph, except for the red routes, andf you should hear the car drivers bleat that the limit is "dangerous" as it's too slow. (I'm a car driver too, but happy to pootle along at 20)


----------



## hash tag (Aug 15, 2017)

hash tag said:


> I see there are a few speed machines above. For something a little different, I give you my cruiser, a GT Dynatec
> 
> View attachment 45709




I guess I won't be able to use this on the roads again, what with no front brake and a cruiser brake at the rear. Tenner for it?


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 15, 2017)

Yeah I probably wasn't being clear but that's what I meant by conditions though.  The overall situation including whether there is likely to be other road users that could be in danger.  I didn't mean the surface condition or whatever.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 15, 2017)

pseudonarcissus said:


> I think this was the A501 near Old Street roundabout, not a side street, so presumably a 30 limit.
> I live in Tower Hamlets where all roads are 20mph, except for the red routes, andf you should hear the car drivers bleat that the limit is "dangerous" as it's too slow. (I'm a car driver too, but happy to pootle along at 20)



Yeah, like you I'm happy with a 20mph limit.  I wish we had more of them in my part of London.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 15, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Yeah, like you I'm happy with a 20mph limit.  I wish we had more of them in my part of London.


20's plenty, in many cases. I was being tailgated by some wanker a while back on the road I live on. He was so close that I could only see his windscreen in the mirror. I stopped, got out, and asked the driver if he wanted to get into my car with me. He gave me a load of abuse for driving at 20 in a 30 limit.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 15, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Yeah I probably wasn't being clear but that's what I meant by conditions though.  The overall situation including whether there is likely to be other road users that could be in danger.  I didn't mean the surface condition or whatever.



no, that's what I understood you to mean, stuff like a residential road, heavily parked up being different to a main road with no onstreet parking, being different to a shopping street with no onstreet parking. All of them might be 30mph limit but the first and last are probably not suitable for those speeds. 
I mentioned the weather as an additional thing rather than thinking that was what you were meaning.


----------



## hippogriff (Aug 15, 2017)

pseudonarcissus said:


> I think this was the A501 near Old Street roundabout, not a side street, so presumably a 30 limit.
> I live in Tower Hamlets where all roads are 20mph, except for the red routes, andf you should hear the car drivers bleat that the limit is "dangerous" as it's too slow. (I'm a car driver too, but happy to pootle along at 20)



Nope, it's a 20mph limit both sides of the Old Street roundabout


----------



## maomao (Aug 15, 2017)

hippogriff said:


> Nope, it's a 20mph limit both sides of the Old Street roundabout


He's highly unlikely to have been doing 20+ mph on a fixed. Most fixed riders who don't have legs like jackhammers are riding gears in the high 60s low 70s. Anything bigger would be unusable in the city. He'd need a cadence of over 90 which is not easily achievable for long periods to get anywhere near 20mph.


----------



## hash tag (Aug 15, 2017)

In the event of an emergency, if you can't stop in time, you are going too fast.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Aug 15, 2017)

hash tag said:


> In the event of an emergency, if you can't stop in time, you are going too fast.



Taken to the extreme traffic needs to move at 5mph in case people step out right in front of you without looking.


----------



## maomao (Aug 15, 2017)

hash tag said:


> In the event of an emergency, if you can't stop in time, you are going too fast.


If you're riding a bike without a front brake on the road you're going too fast. They're illegal and the law should be enforced. But this shouldn't be an excuse to paint the vast majority of law abiding cyclists as reckless killers because of a fashion for circus bikes.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Aug 15, 2017)

What's the advantage of having no gears anyway?


----------



## maomao (Aug 15, 2017)

UnderAnOpenSky said:


> What's the advantage of having no gears anyway?


Direct chain line = efficiency and extra traction.


----------



## hash tag (Aug 15, 2017)

UnderAnOpenSky said:


> What's the advantage of having no gears anyway?



Less gears = Less weight 
Less stuff =cool (normally)
Besides who needs gears in town....check out my bike in earlier post


----------



## BigTom (Aug 15, 2017)

Also less/cheaper maintenance.
If you don't need gears, why have them?
I couldn't imagine not having gears though.


----------



## hash tag (Aug 15, 2017)

Less gears = less maintenance


----------



## hash tag (Aug 15, 2017)

The bike in my earlier post has no gears, no brakes, weighs a ton, crap riding position...i got it down to Brighton on the annual family outing one year: so coooool


----------



## maomao (Aug 15, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Less gears = Less weight
> Less stuff =cool (normally)
> Besides who needs gears in town....check out my bike in earlier post


Weight is a small part of it. Fixies actually make you stick to the road/track better. Don't think anyone could do this on a geared bike:


----------



## squirrelp (Aug 16, 2017)

joustmaster said:


> Does the front brake make much difference on a fixed gear bike?


Absolutely

The fastest way to stop a bicycle is by just using the front brake to the point where the rear wheel is just about to come up. It's good to practice this, the braking should be accompanies by thrusting the arms forward / body backwards to work against the unweighting of the back wheel allowing really strong brake pressure.

Not having a front brake is dangerous posing and should have no place on a public road


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2017)

squirrelp said:


> Absolutely
> 
> The fastest way to stop a bicycle is by just using the front brake to the point where the rear wheel is just about to come up. It's good to practice this, the braking should be accompanies by thrusting the arms forward / body backwards to work against the unweighting of the back wheel allowing really strong brake pressure.
> 
> Not having a front brake is dangerous posing and should have no place on a public road


The fastest way to stop a bicycle is to place a big wall or obstacle in its path


----------



## hash tag (Aug 16, 2017)

Another thing about cyclists is the apparent way they ignore things if they are in the wrong as opposed to either trying to defend it or speaking out against it noting somone has been very quiet lately.

BTW. too much front brake throws the cyclist over the bars ( I have done it, the first time I rode with V brakes, but I was extreemly tired at the time ).


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Another thing about cyclists is the apparent way they ignore things if they are in the wrong as opposed to either trying to defend it or speaking out against it noting somone has been very quiet lately.
> 
> BTW. too much front brake throws the cyclist over the bars ( I have done it, the first time I rode with V brakes, but I was extreemly tired at the time ).


It's always worth seeing


----------



## Sue (Aug 23, 2017)

So, estate agent from Brixton asks pedestrIan to move to one side and is threatened with a knife by said pedestrian.

Surely cyclists are meant to give precedence to pedestrians (certainly the case further along the canal)? Also wonder what 'asking' means in this context... 

Man lunges with knife at cyclists 'after they asked him to move aside'


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 23, 2017)

Sue said:


> So, estate agent from Brixton asks pedestrIan to move to one side and is threatened with a knife by said pedestrian.
> 
> Surely cyclists are meant to give precedence to pedestrians (certainly the case further along the canal)? Also wonder what 'asking' means in this context...
> 
> Man lunges with knife at cyclists 'after they asked him to move aside'



Yeah that's some crazy shit.  Like you though I wasn't aware the towpath was a two way cycle track.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2017)

Sue said:


> So, estate agent from Brixton asks pedestrIan to move to one side and is threatened with a knife by said pedestrian.
> 
> Surely cyclists are meant to give precedence to pedestrians (certainly the case further along the canal)? Also wonder what 'asking' means in this context...
> 
> Man lunges with knife at cyclists 'after they asked him to move aside'


canal cyclists are in the main utter arseholes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Yeah that's some crazy shit.  Like you though I wasn't aware the towpath was a two way cycle track.


it's not. fucking arsehole cyclist making out they're more important when pedestrians have priority.


----------



## emanymton (Aug 23, 2017)

Sue said:


> So, estate agent from Brixton asks pedestrIan to move to one side and is threatened with a knife by said pedestrian.
> 
> Surely cyclists are meant to give precedence to pedestrians (certainly the case further along the canal)? Also wonder what 'asking' means in this context...
> 
> Man lunges with knife at cyclists 'after they asked him to move aside'


An estate agent and a cyclist. Is there a jury in the land that would have found him guilty even if he'd killed the bloke.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2017)

emanymton said:


> An estate agent and a cyclist. Is there a jury in the land that would have found him guilty even if he'd killed the bloke.


he'd have been carried shoulder-high by the jury and a medal struck in honour of the occasion, as happened when the killing of pc culley was determined to be justifiable homicide


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 23, 2017)

Sue said:


> So, estate agent from Brixton asks pedestrIan to move to one side and is threatened with a knife by said pedestrian.
> 
> Surely cyclists are meant to give precedence to pedestrians (certainly the case further along the canal)? Also wonder what 'asking' means in this context...
> 
> Man lunges with knife at cyclists 'after they asked him to move aside'


 
Estate agent is an entitled fool. Knife man is an arsehole


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> 'Dangerous' cyclist killed pedestrian then blamed crash on her, court told
> 
> Charged with manslaughter, a first


Guilty of "wanton and furious driving" but not manslaughter

Cyclist guilty over pedestrian's death - BBC News


----------



## cupid_stunt (Aug 23, 2017)

belboid said:


> Guilty of "wanton and furious driving" but not manslaughter
> 
> Cyclist guilty over pedestrian's death - BBC News



Fingers crossed he still gets sent down for a decent period.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 23, 2017)

belboid said:


> Guilty of "wanton and furious driving" but not manslaughter
> 
> Cyclist guilty over pedestrian's death - BBC News



Manslaughter was always a stretch.  With the rapid increase of cycling everywhere we probably need to update the laws to account for those who are so reckless as they endanger the lives of others (whether they be a pedestrian or another cyclist).


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 23, 2017)

cupid_stunt said:


> Fingers crossed he still gets sent down for a decent period.



Hopefully, but given the way road crime is dealt with in this country it seems unlikely.  Be unlucky to do 6 months I reckon.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2017)

cupid_stunt said:


> Fingers crossed he still gets sent down for a decent period.


Two years maximum, I read.  Fair chance he'll cop for most of that at least.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Manslaughter was always a stretch.  With the rapid increase of cycling everywhere we probably need to update the laws to account for those who are so reckless as they endanger the lives of others (whether they be a pedestrian or another cyclist).


Brake highlight a significant number of cases where car drivers have got off after driving (what would seem to me to be) similarly reckless and dangerous manner - Charges and penalties for drivers who kill, maim and endanger - Brake the road safety charity


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 23, 2017)

belboid said:


> Brake highlight a significant number of cases where car drivers have got off after driving (what would seem to me to be) similarly reckless and dangerous manner - Charges and penalties for drivers who kill, maim and endanger - Brake the road safety charity



Well yes. The laws and sentencing are not up to scratch.  I think we'd all agree on that.


----------



## hash tag (Aug 23, 2017)

The judge says the cyclist has shown no remorse....bastard.
he was arrogant enough to defend himself as well.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2017)

hash tag said:


> The judge says the cyclist has shown no remorse....bastard.
> he was arrogant enough to defend himself as well.


must be legal aid for manslaughter cases, surely


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2017)

Last bloke so charged got 12 months - Cyclist jailed after fatal collision in Hereford city centre - BBC News


----------



## likesfish (Aug 23, 2017)

Hopefully the met start nicking fixies without brakes let the hipster cull begin.

There's no excuse not to have a functioning brake.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 23, 2017)

hash tag said:


> The judge says the cyclist has shown no remorse....bastard.
> he was arrogant enough to defend himself as well.




He has done more than shown no remorse, he has repeatedly stated that the victim is to blame and in many ways got what she deserved. 

You shouldn't judge a book by its cover, but I'd give ten years for those stretched ears alone.


----------



## tommers (Aug 23, 2017)

He was let out of a side door so I'm guessing he's not gone to prison.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> He has done more than shown no remorse, he has repeatedly stated that the victim is to blame and in many ways got what she deserved.
> 
> You shouldn't judge a book by its cover, but I'd give ten years for those stretched ears alone.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2017)

tommers said:


> He was let out of a side door so I'm guessing he's not gone to prison.


Awaiting the sentencing report, its common practise. He'll be going down, I'd be fairly sure.


----------



## bemused (Aug 23, 2017)

likesfish said:


> Hopefully the met start nicking fixies without brakes let the hipster cull begin.
> 
> There's no excuse not to have a functioning brake.



Stopping fast would seem to be the number 1 goal of anyone on the road. You do have to be an immense cock to injure someone on the road and then whine about them on the Internet.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 23, 2017)

bemused said:


> Stopping fast would seem to be the number 1 goal of anyone on the road.


I reckon reaching their destination probably ranks higher


----------



## likesfish (Aug 23, 2017)

I could see somebody shouting at somebody they'd hit through shock but to go online and continue to rant against them looks like hes going to jail


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2017)

Interesting argument from one QC - Motorist would not have landed cyclist's 'wanton and furious driving' charge

Tldr - being an arsehole isn't a crime and 18mph is not undue speed.


----------



## bemused (Aug 23, 2017)

belboid said:


> Interesting argument from one QC - Motorist would not have landed cyclist's 'wanton and furious driving' charge
> 
> Tldr - being an arsehole isn't a crime and 18mph is not undue speed.



The final paragraph bemuses me:



> If it is going to make any meaningful contribution to the reduction of danger on the roads, our criminal justice system needs to recalibrate away from the prejudice that motoring is innocuous and cycling dangerous and towards controlling the behaviour of those imposing greatest risk.



The Justice system convicts people of motoring offences all the time. If the car is seen as 'innocuous' why are 20mph speed limits being introduced in residential areas full of car driving voters? Society clearly acknowledges that cars are dangerous.  

If a driver had killed this lady in a vehicle that wasn't compliant with the regulations they would be in court as well.


----------



## tommers (Aug 23, 2017)

Over half of drivers convicted of killing somebody don't go to jail.

Not that that really explains that paragraph but it just continually amazes me.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2017)

bemused said:


> If a driver had killed this lady in a vehicle that wasn't compliant with the regulations they would be in court as well.


As he agrees Allston should have been - just not on these charges. He does argue in his other two guardian articles that motorists are generally treated to leniently, and that the laws are generally an arse - Martin Porter | The Guardian


----------



## maomao (Aug 23, 2017)

tommers said:


> Over half of drivers convicted of killing somebody don't go to jail.
> 
> Not that that really explains that paragraph but it just continually amazes me.


And what percentage of drivers who kill a pedestrian (which they do approximately 800 times as often as cyclists do) end up in court in the first place?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 23, 2017)

maomao said:


> And what percentage of drivers who kill a pedestrian (which they do approximately 800 times as often as cyclists do) end up in court in the first place?


I'd hazard a guess that the percentage of those who kill peds _through criminal actions_ ending up in court is extremely high indeed.


----------



## maomao (Aug 23, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> I'd hazard a guess that the percentage of those who kill peds _through criminal actions_ ending up in court is extremely high indeed.


It seems it's pretty hard to get them convicted though:

Dangerous drivers should not be allowed to choose trial by jury | Martin Porter


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 23, 2017)

maomao said:


> It seems it's pretty hard to get them convicted though:
> 
> Dangerous drivers should not be allowed to choose trial by jury | Martin Porter


Yes, but that wasn't your question.


----------



## maomao (Aug 23, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Yes, but that wasn't your question.


So the conversation should stop till accurate figures are provided? It'll stop now anyway because I'm almost home to my beautiful daughter and pregnant wife. Have fun fantasising about nailing cyclists' penises to their saddles.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 23, 2017)

maomao said:


> So the conversation should stop till accurate figures are provided? It'll stop now anyway because I'm almost home to my beautiful daughter and pregnant wife. Have fun fantasising about nailing cyclists' penises to their saddles.




You asked what percentage even got to court. I think probably most whose actions are criminal. Then you moved the goalposts.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> You asked what percentage even got to court. I think probably most whose actions are criminal. Then you moved the goalposts.


That is still one of those impossible to answer questions, though. To know if the act was criminal, they have to be convicted. The police don't tend to release figures for people they think were criminal but not likely to be convicted.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 23, 2017)

belboid said:


> That is still one of those impossible to answer questions, though. To know if the act was criminal, they have to be convicted. The police don't tend to release figures for people they think were criminal but not likely to be convicted.


Well let's say _potentially criminal actions_ then. Maomao initially seemed to be suggesting that drivers kill peds and often don't even see the inside of a court. I contend that most, if not all, are prosecuted where there's evidence of criminal activity causing death. If there's no such evidence then naturally they shouldn't be prosecuted.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2017)

Seems to be 46% of those who kill cyclists face no charges, with another 13/14% of those charged found not guilty. 

Cycling deaths: Fewer than half of drivers face jail


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 23, 2017)

belboid said:


> Seems to be 46% of those who kill cyclists face no charges, with another 13/14% of those charged found not guilty.
> 
> Cycling deaths: Fewer than half of drivers face jail


Well if you're suggesting that penalties should be tougher for those who kill people through criminal negligence, I'd agree. If you're saying more drivers whose accidents result in death should be prosecuted, I might not. The majority of those who aren't prosecuted have probably done nothing criminally wrong.


----------



## bemused (Aug 23, 2017)

belboid said:


> Seems to be 46% of those who kill cyclists face no charges, with another 13/14% of those charged found not guilty.
> 
> Cycling deaths: Fewer than half of drivers face jail



A 75% conviction rate isn't that bad.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> The majority of those who aren't prosecuted have probably done nothing criminally wrong.


That's what we cannot know, isn't it? 

We can say the police should probably be putting forward more cases (as they go forward on a supposed 50/50 chance of being found guilty, but the rate is 73/27 in reality), but we have no way of knowing whether there should be an extra couple of dozen cases or an extra couple ofhundred


----------



## maomao (Aug 23, 2017)

belboid said:


> That's what we cannot know, isn't it?
> 
> We can say the police should probably be putting forward more cases (as they go forward on a supposed 50/50 chance of being found guilty, but the rate is 73/27 in reality), but we have no way of knowing whether there should be an extra couple of dozen cases or an extra couple ofhundred


The article I posted was by an expert in the field discussing this point exactly but no fucker read it of course.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 23, 2017)

maomao said:


> The article I posted was by an expert in the field discussing this point exactly but no fucker read it of course.


Which one? I read this one


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2017)

maomao said:


> The article I posted was by an expert in the field discussing this point exactly but no fucker read it of course.


The one I'd linked to in the first place?


----------



## hipipol (Aug 23, 2017)

In the process of recovering from 4 breaks in my left arm skidding off the bike in heavy rain avoiding a dog
This man however should be held accountable;-
Cyclist Charlie Alliston guilty over pedestrian's death - BBC News
This is why people hate cyclists
PS been hit twice by the lycra cock waggle brigade - grow up, most of life cant be treated like combat
Its only the newbies who get crushed by trucks, meanwhile macho lycra cunts dominate


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 23, 2017)

belboid said:


> We can say the police should probably be putting forward more cases ...


On what basis can we say that?


----------



## bemused (Aug 23, 2017)

maomao said:


> The article I posted was by an expert in the field discussing this point exactly but no fucker read it of course.



I read it, the argument seems to be people got off who he thought was guilty, and by doing away with jury trials they would have been found guilty by a judge.  If the metric in this thread that 75% of cases in court result in a conviction it wouldn't seem to hold out his thesis that juries are biased towards drivers.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 23, 2017)

bemused said:


> I read it, the argument seems to be people got off who he thought was guilty, and by doing away with jury trials they would have been found guilty by a judge.  If the metric in this thread that 75% of cases in court result in a conviction it wouldn't seem to hold out his thesis that juries are biased towards drivers.


That's exactly what he argued. I just read it again. I'm not sure what Maomao thinks it's about, but it's not an argument that the police don't refer enough cases for prosecution.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> On what basis can we say that?


A - well, I just said it, so obviously we can

B - because of the clause that followed, the one in brackets.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2017)

belboid said:


> That's what we cannot know, isn't it?
> 
> We can say the police should probably be putting forward more cases (as they go forward on a supposed 50/50 chance of being found guilty, but the rate is 73/27 in reality), but we have no way of knowing whether there should be an extra couple of dozen cases or an extra couple ofhundred


Who supposes there's a 50/50 chance of being found guilty?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 23, 2017)

belboid said:


> B - because of the clause that followed, the one in brackets.


This?


> (as they go forward on a supposed 50/50 chance of being found guilty, but the rate is 73/27 in reality)


I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Can you clarify?


----------



## 8ball (Aug 23, 2017)

bemused said:


> If a driver had killed this lady in a vehicle that wasn't compliant with the regulations they would be in court as well.



I don't think the regulations would need to come into it, if you were doing that speed, beeped twice then drove into someone then you would be going to jail.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Who supposes there's a 50/50 chance of being found guilty?


The cps. Charges are - in theory - brought forward on there being an at least 50/50 chance of success.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 23, 2017)

belboid said:


> The cps. Charges are - in theory - brought forward on there being an at least 50/50 chance of success.


So they don't suppose it's 50/50, simply that is the minimum probability they'll proceed with.


----------



## bemused (Aug 23, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> That's exactly what he argued. I just read it again. I'm not sure what Maomao thinks it's about, but it's not an argument that the police don't refer enough cases for prosecution.



If you read his other article Motorist would not have landed cyclist's 'wanton and furious driving' charge I'm still uncertain if he thinks the cyclist should have been in court or not.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 23, 2017)

bemused said:


> If you read his other article Motorist would not have landed cyclist's 'wanton and furious driving' charge I'm still uncertain if he thinks the cyclist should have been in court or not.



I think he's right.  If you beep twice and run someone over I'm pretty sure that's manslaughter.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 23, 2017)

likesfish said:


> I could see somebody shouting at somebody they'd hit through shock but to go online and continue to rant against them looks like hes going to jail



A while back I was riding down a steepish hill when a little girl ran out in front of me from the pavement. I was going about 20mph and the distance she was from me meant that no amount of braking could have stopped me in time, so I swerved round her. Missed her by inches. She had a coat on with the hood up so that she had no peripheral vision and hadn't looked before running across the road.

Had I been riding beside the kerb instead of the centre of the lane, I'd probably have hit her as I'd have had no space to move in time. Had I been in a car going at the same speed I'd have hit her and almost undoubtedly killed her. She was only about six by the looks of it. I think I walked the rest of the way home, I was too shaken up to concentrate on the road.

I dunno what my point is really, but someone's reaction to something like this after the fact shouldn't have any bearing on the level of responsibility for what happened. The effects of shock on someone's mind can be unpredictable. Everything about this kid makes me dislike him, but that's not relevant to the facts of the case. It also seems likely that the kid has been given more grief than a far more dangerous driver would have done, simply because of the novelty value of the case that just isn't there when speeding/drunk/just plain terrible motorists kill people.

I think the verdict was correct. Reckless use of the road, absolutely. Manslaughter, not in the absence of proof that the collision could have been prevented. Hopefully this fuckery of riding bikes with no brakes will now die out ASAP. If it doesn't then more criminal charges for more idiots should follow, preferably before accidents happen.


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> So they don't suppose it's 50/50, simply that is the minimum probability they'll proceed with.


Well done, you are capable is basic comprehension. Do you have an actual point?


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2017)

bemused said:


> If you read his other article Motorist would not have landed cyclist's 'wanton and furious driving' charge I'm still uncertain if he thinks the cyclist should have been in court or not.


He's pointing out how the law is fucked up and not sufficient to cope with modern life. He says explicitly that the bloke should have been prosecuted.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 23, 2017)

bemused said:


> If you read his other article Motorist would not have landed cyclist's 'wanton and furious driving' charge I'm still uncertain if he thinks the cyclist should have been in court or not.



It does say he deserves punishment for the offence of not having a front brake.
With the numbers and speeds quoted, though, I'm not sure how he could have shouted at the victim twice to get out of the way in any manner that would convey any coherent information.


----------



## bemused (Aug 23, 2017)

belboid said:


> He's pointing out how the law is fucked up and not sufficient to cope with modern life. He says explicitly that the bloke should have been prosecuted.



Well ... he kinda of says it after he says that he was doing a reasonable speed, she stepped in front of him, having one brake wasn't that important and if he'd been in a car, he'd not be in court. As far as I can tell he's suggesting that the only thing he should have been in court for having one brake not causing death by dangerous riding.

Given several people die per year being hit by cyclists without this type of prosecution, the fact they took him to court suggests the CPS thought he was more responsible for the death than the author of this article seems to think.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 23, 2017)

bemused said:


> If you read his other article Motorist would not have landed cyclist's 'wanton and furious driving' charge I'm still uncertain if he thinks the cyclist should have been in court or not.


Yes, he has some odd views in general. A QC suggesting that people (drivers) should be denied the right to a trial by jury because not enough of them are being convicted is quite astonishing, and he certainly doesn't justify that position in his argument. It is just an opinion piece so I Googled the chap and it turns out he's a cyclist and champion of cyclists (he calls himself The Cycling Silk). Last year he brought a private prosecution against a motorist himself after the police refused to act for lack of evidence.

His own case was rejected by a jury in just 20 minutes, so he has a shed full of axes to grind.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Aug 23, 2017)

bemused said:


> ...the fact they took him to court suggests the CPS thought he was more responsible for the death than the author of this article seems to think.


This merely suggests someone who works for the CPS has subscribed to this thread


----------



## mojo pixy (Aug 23, 2017)

In all the mentions of the trial hinging on his bike not being roadworthy, I've started to wonder what would have happened to this cyclist if the bike _had _been roadworthy but he had _chosen _to shout a warning instead of slow down.


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2017)

bemused said:


> Well ... he kinda of says it after he says that he was doing a reasonable speed, she stepped in front of him, having one brake wasn't that important and if he'd been in a car, he'd not be in court. As far as I can tell he's suggesting that the only thing he should have been in court for having one brake not causing death by dangerous riding.
> 
> Given several people die per year being hit by cyclists without this type of prosecution, the fact they took him to court suggests the CPS thought he was more responsible for the death than the author of this article seems to think.


What he says is:

He was riding an inappropriate bike, and deserved prosecution for that

His speed was entirely lawful

Kim Briggs stepped out into the road without paying due care and attention (including looking at her phone)

A car travelling at a similar speed would not have been able to stop or avoid her

Therefore, whilst Allistton bears a sugnificant responsibility, he was not entirely responsible for her death. 

Therefore manslaughter would be wrong, and even wanton and furious driving is dubious. 

The problem is not this particular rider, but the law itself.


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Yes, he has some odd views in general. A QC suggesting that people (drivers) should be denied the right to a trial by jury because not enough of them are being convicted is quite astonishing, and he certainly doesn't justify that position in his argument. It is just an opinion piece so I Googled the chap and it turns out he's a cyclist and champion of cyclists (he calls himself The Cycling Silk). Last year he brought a private prosecution against a motorist himself after the police refused to act for lack of evidence.
> 
> His own case was rejected by a jury in just 20 minutes, so he has a shed full of axes to grind.


Far too many assumptions in there. 

See above re his point regarding the fault being with the law. 

While I am not convinced by his entire argument(s) by any means, his point that the system is fucked seems fairly undeniable. 

In a jury system, there will be more driver jurists than cyclist jurors. Therefore (as the article argues) jurists are more likely to be sympathetic to drivers making a simple, momentary mistake, and say it's not (predominantly) their fault. At the same time they are more likely to see cyclists as at fault. Seems fairly basic human psychology to me. 

Just to be clear - Alliston should be sent down, but manslaufhter probably was the wrong charge. The law needs updating.


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> So they don't suppose it's 50/50, simply that is the minimum probability they'll proceed with.


Stats indicate that, on a normal pattern of distribution, there should be a 2-1 success rate st court, not a 3-1


----------



## 8ball (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> Stats indicate that, on a normal pattern of distribution, there should be a 2-1 success rate st court, not a 3-1



Why is that?


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2017)

8ball said:


> Why is that?


As far as I recall (tho I should let someone we know is good at stats, like kabbes confirm it):

If there are 100 people arrested for an offence, and there is a standard distribution of likelihood of guilt, then this will work out as:

9 out of the top decile being found guilty
8 out of the second decile
7 out of the third
Etc etc

We can discount anything below the fifth decile, as this is less than a 50/50 chance of success.

Therefore it's 9+8+7+6+5=35 (but actually slightly less once we get into decimals and rounding)


----------



## 8ball (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> As far as I recall (tho I should let someone we know is good at stats, like kabbes confirm it):
> 
> If there are 100 people arrested for an offence, and there is a standard distribution of likelihood of guilt, then this will work out as:
> 
> ...



I think there is maybe something either mis-stated or left out here, but I'll let someone come along to explain it (do you mean a normal distribution of the probability of a guilty verdict?  I'm not sure what the second dimension is eg. who are the "top decile" etc.?).

It's late, though, I might just be being dim.


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2017)

8ball said:


> I think there is maybe something either mis-stated or left out here, but I'll let someone come along to explain it (do you mean a normal distribution of the probability of a guilty verdict?  I'm not sure what the second dimension is eg. who are the "top decile" etc.?).
> 
> It's late, though, I might just be being dim.


I am probably explaining craply. 

I mean, if there are 100 people, one will have a 1% chance of being found guilty, one a 2% chance, one a 3%, and so on up to 100%. The ten likeliest are the top decile, 11-20 the next decile, etc. Do you should really add 2.5 to my total above.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> ...if there are 100 people, one will have a 1% chance of being found guilty, one a 2% chance, one a 3%, and so on up to 100%...



Where did you find these people and how did you manage to rank them in precise percentage chances of being found guilty?


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2017)

8ball said:


> Where did you find these people and how did you manage to rank them in precise percentage chances of being found guilty?


That's a fairly standard distribution. 

The point is/was, it is impossible to know the actual stats, we don't have much information to go on. So, unless it can be shown otherwise, assuming a standard distribution of likelihoods is the most sensible way forward. 

This, when Spymaster says the police (probably) shouldn't be prosecuting more people, he is probably wrong.


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Aug 24, 2017)

The QC's criticism of the wanton and furious driving charge:


> The charge of “wanton and furious” driving is also puzzling. Although the archaic 1861 wording could encompass more, it generally relates to speed. Reports of the prosecution’s closing speech reveal this case to be no exception with reference to a “machine built for speed” (apparently said without irony given what else is on our streets). This may have been glossed with the rather circular argument that the speed was too high for a bicycle with no front brake.


...is built on the assumption that the basis of this charge related to the cyclist's speed alone and not any of his other conduct, but the cycling QC wasn't at the trial and doesn't actually know this.

A pedestrian appeared in front of the cyclist on the road. He had time to shout at her twice but still failed to avoid crashing into her. The onus is on drivers and cyclists to adjust their behaviour to suit the changing conditions. If a pedestrian appeared in front a driver, the driver could not just hold down the horn for several seconds and drive through them. That would be death by careless at the very least.



belboid said:


> Therefore, whilst Allistton bears a sugnificant responsibility, he was not entirely responsible for her death.
> 
> Therefore manslaughter would be wrong, and even wanton and furious driving is dubious.


A part of the test for murder, manslaughter and all other homicide offences is whether the defendant's conduct was a significant cause of death - not the sole cause or even necessarily the most substantive cause. Corporate manslaughter charges are a good example - the deceased or an employee has often done something that is blatantly unsafe but the employer is liable for either ordering it or even just not stopping them.



belboid said:


> Stats indicate that, on a normal pattern of distribution, there should be a 2-1 success rate st court, not a 3-1


The problem with a statistical analysis of prosecution outcomes as a whole is that there isn't a normal distribution of defendants who are guilty or not guilty. Minor offences, which account for about 90% of the criminal caseload, are easy to prove if a suspect can be identified at all (drivers identified through ANPR, shoplifters caught on CCTV, etc) and this will hugely skew the numbers towards guilty pleas and convictions.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> What he says is:
> 
> He was riding an inappropriate bike, and deserved prosecution for that


Inappropriate? He wasn't riding an inappropriate bike. He was intentionally riding a bike that any normal person would know was a danger to others.
If it had been a car driver who removed the front brakes from his car and killed a cyclist (but blew his horn twice), would he just be driving an inappropriate car?



belboid said:


> A car travelling at a similar speed would not have been able to stop or avoid her


He had time to shout at her and tell her to get out of the way, twice! A car travelling at 20mph would easily have stopped. As would a bike with brakes. Or at least slowed down enough not to have killed her.



belboid said:


> Therefore manslaughter would be wrong, and even wanton and furious driving is dubious.


Again, would manslaughter be wrong if a car driver removed his brakes and killed a cyclist?


----------



## 8ball (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> That's a fairly standard distribution.



So how does it work out if you have two people?  Does one have a 33% chance of being found guilty and the other 66%?  Or is it 1% and 2%?
If you have 1,000 people, does one of them have a 1,000% chance of being found guilty?  Do you remember the name of this distribution?


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2017)

8ball said:


> So how does it work out if you have two people?  Does one have a 33% chance of being found guilty and the other 66%?  Or is it 1% and 2%?
> If you have 1,000 people, does one of them have a 1,000% chance of being found guilty?  Do you remember the name of this distribution?


You extrapolate. 

I thinks it's a linear one, a bell curve distribution would be different, but I'd have to work it out some time other than after five pints.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> You extrapolate.
> 
> I thinks it's a linear one, a bell curve distribution would be different, but I'd have to work it out some time other than after five pints.



If there's just one person is it 50/50?  And if they bring two mates along does it matter where they stand in the line to determine whether they are increasing or reducing their likelihood of going daahn?  This is too confusing for this time of night...


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

MAD-T-REX said:


> The QC's criticism of the wanton and furious driving charge:
> 
> ...is built on the assumption that the basis of this charge related to the cyclist's speed alone and not any of his other conduct, but the cycling QC wasn't at the trial and doesn't actually know this.
> 
> A pedestrian appeared in front of the cyclist on the road. He had time to shout at her twice but still failed to avoid crashing into her. The onus is on drivers and cyclists to adjust their behaviour to suit the changing conditions. If a pedestrian appeared in front a driver, the driver could not just hold down the horn for several seconds and drive through them. That would be death by careless at the very least.


So a QC experienced in the field with access to full court reports is less able to comment on the case than you are after reading a couple of articles on the internet? Wow. 

The prosecution's case, based on the cctv, was that she stepped into the road 6.53 metres in front of him which assuming normal gearing/cadence and the speed given is somewhere between one and one and a half turns of the pedals or around one and a quarter seconds. Certainly not enough time for a car to stop. 

Maybe one of the shouts was before she actually stepped out in the road though I don't know. Given that it took the jury some considerable time and the judge had to ask for a majority verdict the evidence was obviously considerably more complex than any of us have been able to express here.


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Yes, he has some odd views in general. A QC suggesting that people (drivers) should be denied the right to a trial by jury because not enough of them are being convicted is quite astonishing, and he certainly doesn't justify that position in his argument. It is just an opinion piece so I Googled the chap and it turns out he's a cyclist and champion of cyclists (he calls himself The Cycling Silk). Last year he brought a private prosecution against a motorist himself after the police refused to act for lack of evidence.
> 
> His own case was rejected by a jury in just 20 minutes, so he has a shed full of axes to grind.



And you don't have any axes to grind at all?

It is a direct counter to your rather vague and tautologocal statement that:



Spymaster said:


> The majority of those who aren't prosecuted have probably done nothing criminally wrong.


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

A couple of points about fixies in general. They have been very popular in central London, particularly amongst the courier crowd (for whom they offer several advantages) and hipsters. Very very few of them have front brakes fitted. It is incredibly easy for anyone with even the most basic knowledge of bicycles to see if it has a front brake fitted and yet I'm yet to hear of anyone being so much as fined for not having one (personally I'd impound them). On top of this their proponents frequently claim that they have more control, more traction and are able to stop quicker than normal bicycles (the first two points are probably true the third not so but all three completely dependant on the skill of the rider). 

But to suggest that it's obvious that they're not roadworthy when they are ten a penny in London and frequently claimed to be safer than standard bikes is a little unfair.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> But to suggest that it's obvious that they're not roadworthy when they are ten a penny in London and frequently claimed to be safer than standard bikes is a little unfair.



Clearly they are not roadworthy, because the law requires a front brake, with no front brake the bike is not 'fit to be used on the road', the very definition of 'roadworthy'. If they are ten a penny in London, it confirms that a sizeable proportion of London cyclists have no respect for the law nor other road users. 

I agree these bikes should be seized, in the same way as unroadworthy vehicles are.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> Well done, you are capable is basic comprehension. Do you have an actual point?


Yes your 50 50 above turns out not to be 50 50. The slightest interrogation of you and woosh, what you're saying shifts


----------



## High Voltage (Aug 24, 2017)

I'm guessing that the chap also removed the bicycle bell which needs to be fitted on a new bicycles when sold - granted, the need for a bell is not a legal requirement, but once again, shows his obsession with lightening a street racing machine to the point of being highly illegal in the desperate attempt to squeeze a few more kph or fractions of seconds off his street racing times for when he boasts down the pub with his street racing buddies

I'm also guessing that he wasn't wearing the recommended, yet also, not legally required (yet(?)) high viz clothing - again, could this have contributed to the accident?

And that's before we get onto the subject of reflectors, again, these appear to be a legal requirement which may or may not have been fitted to a pure racing machine, never destined for use on the roads but whose absence can lead to a fine up to £1000 - so whilst the points mentioned above may seem nit picking  their severity is recognised in law


----------



## bemused (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> So a QC experienced in the field with access to full court reports is less able to comment on the case than you are after reading a couple of articles on the internet? Wow.



To be fair Porter isn't reading court reports, he is reading articles from the trail.



> From reports of the evidence given at trial[..]





> There is no record that Alliston had his own expert to give evidence[..]



If he had the court reports he'd know about expert evidence, given the trail isn't over it is understandable the reports aren't available.



> Maybe one of the shouts was before she actually stepped out on the road though I don't know. Given that it took the jury some considerable time and the judge had to ask for a majority verdict the evidence was obviously considerably more complex than any of us have been able to express here.



Porter doesn't seem to acknowledge this. The theme of this article to is to essentially say any cyclist would have hit her and she stepped out in front of him - so he should just be brought to book regarding his front brake. Given this is the first time a cyclist has been brought up on man slaughter charges both the police and the cps must have considered there to be an actual case against him. Porter disagrees and calls the man slaughter charge 'heavyhanded.'[/quote]


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

cupid_stunt said:


> Clearly they are not roadworthy, because the law requires a front brake, with no front brake the bike is not 'fit to be used on the road', the very definition of 'roadworthy'. If they are ten a penny in London, it confirms that a sizeable proportion of London cyclists have no respect for the law nor other road users.
> 
> I agree these bikes should be seized, in the same way as unroadworthy vehicles are.



If police never stopped motorists who had visible problems (eg. no lights, no mirrors etc.) with their cars do you think the majority of drivers would deal with those faults? Why do you think police bother enforcing these laws?

When I was a cyclist it was common knowledge that LED lights were not legal by the letter of the law but we all used them because they were more visible and it was common knowledge that police wouldn't challenge you for using them as they were more effective. It may be 'common sense' that a bike without a front brake is roadworthy but people believe plenty of stuff that isn't common sensical and the proponents of these bikes often (loudly and at great length, believe me) claim that these bikes are in fact safer. Given that and the fact that the law isn't enforced it's not unreasonable to believe that these bikes are roadworthy. It may be wrong but that's not saying the same thing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> Stats indicate that, on a normal pattern of distribution, there should be a 2-1 success rate st court, not a 3-1


Yeh. Think about this again, chuck.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> That's a fairly standard distribution.
> 
> The point is/was, it is impossible to know the actual stats, we don't have much information to go on. So, unless it can be shown otherwise, assuming a standard distribution of likelihoods is the most sensible way forward.
> 
> This, when Spymaster says the police (probably) shouldn't be prosecuting more people, he is probably wrong.


The police don't prosecute anyone


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> So a QC experienced in the field with access to full court reports is less able to comment on the case than you are after reading a couple of articles on the internet? Wow.


He's relying on the same news articles as everyone else. You either have to attend a trial or order a transcript (costs a lot, takes weeks to produce) to know what was actually said.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> In a jury system, there will be more driver jurists than cyclist jurors. Therefore (as the article argues) jurists are more likely to be sympathetic to drivers making a simple, momentary mistake, and say it's not (predominantly) their fault. At the same time they are more likely to see cyclists as at fault. Seems fairly basic human psychology to me.


Well we hear this a lot yet it doesn't seem to be supported by the figures you quoted yourself; that 73% of motorists that are prosecuted are found guilty. What would you like that figure to be? Are you, like Martin Porter, prepared to deny people their basic legal rights to achieve it?

Once again, his articles aren't gospel (as you agree, in fairness). They are opinion pieces by a demonstrably biased barrister and if you read through the comments there are other lawyers who disagree with him (as well as suggestions that he's a publicity seeker).


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

MAD-T-REX said:


> He's relying on the same news articles as everyone else. You either have to attend a trial or order a transcript (costs a lot, takes weeks to produce) to know what was actually said.



I was wrong about the transcripts but the point still stands that the jury was deliberating for three days and couldn't reach a unanimous verdict. Unless the lunches at the Old Bailey are terribly good the evidence has to be a little more complex than some posters here have suggested.


----------



## Hollis (Aug 24, 2017)

Motorist would not have landed cyclist's 'wanton and furious driving' charge


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

Interesting article by Martin Porter in the Grauniad btw. Don't know if anyone's seen that yet.


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2017)

MAD-T-REX said:


> He's relying on the same news articles as everyone else. You either have to attend a trial or order a transcript (costs a lot, takes weeks to produce) to know what was actually said.


On reports that have not been denied tho - the key facts, that she stepped into the road without paying due care appears not to have been contradicted.  That is a massively mitigating circumstance.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> So a QC experienced in the field with access to full court reports is less able to comment on the case than you are after reading a couple of articles on the internet? Wow.
> 
> The prosecution's case, based on the cctv, was that she stepped into the road 6.53 metres in front of him which assuming normal gearing/cadence and the speed given is somewhere between one and one and a half turns of the pedals or around one and a quarter seconds. Certainly not enough time for a car to stop.
> 
> Maybe one of the shouts was before she actually stepped out in the road though I don't know. Given that it took the jury some considerable time and the judge had to ask for a majority verdict the evidence was obviously considerably more complex than any of us have been able to express here.


Yeh. Lawyers rely a) on media reports and b) on trial or as they're termed law reports. There are no such things as court reports other than these sources save the transcripts referred to above, which are never known as 'court reports'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> On reports that have not been denied tho - the key facts, that she stepped into the road without paying due care appears not to have been contradicted.  That is a massively mitigating circumstance.


It's most likely the reason for the ng for manslaughter, but that's not mitigation. We haven't heard what they might rely on for mitigation.


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Well we hear this a lot yet it doesn't seem to be supported by the figures you quoted yourself; that 73% of motorists that are prosecuted are found guilty. What would you like that figure to be? Are you, like Martin Porter, prepared to deny people their basic legal rights to achieve it?


No, that is a shit conclusion, but his main point - that the law is not handling things right - seems largely indisputable. The figure should, counter intuitively, be lower, imo. the figures i went through last night may not be absolutely right, but there will be a formula for working out what the 'appropriate' rate should be, and I am highly dubious that it would be 73%



> Once again, his articles aren't gospel (as you agree, in fairness). They are opinion pieces by a demonstrably biased barrister and if you read through the comments there are other lawyers who disagree with him (as well as suggestions that he's a publicity seeker).


Every barrister is biased, so what. You seem massively keen to dismiss him for no clear reason whatsoever.


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> It's most likely the reason for the ng for manslaughter, but that's not mitigation. We haven't heard what they might rely on for mitigation.


mitigation - the action of reducing the severity, seriousness, or painfulness of something

Now fuck off back to filing your teeth


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> This, when Spymaster says the police (probably) shouldn't be prosecuting more people, he is probably wrong.


Well that's not quite what I said. I asked on what basis you were so sure that they should bring more prosecutions, to which your response was that figures (stats?) showed this, which I don't believe is the case. 

(Sorry if I've got that wrong. On my phone on the bus)


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Well that's not quite what I said. I asked on what basis you were so sure that they should bring more prosecutions, to which your response was that figures (stats?) showed this, which I don't believe is the case.
> 
> (Sorry if I've got that wrong. On my phone on the bus)


well, I am thinking that the one implies the other.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> mitigation - the action of reducing the severity, seriousness, or painfulness of something
> 
> Now fuck off back to filing your teeth


i know what mitigation is. i also know it's raised in relation to sentencing rather than conviction. being as the judge has warned yer man to expect a custodial sentence, i suspect that yer man's decision to rise a bicycle without a front brake and his lack of remorse may weigh rather more in the judge's mind when passing sentence for wanton and furious cycling than the unfortunate woman's stepping into the road reportedly without looking.


----------



## bemused (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> On reports that have not been denied tho - the key facts, that she stepped into the road without paying due care appears not to have been contradicted.  That is a massively mitigating circumstance.



it isn't a fact, it is Alliston's statement, the key witness who can contradict if they were paying attention is dead. 

The only fact is that she was in the road.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

outcomes in magistrates courts (from cps ar 2015-16)

https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/annual_report_2015_16.pdf

crown court case outcomes


perhaps these figures might help belboid


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

bemused said:


> it isn't a fact, it is Alliston's statement, the key witness who can contradict if they were paying attention is dead.
> 
> The only fact is that she was in the road.


The prosecution had CCTV footage but it wasn't played to the jury apparently.


----------



## bemused (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> The prosecution had CCTV footage but it wasn't played to the jury apparently.



I guess that's how they proved she wasn't on the phone.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> Two years maximum, I read.  Fair chance he'll cop for most of that at least.


yeh, so her apparently not looking not that great mitigation iyo despite your subsequent post on the subject.


----------



## Winot (Aug 24, 2017)

This guy was clearly a twat, and although being a twat isn't itself illegal, it makes it pretty much impossible to comment on the nuance of the case without appearing that you are defending him.

I'm interested though as to why this case got so much media attention. Apparently 160 people a year are killed by motor vehicle hit and runs. At the risk of 'whataboutery', I'd suggest that the fact the media focuses on a single unusual case involving a cyclist says something about prejudice and bias in society.


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2017)

bemused said:


> it isn't a fact, it is Alliston's statement, the key witness who can contradict if they were paying attention is dead.
> 
> The only fact is that she was in the road.





bemused said:


> I guess that's how they proved she wasn't on the phone.


do you not see how these statements contradict each other? It appears - from the newspaper reports - that the claim she stepped out into the road wasn't contradicted. If that is the case, she was partially at fault. Which means a manslaughter charge was probably OTT.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> No, that is a shit conclusion, but his main point - that the law is not handling things right - seems largely indisputable. The figure should, counter intuitively, be lower, imo. the figures i went through last night may not be absolutely right, but there will be a formula for working out what the 'appropriate' rate should be, and I am highly dubious that it would be 73%


Well it's probably worth finding out if we're going to discuss it. At the moment I'm going with what's been posted here and your own source is saying that the results yielded by an FOI request suggest that 73% of drivers prosecuted are convicted. Like you, I think that sounds very high, but if it's right, yours and Maomao's position that not enough cases are brought (by the cops/cps) because it's felt that not enough are successful, is sunk.


> Every barrister is biased, so what. You seem massively keen to dismiss him for no clear reason whatsoever.


Ah, come on! This is a bloke with a heavily vested interest in publishing anti-motorist clickbait. "Dangerous Drivers Should Not Be Allowed Trial By Jury" ... sensationalist much???

Despite a (probable) 73% conviction rate he's arguing that drivers legal rights should be curtailed _in order to increase the number of convictions!!! _

That's insane, and like you and I, he probably doesn't believe it himself.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Well it's probably worth finding out if we're going to discuss it. At the moment I'm going with what's been posted here and your own source is saying that the results yielded by an FOI request suggest that 73% of drivers prosecuted are convicted. Like you, I think that sounds very high, but if it's right, yours and Maomao's position that not enough cases are brought (by the cops/cps) because it's felt that not enough are successful, is sunk.
> 
> Ah, come on! This is a bloke with a vested interest in publishing clickbait. "Dangerous Drivers Should Not Be Allowed Trial By Jury" ... sensationalist much???
> 
> ...


if more than 70% of people appearing in crown and magistrates courts across the board plead guilty there's your conviction rate sorted altogether, before you get onto the additional number of people convicted after trial.

no cases are brought by the police, they are all brought by (or referred to, as you said above) to the cps.


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Well it's probably worth finding out if we're going to discuss it. At the moment I'm going with what's been posted here and your own source is saying that the results yielded by an FOI request suggest that 73% of drivers prosecuted are convicted. Like you, I think that sounds very high, but if it's right, yours and Maomao's position that not enough cases are brought (by the cops/cps) because it's felt that not enough are successful, is sunk.


No, it is - counter-intuitively - the opposite. If there were another 100 cases prosecuted, where the conviction rate was 50/50, the overall rate would fall, but there would be more people correctly prosecuted. Of course there would also be more innocent people put through a trial, but if you  had a 100% conviction rate then there would clearly be a large amount of guilty people going free.

just where you draw that line is a perfectly matter for debate, but, my contention is, the figures imply that the supposed 50/50 criteria isn't being adhered to.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Well it's probably worth finding out if we're going to discuss it. At the moment I'm going with what's been posted here and your own source is saying that the results yielded by an FOI request suggest that 73% of drivers prosecuted are convicted. Like you, I think that sounds very high, but if it's right, yours and Maomao's position that not enough cases are brought (by the cops/cps) because it's felt that not enough are successful, is sunk.
> 
> Ah, come on! This is a bloke with a heavily vested interest in publishing anti-motorist clickbait. "Dangerous Drivers Should Not Be Allowed Trial By Jury" ... sensationalist much???
> 
> ...



http://www.roadjustice.org.uk/sites...C Road Justice - Charging and Prosecution.pdf


----------



## bemused (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> do you not see how these statements contradict each other? It appears - from the newspaper reports - that the claim she stepped out into the road wasn't contradicted. If that is the case, she was partially at fault. Which means a manslaughter charge was probably OTT.



It was proved in court that Allison admitted lying about her being on the phone.

In his press statement after the trail her husband said:



> very important to me’ that Alliston’s admission that he lied about Kim being on her mobile phone. We now know categorically that Kim was not using her phone at the time



His assertion that she wasn't paying attention was underpinned by him lying about her being on the phone.


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2017)

bemused said:


> It was proved in court that Allison admitted lying about her being on the phone.
> 
> In his press statement after the trail her husband said:
> 
> ...


So there _were _other witnesses, thus contradicting your previous statement.

Is there any evidence to contradict the claim that she stepped into the road?  If there is, then the QC is talking shite, but if there isn't, then his point is perfectly valid.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2017)

Winot said:


> I'm interested though as to why this case got so much media attention. Apparently 160 people a year are killed by motor vehicle hit and runs. At the risk of 'whataboutery', I'd suggest that the fact the media focuses on a single unusual case involving a cyclist says something about prejudice and bias in society.


The reason it's attracted so much media attention is that it's a landmark case, in that the defendant is the first cyclist ever to be prosecuted for the manslaughter of a pedestrian in the UK.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

Winot said:


> I'm interested though as to why this case got so much media attention. Apparently 160 people a year are killed by motor vehicle hit and runs. At the risk of 'whataboutery', I'd suggest that the fact the media focuses on a single unusual case involving a cyclist says something about prejudice and bias in society.


yeh it's strange that the media occasionally focuses on the unusual rather than simply concentrating on the mundane


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Well it's probably worth finding out if we're going to discuss it. At the moment I'm going with what's been posted here and your own source is saying that the results yielded by an FOI request suggest that 73% of drivers prosecuted are convicted. Like you, I think that sounds very high, but if it's right, yours and Maomao's position that not enough cases are brought (by the cops/cps) because it's felt that not enough are successful, is sunk.
> 
> Ah, come on! This is a bloke with a heavily vested interest in publishing anti-motorist clickbait. "Dangerous Drivers Should Not Be Allowed Trial By Jury" ... sensationalist much???
> 
> ...


If Porter's right the conviction rate is so high because they only take the most obvious cases that far. A high conviction rate actually demonstrates fewer cases being put before court.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> If Porter's right the conviction rate is so high because they only take the most obvious cases that far. A high conviction rate actually demonstrates fewer cases being put before court.


across the board there're guilty pleas more than 70% of the time. so it would be reasonable to expect a conviction rate of at least 70% in motoring offences as it would in, for instance, fraud or murder.


----------



## bemused (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> So there _were _other witnesses, thus contradicting your previous statement.



I'm talking about your statement that Allison's testimony was a key fact:



belboid said:


> On reports that have not been denied tho - the key facts, *that she stepped into the road without paying due care appears not to have been contradicte*d.  That is a massively mitigating circumstance.



The only person suggesting that was Allison who also has been proved to be lying when he said she was on the phone at the time.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 24, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> The reason it's attracted so much media attention is that it's a landmark case, in that the defendant is the first cyclist ever to be prosecuted for the manslaughter of a pedestrian in the UK.



On top of that, what is also noteworthy is the way he took to the internet to proclaim his innocence and her guilt. Bung those two things together and of course it will make the news.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> On top of that, what is also noteworthy is the way he took to the internet to proclaim his innocence and her guilt. Bung those two things together and of course it will make the news.


specially with journalists being so lazy that anything posted on twatter may well enter the newspapers


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2017)

bemused said:


> I'm talking about your statement that Allison's testimony was a key fact:
> 
> 
> 
> The only person suggesting that was Allison who also has been proved to be lying when he said she was on the phone at the time.


They looked at the CCTV footage and concluded Alliston could have stopped in time had he had a front brake.  So they could see what happened. And there was no contradicting the statement that she stepped into the road. There was no claim that Alliston drove onto the pavement or swerved into her, so how else _could _he have hit her?


----------



## bemused (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> A high conviction rate actually demonstrates fewer cases being put before court.



Doesn't it show that 70%+ prosecutions were correctly identified as crimes by the CPS and they were right to bring them? 

I'm not sure how Porter infers that because the CPS choose not to prosecute all drivers involved in fatal accidents that many of them were guilty of a crime?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> ... my contention is, the figures imply that the supposed 50/50 criteria isn't being adhered to.


Or that it's not felt that enough cases satisfy the criteria to prosecute. Why do you feel that they aren't prosecuting cases which they have a better than even chance of winning?


----------



## bemused (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> They looked at the CCTV footage and concluded Alliston could have stopped in time had he had a front brake.  So they could see what happened. And there was no contradicting the statement that she stepped into the road. There was no claim that Alliston drove onto the pavement or swerved into her, so how else _could _he have hit her?



Your statement was that she:



belboid said:


> [...]that she stepped into the road without *paying due care*[...]



Was a 





belboid said:


> [...]the key facts[...]



When in fact no one knows if she was paying attention, the only person claiming she wasn't lied about what she was doing when she was in the road. 

Can you a least acknowledge that no one knows if she was paying attention or not and it isn't a fact that she was?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2017)

bemused said:


> I'm not sure how Porter infers that because the CPS choose not to prosecute all drivers involved in fatal accidents that many of them were guilty of a crime?


Snap.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> They looked at the CCTV footage and concluded Alliston could have stopped in time had he had a front brake.  So they could see what happened. And there was no contradicting the statement that she stepped into the road. There was no claim that Alliston drove onto the pavement or swerved into her, so how else _could _he have hit her?


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2017)

bemused said:


> Your statement was that she:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


She stepped into the path of a bike travelling at a perfectly legal speed. Even if there was - just - enough room to jam the brakes on to avoid her, that is still not paying due care.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> She stepped into the path of a bike travelling at a perfectly legal speed. Even if there was - just - enough room to jam the brakes on to avoid her, that is still not paying due care.


yeh the bike which wasn't roadworthy because its brakes were inadequate, that bike...


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Or that it's not felt that enough cases satisfy the criteria to prosecute. Why do you feel that they aren't prosecuting cases which they have a better than even chance of winning?


For the reasons stated repeatedly above. maomao put it most neatly in post 3810


----------



## bemused (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> She stepped into the path of a bike travelling at a perfectly legal speed. Even if there was - just - enough room to jam the brakes on to avoid her, that is still not paying due care.



So you know for a fact she could see him when she stepped into the road?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> For the reasons stated repeatedly above. maomao put it most neatly in post 3810


and you think this applies across the hundreds of thousands of cases brought by the cps where more than 70% of people proceeded against plead guilty. right.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

bemused said:


> So you know for a fact she could see him when she stepped into the road?


belboid is omniscient


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2017)

bemused said:


> So you know for a fact she could see him when she stepped into the road?


No, but that is not the point.


----------



## bemused (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> No, but that is not the point.



It's entirely the point when you are claiming that it is a fact.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

bemused said:


> It's entirely the point when you are claiming that it is a fact.


it's a belboid fact


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2017)

bemused said:


> It's entirely the point when you are claiming that it is a fact.


You do realise that it is the prosecutions job to prove their case, not the other way around?

They looked at the video. They found that Alliston would have been just able to stop had he had a properly legal bike. But they did _not _find that he did anything else wrong, prior to the accident. They did not (as far as I have read) find anything to contradict his claim that he shouted out and tried to swerve. Everything rested on the lack of front brake, and that alone.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> You do realise that it is the prosecutions job to prove their case, not the other way around?
> 
> They looked at the video. They found that Alliston would have been just able to stop had he had a properly legal bike. But they did _not _find that he did anything else wrong, prior to the accident. They did not (as far as I have read) find anything to contradict his claim that he shouted out and tried to swerve. Everything rested on the lack of front brake, and that alone.


so. nothing about her paying attention or otherwise then.


----------



## bemused (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> You do realise that it is the prosecutions job to prove their case, not the other way around?
> 
> They looked at the video. They found that Alliston would have been just able to stop had he had a properly legal bike. But they did _not _find that he did anything else wrong, prior to the accident. They did not (as far as I have read) find anything to contradict his claim that he shouted out and tried to swerve. Everything rested on the lack of front brake, and that alone.



I'm talking about what you claim is a 'key fact'



belboid said:


> [...]that she stepped into the road without *paying due care*[...]



As far as I can tell the only two people claiming this is Alliston who has just been convicted of causing her GBH, who lied about what she was doing stepping into the raod; and you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

bemused said:


> I'm talking about what you claim is a 'key fact'
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I can tell the only two people claiming this is Alliston who has just been convicted of causing her GBH, who lied about what she was doing stepping into the raod; and you.


bb likes to make out he knows fucking everything, but as he repeatedly demonstrates he knows fuck all


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2017)

bemused said:


> I'm talking about what you claim is a 'key fact'
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I can tell the only two people claiming this is Alliston who has just been convicted of causing her GBH, who lied about what she was doing stepping into the raod; and you.


Well you explain to me how someone can step into a road, in front of a bike travelling within the legal speed limit, so close that a cyclist with a fully legal bike would have had to make an emergency stop, and it NOT be inattentive? There is absolutely no evidence that Alliston was doing anything wrong, except for the lack of brake. Forcing someone to carry out an emergency stop by walking in front of them is not paying due care and attention. 

Do you just walk into roads without looking at what is around?


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

bemused said:


> I'm talking about what you claim is a 'key fact'
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I can tell the only two people claiming this is Alliston who has just been convicted of causing her GBH, who lied about what she was doing stepping into the raod; and you.


Without more details/cctv it's just pissing in the wind really but it's hard to see how someone who steps directly in front of a moving vehicle could be paying due care. 

Also the 'could have stopped in time' is the finding of one crash investigator, representing the prosecution whose workings out we haven't seen. And even if a cyclist can stop in time it doesn't give a pedestrian the right to step out in front of them. 

I've done tens of thousands of miles in London traffic. I've had some scary mechanical failures on the road despite regular maintenance. If someone was injured or worse because a brake cable snapped would I be liable?


----------



## blossie33 (Aug 24, 2017)

I'm the last person to stand up for cyclists in some ways but I really can't feel she was paying proper attention even if she wasn't on the phone.
Unfortunately, in London, you have to be super aware when you are crossing a road and many people really are not.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> If someone was injured or worse because a brake cable snapped would I be liable?


You'd have been riding with a defective brake system so I'd have thought so. It's certainly an offence in a motor vehicle.


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> You'd have been riding with a defective brake system so I'd have thought so. It's certainly an offence in a motor vehicle.


If it snapped while moving? I had a very well maintained bike but stuff like that happens occasionally. I once had the bottom bracket detach from the frame in traffic (ie. total frame collapse). Hard to see how you can protect against that kind of thing.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> Well you explain to me how someone can step into a road, in front of a bike travelling within the legal speed limit, so close that a cyclist with a fully legal bike would have had to make an emergency stop, and it NOT be inattentive? There is absolutely no evidence that Alliston was doing anything wrong, except for the lack of brake. Forcing someone to carry out an emergency stop by walking in front of them is not paying due care and attention


Well you can think up a few scenarios where she may have been paying attention and still got hit but it's speculation. You can't say categorically either way.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> If it snapped while moving? I had a very well maintained bike but stuff like that happens occasionally. I once had the bottom bracket detach from the frame in traffic (ie. total frame collapse). Hard to see how you can protect against that kind of thing.


I think so. You're responsible for the maintenance of your vehicle. If a driver's brakes fail and he ploughs down a ped I'm not sure if he'd get away with mechanical failure. 

Dunno. I'll have a look tonight.


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

Does anyone know what bit of Old St this happened on?


----------



## bemused (Aug 24, 2017)

blossie33 said:


> I'm the last person to stand up for cyclists in some ways but I really can't feel she was paying proper attention even if she wasn't on the phone.
> Unfortunately, in London, you have to be super aware when you are crossing a road and many people really are not.



I'm not arguing she wasn't on the road, I'm disputing that she wasn't paying attention when she stepped into the road was a 'key fact' in the case, the only person claiming this Allison.  It was never a 'key fact' is was an excuse by Allison that he embellished by saying she was on the phone. 

Anyone who has ever crossed the road had experienced things appearing that weren't there when you started to cross. Or are we now claiming that anyone knocked down on the road as they cross were to blame because it was impossible for them to start crossing thinking it was safe and then be struck on the road.

It befuddles me why people are taking the testimony of a convicted liar as 'fact..'


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

bemused said:


> I'm not arguing she wasn't on the road, I'm disputing that she wasn't paying attention when she stepped into the road was a 'key fact' in the case, the only person claiming this Allison.  It was never a 'key fact' is was an excuse by Allison that he embellished by saying she was on the phone.
> 
> Anyone who has ever crossed the road had experienced things appearing that weren't there when you started to cross. Or are we now claiming that anyone knocked down on the road as they cross were to blame because it was impossible for them to start crossing thinking it was safe and then be struck on the road.
> 
> It befuddles me why people are taking the testimony of a convicted liar as 'fact..'


Who's been convicted of lying? 

I've never had stuff appear out of nowhere. I have had pedestrians look straight through me and walk out in the road. Sometimes I've dodged them rather than braking.


----------



## Winot (Aug 24, 2017)

This says it all:

The Charlie Alliston case: the real story


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> Well you explain to me how someone can step into a road, in front of a bike travelling within the legal speed limit, so close that a cyclist with a fully legal bike would have had to make an emergency stop, and it NOT be inattentive? There is absolutely no evidence that Alliston was doing anything wrong, except for the lack of brake. Forcing someone to carry out an emergency stop by walking in front of them is not paying due care and attention.
> 
> Do you just walk into roads without looking at what is around?


yeh. except for the lack of brake. why are you trying to exculpate him?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

Winot said:


> This says it all:
> 
> The Charlie Alliston case: the real story


just for the confused: this is the 'what have people got against cyclists' thread, not the 'whataboutery' thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> Who's been convicted of lying?
> 
> I've never had stuff appear out of nowhere. I have had pedestrians look straight through me and walk out in the road. Sometimes I've dodged them rather than braking.


he is a liar who has been convicted.


----------



## blossie33 (Aug 24, 2017)

bemused said:


> I'm not arguing she wasn't on the road, I'm disputing that she wasn't paying attention when she stepped into the road was a 'key fact' in the case, the only person claiming this Allison.  It was never a 'key fact' is was an excuse by Allison that he embellished by saying she was on the phone.
> 
> Anyone who has ever crossed the road had experienced things appearing that weren't there when you started to cross. Or are we now claiming that anyone knocked down on the road as they cross were to blame because it was impossible for them to start crossing thinking it was safe and then be struck on the road.
> 
> It befuddles me why people are taking the testimony of a convicted liar as 'fact..'



I'm not taking his word as fact - I have no idea what went on and I'm not standing up for him at all, he seems a bit of a bumptious idiot.
I just feel she maybe was not as aware as she could have been - it's all very sad


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> he is a liar who has been convicted.


But not convicted of lying.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> But not convicted of lying.


i'm not persuaded that the point you're making is a point worth making.


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. except for the lack of brake. why are you trying to exculpate him?


In my case because I think he's being scapegoated to satisfy an irrational public hatred of cyclists.


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm not persuaded that the point you're making is a point worth making.



You're closing in on a hundred and fifty thousand points not worth making.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> In my case because I think he's being scapegoated to satisfy an irrational public hatred of cyclists.


so the police and the cps have conspired against this unfortunate youth to obtain his conviction for the purposes of satisfying what you perceive as an irrational public hatred of cyclists. 

right.

they colluded to obtain the conviction of a man riding a bicycle which didn't meet the standards of roadworthiness laid down in law, the conviction of a man who has shown no remorse for taking this vehicle out on the road and killing someone with it: while at the same time the police say they will no longer do anything to people riding on the pavement. if the police were really going to do something about the wholly rational public dislike of cyclists they could do it by meting out £80 or whatnot fines to the selfish scum who mar our pavements on their bikes. a lot easier and without any conspiracy involved.


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> You'd have been riding with a defective brake system so I'd have thought so. It's certainly an offence in a motor vehicle.


no one is disputing that he should have been prosecuted - the question is what for. The current laws do not seem adequate, if they had to rely on a 150 year old law written for horsedrawn carriages


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> You're closing in on a hundred and fifty thousand points not worth making.


the weak response of someone flaunting a pathetic conspiracy theory


----------



## 8ball (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> In my case because I think he's being scapegoated to satisfy an irrational public hatred of cyclists.



It's made the media because these cases are so rare, the victim is a very sympathetic character, and he is an unutterable bell end.
Good copy, basically.


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> so the police and the cps have conspired against this unfortunate youth to obtain his conviction for the purposes of satisfying what you perceive as an irrational public hatred of cyclists.
> 
> right.
> 
> they colluded to obtain the conviction of a man riding a bicycle which didn't meet the standards of roadworthiness laid down in law, the conviction of a man who has shown no remorse for taking this vehicle out on the road and killing someone with it: while at the same time the police say they will no longer do anything to people riding on the pavement. if the police were really going to do something about the wholly rational public dislike of cyclists they could do it by meting out £80 or whatnot fines to the selfish scum who mar our pavements on their bikes. a lot easier and without any conspiracy involved.


Where did I say or indeed imply any of that? Please. 

I believe he's been treated more harshly than motorists who've committed worse crimes (see Winot 's link) and subsequently monstered in the national press. That satisfies my definition of scapegoating. 

And yes, enforcing the law would go a long way to stopping the excesses of the persistent minority of anti social cyclists. That would not be scapegoating. That would be sensible.


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> the weak response of someone flaunting a pathetic conspiracy theory


If you're going to lie about what I've said and done again you can go back on ignore. I don't think this is very good for you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> In my case because I think he's being scapegoated to satisfy an irrational public hatred of cyclists.


so this doesn't mean that the police and cps got together to scapegoat yer man. yeh, right.


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> so this doesn't mean that the police and cps got together to scapegoat yer man. yeh, right.


No it doesn't. I'm not a nutter.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> If you're going to lie about what I've said and done again you can go back on ignore. I don't think this is very good for you.


you said yer man's being scapegoated to satisfy the public. now, either you mean the nasty media: but you've yet - as far as i can see - to object to any of the media coverage: or you mean the people who brought the charges, namely the police and cps. so either it's a media conspiracy to scapegoat him or it's a police/cps conspiracy to scapegoat him. neither of which seems to me particularly plausible. but please, do tell us more.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> No it doesn't.


ok. who is scapegoating him?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

i see the question of scapegoating was raised on cyclechat:


----------



## bemused (Aug 24, 2017)

blossie33 said:


> I'm not taking his word as fact - I have no idea what went on and I'm not standing up for him at all, he seems a bit of a bumptious idiot.
> I just feel she maybe was not as aware as she could have been - it's all very sad



I know you're not taking his word as fact, further up the thread you'll find others that are.


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> ok. who is scapegoating him?


The cps, the media and cyclist hating members of the public like yourself. Not as an organised conspiracy. 

I really am stopping responding to you. We were having a civilised conversation till you butted in with your weirdness again. I don't enjoy this.


----------



## bemused (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> And yes, enforcing the law would go a long way to stopping the excesses of the persistent minority of anti social cyclists. That would not be scapegoating. That would be sensible.



The problem with enforcing the law on cyclists is that you can only do it with boots on the ground. Which is why we have this anti-social minority, they know the chances of getting caught are practically zero.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 24, 2017)

bemused said:


> The problem with enforcing the law on cyclists is that you can only do it with boots on the ground. Which is why we have this anti-social minority, they know the chances of getting caught are practically zero.



You could also have registration of cyclists and ANPR in busy areas...


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> The cps, the media and cyclist hating members of the public like yourself. Not as an organised conspiracy.


utter tosh.



> I really am stopping responding to you. We were having a civilised conversation till you butted in with your weirdness again. I don't enjoy this.


yeh obvs i butted in on a thread to which i've been responding rather longer than you. 

you start throwing about accusations of scapegoating, which to any reasonable person means people have colluded to get yer man in this position, and then dislike it when you're challenged on it. don't throw about accusations you're not up for supporting.


----------



## bemused (Aug 24, 2017)

8ball said:


> You could also have registration of cyclists and ANPR in busy areas...



That's pretty impractical - although I'm sure at some point someone will suggest it for ebikes.


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> you start throwing about accusations of scapegoating, which to any reasonable person means people have colluded to get yer man in this position


No it doesn't. You need a new dictionary.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 24, 2017)

bemused said:


> That's pretty impractical - although I'm sure at some point someone will suggest it for ebikes.



Other countries do the registration bit (I'd have to look up the ANPR bit, but it would be no less practical than it is with cars).
Also would help cyclists be recognised as legitimate road users if insured and plated up etc.

Though possibly considered a little less legitimate as pavement users, so swings and roundabouts, I guess...


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> No it doesn't. You need a new dictionary.


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 114244


What? You're off your rocker mate. Just leave it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> What? You're off your rocker mate. Just leave it.


yeh obvs i'm mentally ill.  wondered when you'd pull that one out of your pocket. accusations like that have always played well here, haven't they.


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh obvs i'm mentally ill.  wondered when you'd pull that one out of your pocket. accusations like that have always played well here, haven't they.


I said it out of concern believe it or not. Now can we leave it? You can have last word and everything.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> no one is disputing that he should have been prosecuted - the question is what for. The current laws do not seem adequate, if they had to rely on a 150 year old law written for horsedrawn carriages


No argument with that. My understanding is that he couldn't be prosecuted under the Road Traffic Act because he wasn't using a motorised vehicle, so the "causing death/injury by ..." offences don't apply. This _wanton and furious ..._ business is the closest offence that he could be charged with that takes into account the injury caused.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> I said it out of concern believe it or not. Now can we leave it? You can have last word and everything.


the last word on this ought to be your apology, chuck.


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> No argument with that. My understanding is that he couldn't be prosecuted under the Road Traffic Act because he wasn't using a motorised vehicle, so the "causing death/injury by ..." offences don't apply. This _wanton and furious ..._ business is the closest offence that he could be charged with that takes into account the injury caused.


Indeed, but they are crap, and should be updated.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> In my case because I think he's being scapegoated to satisfy an irrational public hatred of cyclists.


He isn't being scapegoated. He's been prosecuted for his part in a collision in which a woman was killed.


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2017)

bemused said:


> I know you're not taking his word as fact, further up the thread you'll find others that are.


That, despite there being CCTV evidence, none was presented to contradict that particular contention.


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> the last word on this ought to be your apology, chuck.


For what?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> For what?


Suggesting he's "off his rocker", I'd have thought.


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Suggesting he's "off his rocker", I'd have thought.


Well he needs to calm down a bit then. It was the politest way I could put it at that moment.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> I believe he's been treated more harshly than motorists who've committed worse crimes (see Winot 's link) and subsequently monstered in the national press. That satisfies my definition of scapegoating.


Then your definition is a poor one.

Your first point is an argument for tougher sentencing of motorists who kill, and you'll get little disagreement from people here on that. It's not an argument for being more lenient with this tool. Any monstering that's gone on (and I'm not sure I've seen any) will be down to the fact that he took to social media to blame the woman and lie about her being on the phone whilst she lay dying in hospital.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> Well he needs to calm down a bit then. It was the politest way I could put it at that moment.


surely then you need to calm down a bit, it's me that's the aggrieved party here & not you. you may be 43 but you've a lot of growing up left to do.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> Indeed, but they are crap, and should be updated.


The woman's husband is campaigning for exactly that. 

Husband says ‘reckless’ cyclists must learn from wife’s death - BBC News


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 24, 2017)

and chance we can get class into this sordid bad tempered scuffle? Just for a bit of balance like.


----------



## alan_ (Aug 24, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> and chance we can get class into this sordid bad tempered scuffle? Just for a bit of balance like.



This one is a woman driver and a vegan, will that do (she might even be posh, don't know 100%)
Jessica Wells who killed pensioner in crash is spared jail | Daily Mail Online


----------



## bemused (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> That, despite there being CCTV evidence, none was presented to contradict that particular contention.



The person who claimed she wasn't paying attention as she stepped off the pavement on her phone - which he later admitted was a lie in court and she wasn't using her phone. An accusation so hurtful to her family that her husband specifically called it out in his statement to press after Allison's conviction.  

Why you choose to belive Allison's story is beyond me.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 24, 2017)

many boxes ticked in that article.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

bemused said:


> The person who claimed she wasn't paying attention as she stepped off the pavement on her phone - which he later admitted was a lie in court and she wasn't using her phone. An accusation so hurtful to her family that her husband specifically called it out in his statement to press after Allison's conviction.
> 
> Why you choose to belive Allison's story is beyond me.


doubtless because it suits his agenda: and like so many other things he's said in this thread, about e.g. convictions, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2017)

bemused said:


> The person who claimed she wasn't paying attention as she stepped off the pavement on her phone - which he later admitted was a lie in court and she wasn't using her phone. An accusation so hurtful to her family that her husband specifically called it out in his statement to press after Allison's conviction.
> 
> Why you choose to belive Allison's story is beyond me.


Because the court did, that's why. They looked at the actual evidence before them. You, apparently, don't bother looking at much.


----------



## bemused (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> Because the court did, that's why. They looked at the actual evidence before them. You, apparently, don't bother looking at much.



Please provide me evidence that the court concedes that she wasn't paying attention when she stepped into the road.


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2017)

bemused said:


> Please provide me evidence that the court concedes that she wasn't paying attention when she stepped into the road.


ffs, are you being deliberately disingenuous?

The reports state that the prosecution watched the CCTV.  From which they could tell what speed he was doing, and how far it was from where he could have applied hid brakes (if he'd had any) to where he hit her. If they could see all that, it would be impossible for them to miss her not walking into the road, into oncoming traffic. Which you dont do if you are paying attention.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2017)

alan_ said:


> This one is a woman driver and a vegan, will that do (she might even be posh, don't know 100%)
> Jessica Wells who killed pensioner in crash is spared jail | Daily Mail Online


Showing remorse and pleading guilty is what spared her from jail here. Both absent in Alliston's case. 

What the article fails to make clear is whether she was a vegan who made chocolate, or a normal person who made vegan chocolate. If the latter, I think the sentence is about right. If the former, then she should've got 10 years.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> ffs, are you being deliberately disingenuous?
> 
> The reports state that the prosecution watched the CCTV.  From which they could tell what speed he was doing, and how far it was from where he could have applied hid brakes (if he'd had any) to where he hit her. If they could see all that, it would be impossible for them to miss her not walking into the road, into oncoming traffic. Which you dont do if you are paying attention.


yeh. the indication is that this is not the massively mitigating circumstance you claim above as the judge has warned alliston that he's likely going to prison.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Showing remorse and pleading guilty is what spared her from jail here. Both absent in Alliston's case.
> 
> What the article fails to make clear is whether she was a vegan who made chocolate, or a normal person who made vegan chocolate. If the latter, I think the sentence is about right. If the former, then she should've got 10 years.


or a vegan who made vegan chocolate, pa


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> or a vegan who made vegan chocolate, pa


20 years for that.


----------



## bemused (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> ffs, are you being deliberately disingenuous?
> 
> The reports state that the prosecution watched the CCTV.  From which they could tell what speed he was doing, and how far it was from where he could have applied hid brakes (if he'd had any) to where he hit her. If they could see all that, it would be impossible for them to miss her not walking into the road, into oncoming traffic. Which you dont do if you are paying attention.



So your so-called 'key fact' that she wasn't paying attention is you inference from reading based on press reports, as you're unable to show any evidence that apart from Allison anyone in court said she crossed the road without taking care. Glad we cleared that up.


----------



## bemused (Aug 24, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Showing remorse and pleading guilty is what spared her from jail here. Both absent in Alliston's case.
> 
> What the article fails to make clear is whether she was a vegan who made chocolate, or a normal person who made vegan chocolate. If the latter, I think the sentence is about right. If the former, then she should've got 10 years.



I also note no one is claming the guy crossing the road has put himself in harms way.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> It may be 'common sense' that a bike without a front brake is roadworthy but people believe plenty of stuff that isn't common sensical and the proponents of these bikes often (loudly and at great length, believe me) claim that these bikes are in fact safer. Given that and the fact that the law isn't enforced it's not unreasonable to believe that these bikes are roadworthy. It may be wrong but that's not saying the same thing.



Utter nonsense. Nobody in the world thinks a vehicle is safer without brakes.
You appear to be inventing quite a lot of your facts.



maomao said:


> In my case because I think he's being scapegoated to satisfy an irrational public hatred of cyclists.


I think it's more along the lines of the CPS have finally decided enough is enough, and it's time to stop letting dangerous cyclists get away with murder.

This case has proven that it's possible for a cyclist to kill someone. It also proves that (and you seem to agree) some cyclists don't realise what makes a bike roadworthy, so with that in mind, maybe it's time to not only introduce compulsory training, licensing and insurance, but also a cycle equivalent of the MOT, but make it bi-anually, as bike tyres, brakes etc are prone to wearing more quickly than those on a car.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> The reports state that the prosecution watched the CCTV.  From which they could tell what speed he was doing, and how far it was from where he could have applied hid brakes (if he'd had any) to where he hit her. If they could see all that, it would be impossible for them to miss her not walking into the road, into oncoming traffic. Which you dont do if you are paying attention.


You're still overreaching though. Why would the prosecution bring up her being inattentive, and if the CCTV showed her being careless why didn't the defence use it to get him acquitted?

You can't draw conclusions one way or the other.


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2017)

bemused said:


> So your so-called 'key fact' that she wasn't paying attention is you inference from reading based on press reports, as you're unable to show any evidence that apart from Allison anyone in court said she crossed the road without taking care. Glad we cleared that up.


The CCTV was the evidence.


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> You're still overreaching though. Why would the prosecution bring up her being inattentive, and if the CCTV showed her being careless why didn't the defence use it and get him acquitted?
> 
> You can't draw conclusions one way or the other.


Yes you can. He wasn't acquited* because he was still largely, but not wholly, culpable. His evidence was not challenged. The CCTV showed nothing to contradict him.

And, in case you missed this, she walked out into oncoming traffic.


* of the lesser charge, clearly he was acquitted of manslaughter


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> The CCTV was the evidence.


and you've seen it, right? and you're aware of the bit where the prosecution point out that had his bicycle been roadworthy he'd have been able to halt instead of hitting her?

it's 73% conviction rates all over again


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Utter nonsense. Nobody in the world thinks a vehicle is safer without brakes.
> You appear to be inventing quite a lot of your facts.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> View attachment 114252


bereft of argument again i see


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> bereft of argument again i see


He didn't address anything I said. He just accused me of making it up. I've worked for courier companies for years and I know tonnes of fixie riders. They believe their bikes are safer. They're wrong IMO but they think they have more control. I've just been told I made it all up so yes, the wanker GIF was all that post deserved.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> Yes you can. He wasn't acquited* because he was still largely, but not wholly, culpable. His evidence was not challenged. The CCTV showed nothing to contradict him.
> 
> And, in case you missed this, she walked out into oncoming traffic.
> 
> ...


No no no. You're inferring things that you can't possible know. The CCTV was seen by the prosecution but not used by the defence. Why not? As I said before, there are (admittedly unlikely) scenarios in which she could've been paying attention and still been hit. You could well be right here. But there's no way that you can be certain of it given what's known.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 24, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> ...maybe it's time to not only introduce compulsory training, licensing and insurance, but also a cycle equivalent of the MOT, but make it bi-anually, as bike tyres, brakes etc are prone to wearing more quickly than those on a car.



The tricky bit being at what age you introduce the restrictions, how they are graded etc.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> This case has proven that it's possible for a cyclist to kill someone. It also proves that (and you seem to agree) some cyclists don't realise what makes a bike roadworthy, so with that in mind, maybe it's time to not only introduce compulsory training, licensing and insurance, but also a cycle equivalent of the MOT, but make it bi-anually, as bike tyres, brakes etc are prone to wearing more quickly than those on a car.



All of which will be enforced in what way, by whom, and at whose expense?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> All of which will be enforced in what way, by whom, and at whose expense?


Torture, the SAS, yours.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> No no no. You're inferring things that you can't possible know. The CCTV was seen by the prosecution but not used by the defence. Why not? As I said before, there are (admittedly unlikely) scenarios in which she could've been paying attention and still been hit. You could well be right here. But there's no way that you can be certain of it given what's known.


perhaps it's because after the incident he goes back and berates the dying woman, which the defence may not have considered useful to their case.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> No no no. You're inferring things that you can't possible know. The CCTV was seen by the prosecution but not used by the defence. Why not? As I said before, there are (admittedly unlikely) scenarios in which she could've been paying attention and still been hit. You could well be right here. But there's no way that you can be certain of it given what's known.



Probably because neither side disputed the fact that the woman walked into oncoming traffic. It's not unusual for prosecution and defence to agree on certain points of fact, not sure what your conspiracy theory is here.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Torture, the SAS, yours.



You fantasise about people getting hurt a lot don't you?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> You fantasise about people getting hurt a lot don't you?


Yep. I love it. I wank whilst I'm doing it too. Twat.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Probably because neither side disputed the fact that the woman walked into oncoming traffic. It's not unusual for prosecution and defence to agree on certain points of fact ...


More speculation.


> ... not sure what your conspiracy theory is here.


... and a bit of idiocy thrown in for good measure


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> View attachment 114252


Excellent reply. It's what I've come to expect from you when faced with points you're unable to refute/comprehend.
Keyboard warrior.


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Excellent reply. It's what I've come to expect from you when faced with points you're unable to refute/comprehend.
> Keyboard warrior.


You didn't respond to what I said you just accused me of making it all up. What else is there for me to say?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> And you're aware of the bit where the prosecution point out that had his bicycle been roadworthy he'd have been able to halt instead of hitting her?



If they did then that would be conjecture. Short of recreating the whole scene with a different bike and every other variable recreated, how could it be otherwise?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> If they did then that would be conjecture. Short of recreating the whole scene with a different bike and every other variable recreated, how could it be otherwise?



https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/bermondsey-cyclist-charlie-alliston-cleared-killing-mother-two/ & numerous other articles


----------



## DownwardDog (Aug 24, 2017)

Everybody read this then come back for more pointless argument.

http://web.mit.edu/cwarner/www/FixedGearSkidSample.pdf


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

DownwardDog said:


> Everybody read this then come back for more pointless argument.
> 
> http://web.mit.edu/cwarner/www/FixedGearSkidSample.pdf


Summary?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

DownwardDog said:


> Everybody read this then come back for more pointless argument.
> 
> http://web.mit.edu/cwarner/www/FixedGearSkidSample.pdf


if you think it's pointless perhaps you've no business on urban


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> No no no. You're inferring things that you can't possible know. The CCTV was seen by the prosecution but not used by the defence. Why not? As I said before, there are (admittedly unlikely) scenarios in which she could've been paying attention and still been hit. You could well be right here. But there's no way that you can be certain of it given what's known.


So you accept she probably wasn't paying attention. I'd say you'd be very hard pushed to come up with such scenarios, especially ones that don't lead to other people being involved in the accident. So we can be pretty bloody close to certain. Certainly close enough for their to be reasonable doubt.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 114255
> https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/bermondsey-cyclist-charlie-alliston-cleared-killing-mother-two/ & numerous other articles


They're just crash investigators though.

SpookyFrank's a children's cycling instructor, dontcha know?


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> If they did then that would be conjecture. Short of recreating the whole scene with a different bike and every other variable recreated, how could it be otherwise?


They can do that - and I repeatedly accepted that finding (although the QC bloke thought it was dodgy). But it would still have required an emergency stop, and causing an emergency stop by walking out into the road is still not how you're meant to cross the road.


----------



## DownwardDog (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> Summary?



Fixies have very poor braking performance.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> You didn't respond to what I said you just accused me of making it all up. What else is there for me to say?
> 
> View attachment 114254


I didn't respond to what you said but I responded to what you said? 
You're not very bright, are you. But that's quite evident from your posts in this thread alone.


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

DownwardDog said:


> Fixies have very poor braking performance.


I skim read it and its pretty much as expected though suggests there may be more efficient braking techniques available.


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> I didn't respond to what you said but I responded to what you said?
> You're not very bright, are you. But that's quite evident from your posts in this thread alone.


Accusing someone of making it all up, without any evidence that they've made it all up is not a response in the sense of a counter argument it's just a response in the sense that you're a wanker. 

But I don't expect much more after you posted up that shit study that didn't say what you claimed it said.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 24, 2017)

DownwardDog said:


> Everybody read this then come back for more pointless argument.
> 
> http://web.mit.edu/cwarner/www/FixedGearSkidSample.pdf



Some of the maths looks a bit iffy but it looks plausible enough overall.
People with more knowledge of bikes than me might also point out a few flaws in experimental design.

Pretty big effect, which I might expect some "fixie-fans" to dispute.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> So you accept she probably wasn't paying attention.


I accept that she possibly wasn't. You're stating it as fact.


> I'd say you'd be very hard pushed to come up with such scenarios, especially ones that don't lead to other people being involved in the accident.


She steps out, sees dickhead coming, stops to let him pass in front, he rides at her to scare her whilst shouting "get out of my fucking way", and collides. There are others, like him being on a different line, she steps out, he swerves to avoid something (or to frighten her), hits her ... etc


> So we can be pretty bloody close to certain.


No we can't.


> Certainly close enough for their to be reasonable doubt.


Which isn't anything like _certain_ which you seem to be about this.

Once again, you're overreaching and inferring stuff.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> They can do that - and I repeatedly accepted that finding (although the QC bloke thought it was dodgy). But it would still have required an emergency stop, and causing an emergency stop by walking out into the road is still not how you're meant to cross the road.



The evidence seems to suggest that a fixie with no brakes has a stopping distance comparable to that of a car at the speeds in question. But the fixie has vastly less mass and more capacity to avoid collisions than the car. And it's still illegal on the roads. So riding a bike which even begins to approach the level of danger to pedestrians posed by a car can land you in jail. And yet still somehow cyclists, the vast majority of whom have brakes, are the real menace to society here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> The evidence seems to suggest that a fixie with no brakes has a stopping distance comparable to that of a car at the speeds in question. But the fixie has vastly less mass and more capacity to avoid collisions than the car. And it's still illegal on the roads. So riding a bike which even begins to approach the level of danger to pedestrians posed by a car can land you in jail. And yet still somehow cyclists, the vast majority of whom have brakes, are the real menace to society here.


this, need i remind you, is the 'what have people against cyclists' thread, not the 'whataboutery' thread.


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> She steps out, sees dickhead coming, stops to let him pass in front, he rides at her to scare her whilst shouting "get out of my fucking way", and collides. There are others, like him being on a different line, she steps out, he swerves to avoid something (or to frighten her), hits her ... etc


Right, so it basically comes down to 'if he was a bastard' or some other circumstance for which there is no evidence thereof.  This is coming even closer to certain.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> The evidence seems to suggest that a fixie with no brakes has a stopping distance comparable to that of a car at the speeds in question.



Which evidence would that be?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> this, need i remind you, is the 'what have people against cyclists' thread, not the 'whataboutery' thread.



Allow me to refer you to the views of one of this parish's greatest luminaries on the merits of whataboutery:



Pickman's model said:


> if you think it's pointless perhaps you've no business on urban


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> Right, so it basically comes down to 'if he was a bastard' or some other circumstance for which there is no evidence thereof.


Nope. They are just two possible scenarios off the top of my head that could have occurred which would make you wrong. I'm not saying that either happened but you can't prove they didn't. What was that you were saying about reasonable doubt?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Allow me to refer you to the views of one of this parish's greatest luminaries on the merits of whataboutery:


i never said it was pointless, i said this isn't the whataboutery thread.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2017)

8ball said:


> Which evidence would that be?



The evidence given by the police in court:



> Expert evidence from the police for the prosecution was that Alliston had been going at 18mph (8 m/s) and that his braking distance was 12 metres.



...and the highway code...



> The Highway Code gives a typical stopping distance of 12 metres for a car driving at 20mph, suggesting that if Briggs had stepped into the path of a “slow” moving car, the driver would not have been able to avoid her.



...as amply referenced elsewhere in the thread.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> Right, so it basically comes down to 'if he was a bastard' or some other circumstance for which there is no evidence thereof.


You've also not presented evidence to support your own claim.

Talk about having your cake and eating it too!


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Nope. They are just two possible scenarios off the top of my head that could have occurred which would make you wrong. I'm not saying that either happened but you can't prove they didn't. What was that you were saying about reasonable doubt?


That it has to be reasonable. If the things you are suggesting had happened there would be evidence. It was accepted that Alliston swerved, and that he shouted at her. So if either of the things you suggest had happened they would have been seen too.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> Accusing someone of making it all up, without any evidence that they've made it all up is not a response in the sense of a counter argument it's just a response in the sense that you're a wanker.
> 
> But I don't expect much more after you posted up that shit study that didn't say what you claimed it said.


Asserting that people think a bike without brakes is safer than one with brakes needs no counter argument. It simply needs pointing out that you're a bullshitter. 



maomao said:


> proponents of these bikes often (loudly and at great length, believe me) claim that these bikes are in fact safer.



And your proof is... "believe me" 

Feel free to continue with the profanities.

Keyboard warrior


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> You've also not presented evidence to support your own claim.
> 
> Talk about having your cake and eating it too!


She was in the road. She wasn't beamed there from outer space. (Just ten yards from a pedestrian crossing too)


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> The evidence given by the police in court:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There's a huge difference between being unable to avoid hitting her, and hitting her fast and hard enough to kill her. A car with brakes would most likely have slowed sufficiently to prevent her death. A bike with no brakes, on the other hand...


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Asserting that people think a bike without brakes is safer than one with brakes needs no counter argument. It simply needs pointing out that you're a bullshitter.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Google 'are fixies safer' then and you will find tonnes of argument on the subject and tonnes of people claiming they're safer (probably more saying they're not but I didn't claim most people believed they're safer)  I don't really care if you believe me or not. 

And they don't have 'no brakes'.


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> She was in the road. She wasn't beamed there from outer space. (Just ten yards from a pedestrian crossing too)


Do you know where on Old Street it was?


----------



## 8ball (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> The evidence given by the police in court...and the highway code...



Ah, I see, you've been confused the fact that the car distances from the Highway Code include thinking time (as well as the braking times being based on old braking systems), and that the _braking distance_ given by this expert counsel was 12 metres, which might be plausible for a bike with very good brakes.  I'd be very interested to see anyone stop in that time on a fixie.

I think on reflection the idea that someone could stop in 3 metres from 18 mph is quite unfair.  Though I know bike brakes are a lot better than they used to be...


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Asserting that people think a bike without brakes is safer than one with brakes needs no counter argument. It simply needs pointing out that you're a bullshitter.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


he'll question your mental health in a minute


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> You've also not presented evidence to support your own claim.
> 
> Talk about having your cake and eating it too!


claim? singular? he's ignored evidence undermining a wide range of his claims


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> There's a huge difference between being unable to avoid hitting her, and hitting her fast and hard enough to kill her. A car with brakes would most likely have slowed sufficiently to prevent her death. A bike with no brakes, on the other hand...


All you need to kill someone is a hard knock to the head and that's what unfortunately happened here. You're making up things that you can't possibly know so you can continue grinding your wankstained anti-cycling axe. If it's so fucking obvious why did it take a jury 3 days to decide?


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> he'll question your mental health in a minute


No. He's just a thick wanker.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> All you need to kill someone is a hard knock to the head and that's what unfortunately happened here. You're making up things that you can't possibly know so you can continue grinding your wankstained anti-cycling axe. If it's so fucking obvious why did it take a jury 3 days to decide?



I think if he'd had the anchors on from first seeing her in the road and unfortunately hit her at a fairly slow speed leading to the knock on the head, then it would have taken a jury no time at all to acquit.


----------



## belboid (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> Do you know where on Old Street it was?


no exactly, its from a Guardian report:

"Wyeth (defense qc) suggested to Small (crash investigator) that Alliston had the right of way as the lights on the stretch of Old Street were green. He said Briggs could have avoided danger by using a pedestrian crossing less than 10 metres away. Small agreed."


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> All you need to kill someone is a hard knock to the head and that's what unfortunately happened here. You're making up things that you can't possibly know so you can continue grinding your wankstained anti-cycling axe. If it's so fucking obvious why did it take a jury 3 days to decide?


Because juries are made up of people who aren't intelligent enough to get out of jury service.



maomao said:


> No. He's just a thick wanker.


I've met your type many times. You're like a small child, who throws a tantrum when all other avenues have failed.
Maybe you should take a break from the internet. It seems to be affecting you in quite a negative way.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> That it has to be reasonable. If the things you are suggesting had happened there would be evidence. It was accepted that Alliston swerved, and that he shouted at her. So if either of the things you suggest had happened they would have been seen too.





belboid said:


> She was in the road. She wasn't beamed there from outer space. (Just ten yards from a pedestrian crossing too)



_Again_, you are making an assumption based on what you think is likely. That is not proof and you can't say for certain that she was negligent. Nobody else (apart from dickhead) has claimed this, and he also claimed she was on the phone. That was a lie.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 24, 2017)

8ball said:


> I think if he'd had the anchors on from first seeing her in the road and unfortunately hit her at a fairly slow speed leading to the knock on the head, then it would have taken a jury no time at all to acquit.


It would never have gone to court if he had brakes.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> There's a huge difference between being unable to avoid hitting her, and hitting her fast and hard enough to kill her. A car with brakes would most likely have slowed sufficiently to prevent her death. A bike with no brakes, on the other hand...



...has orders of magnitude more mass, and thus inertia, and thus capacity to cause harm upon collision, than a car?

Or was it the other way round?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

After Kim Briggs’s death, cyclists must realise that they are traffic too | David Shariatmadari


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

belboid said:


> no exactly, its from a Guardian report:
> 
> "Wyeth (defense qc) suggested to Small (crash investigator) that Alliston had the right of way as the lights on the stretch of Old Street were green. He said Briggs could have avoided danger by using a pedestrian crossing less than 10 metres away. Small agreed."



Hackney Gazette puts it at the corner of Rufus Street/Charlotte Rd. Doesn't show which direction though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)




----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2017)

Anyone who both cycles and drives knows which vehicle they'd rather be in control of if someone stepped into the road ahead of them without looking.


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Because juries are made up of people who aren't intelligent enough to get out of jury service.
> 
> 
> I've met your type many times. You're like a small child, who throws a tantrum when all other avenues have failed.
> Maybe you should take a break from the internet. It seems to be affecting you in quite a negative way.


I'm fine cheers. It's only a couple of lying ignorant wankers that ever set me off. 99% of people here are lovely.


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Anyone who both cycles and drives knows which vehicle they'd rather be in control of if someone stepped into the road ahead of them without looking.


A bike because I'd be 200 times less likely to kill someone.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> A bike because I'd be 200 times less likely to kill someone.



Well, yeah.  I figured that's what Frank meant.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> ...has orders of magnitude more mass, and thus inertia, and thus capacity to cause harm upon collision, than a car?
> 
> Or was it the other way round?


"Yeah but cars"
It isn't a competition. If it were I'd be mentioning tyre contact area, ABS, etc. It's about right and wrong, and no brakes = wrong.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> After Kim Briggs’s death, cyclists must realise that they are traffic too | David Shariatmadari



I think that's the thing, cyclists, speed/physics/fragility-wise, are in this funny area between pedestrians and the stuff that is generally on the roads.  It's always going to cause problems with our current division of vehicle-roads and footpaths.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> I'm fine cheers. It's only a couple of lying ignorant wankers that ever set me off. 99% of people here are lovely.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> I'm fine cheers. It's only a couple of lying ignorant wankers that ever set me off. 99% of people here are lovely.


And then there's you with your projection issues. I should calm down when you lose your rag and make out I'm mentally ill? I Was calm, my lovely. You should chill out, chuck, you're overwrought.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> A bike because I'd be 200 times less likely to kill someone.


No, I don't think you would be. You've got definite anger issues, where you lose your rag over inconsequential disagreements.


----------



## bemused (Aug 24, 2017)

8ball said:


> I think that's the thing, cyclists, speed/physics/fragility-wise, are in this funny area between pedestrians and the stuff that is generally on the roads.  It's always going to cause problems with our current division of vehicle-roads and footpaths.



I tend to think if you are the sort of person who cuts through people on zebra crossings, jumps red lights, etc. - someone else getting convicted isn't going to change your mind. Being an inconsiderate twat isn't a matter of what vehicle you're piloting is boils down to your basic human nature.  You are either a wanker, or you aren't.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 24, 2017)

bemused said:


> I tend to think if you are the sort of person who cuts through people on zebra crossings, jumps red lights, etc. - someone else getting convicted isn't going to change your mind. Being an inconsiderate twat isn't a matter of what vehicle you're piloting is boils down to your basic human nature.  You are either a wanker, or you aren't.



Not sure about that.  I think Urban proves very well that wankerness is very context-specific.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> No, I don't think you would be. You've got definite anger issues, where you lose your rag over inconsequential disagreements.


I think there's a strong likelihood he'd be riding on pavements, with scythed wheels like they used on war chariots.Tearing asunder the legs of any pedestrian who dared stand in his way, and hurling obscenities at anyone unfortunate enough to require a zimmer frame.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> "Yeah but cars"
> It isn't a competition. If it were I'd be mentioning tyre contact area, ABS, etc. It's about right and wrong, and no brakes = wrong.



And the man with no brakes has been convicted accordingly.

'Yeah but cars' is absolutely relevant to the question, 'what have people got against cyclists?' It's relevant to the psychology behind the persecution many motorists perceive from those demonstrably more vulnerable and less powerful than them. It's relevant when someone is looking at jail time for operating an unsafe bicycle which was still less dangerous than a 'safe' car.

You can't talk about road use without mentioning cars. You can't talk about road safety without mentioning cars. To do so would be absurd.


----------



## bemused (Aug 24, 2017)

8ball said:


> Not sure about that.  I think Urban proves very well that wankerness is very context-specific.



This is true, I myself have faced charges of being a wanker.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> I think there's a strong likelihood he'd be riding on pavements, with scythed wheels like they used on war chariots.Tearing asunder the legs of any pedestrian who dared stand in his way, and hurling obscenities at anyone unfortunate enough to require a zimmer frame.


Anyone who couldn't hobble out of his way in time


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> No, I don't think you would be. You've got definite anger issues, where you lose your rag over inconsequential disagreements.


I suggested you were losing it a bit because youd hounded me with a succession of long posts claiming I'd said something utterly weird about a conspiracy between the cps and the police or something. I asked you to leave it because you were going completely over the top. I wasn't angry. I'm at work. I have better things to be angry about than you.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> 'Yeah but cars' is absolutely relevant to the question, 'what have people got against cyclists?' It's relevant to the psychology behind the persecution many motorists perceive from those demonstrably more vulnerable and less powerful than them. It's relevant when someone is looking at jail time for operating an unsafe bicycle which was still less dangerous than a 'safe' car.


I doubt the family of his victim would agree with you.

And again, it isn't a competition. It isn't about who is more vulnerable. Bike riders are quite obviously more vulnerable.
What we've been discussing for the last while is this bike rider with no brakes and a 'fuck you' attitude. Do you honestly think anyone posting on this thread would be saying anything different if it was a car driver with no brakes on his car instead of a bike rider? Actually, I take that back, because I'm pretty sure the cyclist apologists would indeed be singing a different tune had it been a car driver.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> I doubt the family of his victim would agree with you.



Having been found not guilty of manslaughter, he has no 'victim'.


----------



## bemused (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Having been found not guilty of manslaughter, he has no 'victim'.



He was found guilty of causing bodily harm, which requires a body to harm and a victim to suffer it.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> I doubt the family of his victim would agree with you.
> 
> And again, it isn't a competition. It isn't about who is more vulnerable. Bike riders are quite obviously more vulnerable.
> What we've been discussing for the last while is this bike rider with no brakes and a 'fuck you' attitude. Do you honestly think anyone posting on this thread would saying anything different if it was a car driver with no brakes on his car instead of a bike rider? Actually, I take that back, because I'm pretty sure the cyclist apologists would indeed be singing a different tune had it been a car driver.



Not sure anyone has apologised for the cyclist not having any brakes. 

 As for the hypothetical car driver in the same place at the same time, even with brakes he'd still have hit her.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Having been found not guilty of manslaughter, he has no 'victim'.


I think maybe you should sell your bike and buy a thesaurus.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> I suggested you were losing it a bit because youd hounded me with a succession of long posts claiming I'd said something utterly weird about a conspiracy between the cps and the police or something. I asked you to leave it because you were going completely over the top. I wasn't angry. I'm at work. I have better things to be angry about than you.


Yeh. And when you did say it was the media, sections of the public and the cps scapegoating that nice mr alliston it still sounded er peculiar. All those nasty people blaming him for things he hadn't done, how dare they  and they had the gall - the GALL! - to charge the youth with manslaughter


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> I think maybe you should sell your bike and buy a thesaurus.



I think maybe you should sell your thesaurus and by a dictionary, and with it look up the definition of the word 'thesaurus'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> I think maybe you should sell your thesaurus and by a dictionary, and with it look up the definition of the word 'thesaurus'.


Buy a dictionary


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Having been found not guilty of manslaughter, he has no 'victim'.


Don't be a fucking bellend, Frank.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Not sure anyone has apologised for the cyclist not having any brakes.
> 
> As for the hypothetical car driver in the same place at the same time, even with brakes he'd still have hit her.


maomao seems to be making plenty of excuses for him.

And how do you know a car would have hit him? Most cars have ABS these days, which allows the driver to slam on the brakes and still steer around something. Also modern cars stop a lot faster than the highway code states. Their figures are years out of date. So there's a good possibility she would not only have walked away if it had been a car, but she may not have even been hit.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Buy a dictionary



For the third time in recent months I draw your attention to the otherwise widely accepted u75 convention under which we do not pull people up on spelling mistakes, and again remind you that I am dyslexic in case you should find this a useful substrate for further mockery.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Not sure anyone has apologised for the cyclist not having any brakes.
> 
> As for the hypothetical car driver in the same place at the same time, even with brakes he'd still have hit her.


A car going at 18 miles an hour rather unlikely to kill in the event of a collision esp when it would have hit mr alliston first anyway


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> For the third time in recent months I draw your attention to the otherwise widely accepted u75 convention under which we do not pull people up on spelling mistakes.


By was spelt perfectly well, it was just the wrong word

And being as you were on about dictionaries at the time...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> By was spelt perfectly well, it was just the wrong word



I'll take that in lieu of an apology as per.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'll take that in lieu of an apology as per.


I'd prefer it if you didn't take it as an apology as it was not so intended


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> I think maybe you should sell your thesaurus and by a dictionary, and with it look up the definition of the word 'thesaurus'.


I chose my words wisely. I was suggesting you could maybe find another word whose meaning you could understand, as you obviously don't understand the meaning of victim.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Having been found not guilty of manslaughter, he has no 'victim'.



Eh?
There is a victim.
She is dead and if he had not hit her she would be alive. Regardless of any verdict, she is dead...her family are without her...her life ia cut short.
Fuck him...he rode a bike with no brakes deliberately. He rode at a speed he couldn't manage...he had enough time to shout warnings twice. He returned to her as she lay on the ground and he proceeded to shout at her.....

Yeah... and you think there was no victim?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> I'd prefer it if you didn't take it as an apology as it was not so intended



You're standing buy your decision to score cheap but unsporting points from typos then?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2017)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Eh?
> There is a victim.
> She ia dead and if he had not hit her she would be alive. Regardless of any verdict she is dead...her family are without her...her life ia cut short.
> Fuck him...he rode a bike with no brakes deliberately. He rode at a speed he couldn't manage...he had enough time to sbout warnings twice. He returned to her as she lay on the ground and he proceeded to shout at her.....
> ...


Bear in mind this is SillyFrank you're dealing with.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> I chose my words wisely. I was suggesting you could maybe find another word whose meaning you could understand, as you obviously don't understand the meaning of victim.



I cannot be held responsible for the choice of words in your posts now can I?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> You're standing buy your decision to score cheap but unsporting points from typos then?


Oh how droll


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> I cannot be held responsible for the choice of words in your posts now can I?


I see you want to divert attention from your dismissal of the death of kim briggs


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2017)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Regardless of any verdict, she is dead...her family are without her...her life ia cut short.



...she has ceased to be. Yes, I gathered that. The court however found that Alliston was not responsible for her death.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> ...she has ceased to be. Yes, I gathered that. The court however found that Alliston was not responsible for her death.


No, the court found him not guilty of manslaughter. There's a difference, chuck


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2017)




----------



## 8ball (Aug 24, 2017)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> *He returned to her as she lay on the ground and he proceeded to shout at her.....*
> 
> Yeah... and you think there was no victim?



In amongst stuff about stopping distances and whatnot I missed this bit.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2017)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> he had enough time to shout warnings twice.



And he did this instead of trying to stop or otherwise avoid a collision? Bicycles are not operated with the larynx you know.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2017)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> He returned to her as she lay on the ground and he proceeded to shout at her.....



He was traumatised. I don't believe anyone can be held entirely responsible for their actions in these circumstances, and in any case those actions while disagreeable can not be described as fatal.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> ...she has ceased to be. Yes, I gathered that. The court however found that Alliston was not responsible for her death.


He was found guilty of causing bodily harm by wanton or reckless driving.

Now shut up Frank.


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> He was traumatised. I don't believe anyone can be held entirely responsible for their actions in these circumstances, and in any case those actions while disagreeable can not be described as fatal.



He went flying as well. People act funny after accidents. I got hit once, insisted I was fine and tried to ride away. Didnt find out how badly me or the bike had come off till the adrenaline decreased.


----------



## snadge (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> He was traumatised. I don't believe anyone can be held entirely responsible for their actions in these circumstances, and in any case those actions while disagreeable can not be described as fatal.



LOL, fatal for the dead pedestrian though.

How do these fixies slow down without a front brake BTW?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> He was traumatised. I don't believe anyone can be held entirely responsible for their actions in these circumstances, and in any case those actions while disagreeable can not be described as fatal.


Just as I suppose he's not responsible for his posts on the internet blaming kim briggs


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

snadge said:


> LOL, fatal for the dead pedestrian though.
> 
> How do these fixies slow down without a front brake BTW?


They stop when they hit something - or someone


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> I see you want to divert attention from your dismissal of the death of kim briggs



I'm not dismissing anything, only trying to point out the use of emotive language, wooly thinking and non sequiturs to paint one irresponsible cyclist as a willful killer and by extension bolster the claim that in the face of all evidence cyclists in general are a menace to society.

All this 'you don't care that she's dead' rubbish is tabloid browbeating at its worst.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2017)

The apologism is reaching new levels now that SillyFrank's turned up.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Just as I suppose he's not responsible for his posts on the internet blaming kim briggs



Suppose all you like, I said no such thing.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> He went flying as well. People act funny after accidents. I got hit once, insisted I was fine and tried to ride away. Didnt find out how badly me or the bike had come off till the adrenaline decreased.



Your reaction is more like what I would call 'typical'.  Not wanting a fuss, wanting to get away to lick your wounds. Wanting to simplify the situation.

Your character gets filtered through the adrenaline.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'm not dismissing anything, only trying to point out the use of emotive language, wooly thinking and non sequiturs to paint one irresponsible cyclist as a willful killer and by extension bolster the claim that in the face of all evidence cyclists in general are a menace to society.
> 
> All this 'you don't care that she's dead' rubbish is tabloid browbeating at its worst.


One cyclist riding a bicycle which wasn't roadworthy killed a woman. It was entirely avoidable. The cyclist has shown no remorse. I certainly haven't used this as a 'they're all like this' thing. But your saying no victim is dismissing the death of kim briggs


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2017)

snadge said:


> LOL, fatal for the dead pedestrian though.



I was referring to Alliston shouting at the woman he had collided with. That was not the cause of death, and yet it has been entered into evidence here in support of the claim that Alliston was solely responsible for that death.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Suppose all you like, I said no such thing.


At what point is he responsible for his actions?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> One cyclist riding a bicycle which wasn't roadworthy killed a woman. It was entirely avoidable. The cyclist has shown no remorse. I certainly haven't used this as a 'they're all like this' thing. But your saying no victim is dismissing the death of kim briggs



It's not dismissive to say that she bore some responsibility for her own death, a point not even the prosecution seems to have argued against.


----------



## snadge (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> I was referring to Alliston shouting at the woman he had collided with. That was not the cause of death, and yet it has been entered into evidence here in support of the claim that Alliston was solely responsible for that death.



I totally understand that shouting at someone wouldn't kill them, if Alliston wasn't the cause of her death, who was?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> At what point is he responsible for his actions?



You'd have to ask a psychologist about the ongoing effects of trauma. In any case, the cause of death was not comments posted online.


----------



## snadge (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's not dismissive to say that she bore some responsibility for her own death, a point not even the prosecution seems to have argued against.




Ok, I see your next reply, just fucking lol.

I'll remove the brakes from my car and go for it down the high street then.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2017)

snadge said:


> I totally understand that shouting at someone wouldn't kill them, if Alliston wasn't the cause of her death, who was?



A causative factor would seem to be her decision to cross the road without looking.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> You'd have to ask a psychologist about the ongoing effects of trauma. In any case, the cause of death was not comments posted online.




Do you think he didnt kill her?


----------



## 8ball (Aug 24, 2017)

If a reckless driver kills a cyclist in an accident which could have been survivable, would the word 'victim' be used for the cyclist in this case?

I think it would.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2017)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Do you think he didnt kill her?



I think a collision killed her. Both parties to that collision bore some responsibility for it, from which it follows that neither was solely responsible.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2017)

8ball said:


> If a reckless driver kills a cyclist in an accident which could have been survivable, would the word 'victim' be used for the cyclist in this case?
> 
> I think it would.



If you walked into the road without due care and got run over, would you describe yourself as a victim?


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> A causative factor would seem to be her decision to cross the road without looking.


A lot of Londoners ignore cyclists when they cross the road. It can feel like an obstacle course. It also feels like a 'fuck you' because they give it a quick left right look and as long as there's no motor vehicles head straight out leaving you to brake or swerve as necessary.


----------



## snadge (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> A causative factor would seem to be her decision to cross the road without looking.



maybe she did but didn't realise that the cyclist didn't have any brakes, one up for car drivers, at 20mph, I cou;ld easily stop in time in an almost 2 ton car, she would have lived if it was a car.


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

snadge said:


> maybe she did but didn't realise that the cyclist didn't have any brakes, one up for car drivers, at 20mph, I cou;ld easily stop in time in an almost 2 ton car, she would have lived if it was a car.


He didn't have 'no brakes'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> If you walked into the road without due care and got run over, would you describe yourself as a victim?


I would if the fucker who hit me had a vehicle which wasn't roadworthy and this played a part in a) collision and b) injuries sustained


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> And he did this instead of trying to stop or otherwise avoid a collision? Bicycles are not operated with the larynx you know.


He had no front brake, which accounts for between 75% and 90+% of the braking power of a bike, so by recklessly riding a bike without a front brake, he had zero chance of stopping within the distance a roadworthy bike would stop in. 
He may not have been found guilty of manslaughter, but his actions were reckless, and had it been a car driver in the same situation, the driver would have been charged with causing death by dangerous driving, and would have been found guilty, which carries a maximum sentence of 14 years inside.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> A lot of Londoners ignore cyclists when they cross the road. It can feel like an obstacle course. It also feels like a 'fuck you' because they give it a quick left right look and as long as there's no motor vehicles head straight out leaving you to brake or swerve as necessary.


A lot of cyclists run through red lights when pedestrians are crossing. The scum.


----------



## snadge (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> He didn't have 'no brakes'.



explain fixies to me then because just having a rear brake controlled by the pedals sounds like a inefficient version of rear brakes on most vehicles, motorcycles for example, use the front brake in emergencies, not back brake, back brakes only offer 20% of stopping power anyway, on a car it's nearer 10%, on a pushbike, lol, they are only used for sliding round corners like a prick.

Ergo, no brakes.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> A causative factor would seem to be her decision to cross the road without looking.



She didnt walk out right in front of him. He had time to shout 2 warnings...whilst cycling at speed.
Bikes are easily manoeuvred...so why didnt he ? He fully expected her to move out of his way..
Didnt stop to think "what if she is deaf?" He just didnt think one way or the other. He assumed she would hear him, move out of his way and that he would ride on.


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

snadge said:


> explain fixies to me then because just having a rear brake controlled by the pedals sounds like a ineeficient version of rear brakes on most vehicles, motorcycles for example, use the front brake in emergencies, not back brake, back brakes only offer 20% of stopping power anyway, on a car it's nearer 10%, on a pushbike, lol, they are only used for sliding round corners like a prick.
> 
> Ergo, no brakes.


I refer you to DownwardDog 's post earlier which featured a study showing a closer to 50% efficiency compared to fitted brakes. So not no brakes. Most of them have quite a small gear as well so don't tend to go as fast as proper bikes.


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> She didnt walk out right in front of him. He had time to shout 2 warnings...whilst cycling at speed.
> Bikes are easily manoeuvred...so why didnt he ? He fully expected her to move out of his way..
> Didnt stop to think "what if she is deaf?" He just didnt think one way or the other. He assumed she would hear him, move out of his way and that he would ride on.


According to the prosecutions case she stepped into the road about a second and a quarter before he hit her. If it was as simple as you have described it's unlikely the jury would have cleared him of the manslaughter charge.


----------



## snadge (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> I refer you to DownwardDog 's post earlier which featured a study showing a closer to 50% efficiency compared to fitted brakes. So not no brakes. Most of them have quite a small gear as well so don't tend to go as fast as proper bikes.



So like fixies are slower ( probably compared to a carbon fibre, knife edged tyred, racing bike) and have 50% rear wheel braking compared to normal push bike rear brakes.

So you're telling me they are even useless for sliding round corners.

ergo, definitely no brakes.


----------



## snadge (Aug 24, 2017)

Okay, answer me this, why wouldn't you fit a front brake to a fixie?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2017)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> She didnt walk out right in front of him. He had time to shout 2 warnings...whilst cycling at speed.
> Bikes are easily manoeuvred...so why didnt he ? He fully expected her to move out of his way..
> Didnt stop to think "what if she is deaf?" He just didnt think one way or the other. He assumed she would hear him, move out of his way and that he would ride on.


 
As I undesrtand it he swerved behind her as she stepped backwards in response to his warning. In that situation it makes more sense to aim for the direction the pedestrian is not moving in, assuming they won't see or hear you in time. Just bad luck.

Even with the lack of a front brake, it seems to have required a particular chain of chance events to cause a death in this situation. From exactly how the two of them moved before the collision to how they fell. Run the whole thing ten more times and in nine of them it could have been a near miss or a nasty tumble with no serious injuries. That's why manslaughter didn't stick. It might be reasonable for Alliston to think that his actions might cause injury, but highly unlikely they would cause someone (besides himself) to get killed.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> If you walked into the road without due care and got run over, would you describe yourself as a victim?



Ah, quite literal victim-blaming behaviour...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2017)

snadge said:


> Okay, answer me this, why wouldn't you fit a front brake to a fixie?



Don't ask me, I don't even understand why anyone would pay twice as much for a bike with half as many moving parts in the first place.

Luckily for the human race, simply being an idiot does not make someone a murderer.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Luckily for the human race, simply being an idiot does not make someone a murderer.


If it did, you'd be a serial killer.


----------



## snadge (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Don't ask me, I don't even understand why anyone would pay twice as much for a bike with half as many moving parts in the first place.
> 
> Luckily for the human race, simply being an idiot does not make someone a murderer.




With this, I agree, for twice the price of a comparable bike, I would want to slide around corners like a boss.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 24, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> If it did, you'd be a serial killer.



Ooh!  Burn!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2017)

8ball said:


> Ah, quite literal victim-blaming behaviour...



Nobody is quite grasping this idea of shared responsibility. This isn't a school playground, not everything has to be one absolute or the other.

Would you at least concede that it would have been much more difficult for Alliston to kill Briggs if she had checked that the road was clear before stepping into it?


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

snadge said:


> So like fixies are slower ( probably compared to a carbon fibre, knife edged tyred, racing bike) and have 50% rear wheel braking compared to normal push bike rear brakes.
> 
> So you're telling me they are even useless for sliding round corners.
> 
> ergo, definitely no brakes.


You're comparing to a motorbike. Apples and oranges. I don't think you can effectively lose momentum from a motorbike wheel by bunny hopping to break traction. I have never ridden fixed but I have seen them do impressive skids round corners. The back wheel can be completely locked out. DD's pdf above is very specific if you're genuinely interested.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Nobody is quite grasping this idea of shared responsibility. This isn't a school playground, not everything has to be one absolute or the other.
> 
> Would you at least concede that it would have been much more difficult for Alliston to kill Briggs if she had checked that the road was clear before stepping into it?



Absolutely, that would have made things harder for him.  
I mean, not like it makes it her fault, but had she not been in the area nothing would have happened at all, and all this trauma would have been avoided.

Not 'asking for it' as such, but she clearly wasn't minimising her risks effectively. 
Factor in that she failed to respond to two clear warnings and that practically makes it consent.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> I refer you to DownwardDog 's post earlier which featured a study showing a closer to 50% efficiency compared to fitted brakes. So not no brakes. Most of them have quite a small gear as well so don't tend to go as fast as proper bikes.





maomao said:


> You're comparing to a motorbike. Apples and oranges. I don't think you can effectively lose momentum from a motorbike wheel by bunny hopping to break traction. I have never ridden fixed but I have seen them do impressive skids round corners. The back wheel can be completely locked out. DD's pdf above is very specific if you're genuinely interested.



Indeed it is very specific, and it states that a fixie's rear wheel, when locked, is more likely start hopping as the velocity increases, thus dramatically increasing the stopping distance, and concludes with:


> From these comparisons, it appears one needs to have at least some sort of front-wheel stopping mechanism in order to come to a sufficiently quick stop.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2017)

8ball said:


> Absolutely, that would have made things harder for him.
> I mean, not like it makes it her fault, but had she not been in the area nothing would have happened at all, and all this trauma would have been avoided.
> 
> Not 'asking for it' as such, but she clearly wasn't minimising her risks effectively.
> Factor in that she failed to respond to two clear warnings and that practically makes it consent.



So much to be proud of here. The applicability of the metaphor, the soundness of reasoning, the unimpeachable good taste. Just a triumph in all departments.


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Indeed it is very specific, and it states that a fixie's rear wheel, when locked, is more likely start hopping as the velocity increases, thus dramatically increasing the stopping distance, and concludes with:



No-one has suggested otherwise.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> So much to be proud of here. The applicability of the metaphor, the soundness of reasoning, the unimpeachable good taste. Just a triumph in all departments.


I could be wrong, but I think it's known as satire.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> No-one has suggested otherwise.


So what point are you trying to make in referencing the article?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> I could be wrong, but I think it's known as satire.



I knew her in her youth, when she still answered to 'false equivalence'.


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> So what point are you trying to make in referencing the article?



That you can do wicked skids round corners on them. 

For the benefit of snadge


----------



## snadge (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> You're comparing to a motorbike. Apples and oranges. I don't think you can effectively lose momentum from a motorbike wheel by bunny hopping to break traction. I have never ridden fixed but I have seen them do impressive skids round corners. The back wheel can be completely locked out. DD's pdf above is very specific if you're genuinely interested.




You're missing the point I am trying to convey, Saul Goodman said it far better above, ANY vehicles braking system being efficient relies on the front wheel/s brakes as rear wheels just skid and are as good as useless.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> I knew her in her youth, when she still answered to 'false equivalence'.



Ok, putting all that aside then, you weren't saying a few posts back that someone who I'm pretty sure we can agree was accidentally killed due to a criminal act (or so the court says), was partly responsible for their fate.  Is that right?  Because some might question the tastefulness or even basic decency of such a statement.

I'm trying to gently coax you into considering whether you're defending this guy a little too hard.


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

snadge said:


> You're missing the point I am trying to convey, Saul Goodman said it far better above, ANY vehicles braking system being efficient relies on the front wheel/s brakes as rear wheels just skid and are as good as useless.


I've already said that I think that the police should impound brakeless fixies till their riders get the message. Look at some fixie vids on YouTube. Skilled riders can do some amazing things on them. They should be doing amazing things on them in a circus rather than the public highway but nonetheless they don't have 'no brakes'.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> That you can do wicked skids round corners on them.


Why do people ride these things at all? What's their perceived benefit?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 24, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Why do people ride these things at all? What's their perceived benefit?


Bragging rights.


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Why do people ride these things at all? What's their perceived benefit?


Control is the word most fixie riders will use. Increased traction and efficiency (not because lighter but because of a more direct drivetrain).


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Bragging rights.


So the same reason people drive fast cars.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> Control is the word most fixie riders will use. Increased traction and efficiency (not because lighter but because of a more direct drivetrain).



Yeah, that's what my folks said when I wanted a bike with gears and I got a kiddies one.
Also the stabilisers made it 'safer', apparently.

<nurses 37 year old grudge>


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> Control is the word most fixie riders will use. Increased traction and efficiency (not because lighter but because of a more direct drivetrain).


Someone on the news said they're popular with couriers. Why's that?


----------



## bemused (Aug 24, 2017)

'Why I ride a bike without a brake' - BBC News

The person in this article has an interesting take on safety.



> He does admit you "can probably slow down quicker with a front brake".





> But Michael does not believe he is taking a risk: "I wouldn't ride it if I felt there was a risk to others."





> Following the case, Michael is planning to get a brake fitted. But this isn't for the reason you might think.
> 
> "I'm worried going out on my bike, that the police are going to take my bike off me and then I won't be able to work," he says.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> So the same reason people drive fast cars.


Not necessarily. Fast cars tend to have very good brakes that the owners don't remove. I'd rather compare those cyclists to boy racers who feel the need to do handbrake turns around corners.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 24, 2017)

I've been looking at some vids and the amazing control some of these fixie riders have.

Thing is, I'm from the old BMX era - a lot of the streetstyle ones were fixies and those things always had a front brake and that seemed to enhance the trick potential rather than limit it.  

I can't see any good reason to not have a front brake (I know that's arguing from ignorance so if there is any reason, even a reason relating to non-road use, then please enlighten me).


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Someone on the news said they're popular with couriers. Why's that?


Good for zigzagging short trips and very low maintenance. Couriers do 60-80 miles a day of sprints. As long as you can get up Pentonville Rd you don't need more than one gear, they just weigh you down and need cleaning and tuning. Fixie chains are wider and always in a straight line. They don't break in traffic and they last a lot longer. I had a fairly simple stripped down 7 gear bike but I spend 2-3 hours every weekend servicing it when I was a courier.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2017)

8ball said:


> Ok, putting all that aside then, you weren't saying a few posts back that someone who I'm pretty sure we can agree was accidentally killed due to a criminal act (or so the court says), was partly responsible for their fate.  Is that right?  Because some might question the tastefulness or even basic decency of such a statement.
> 
> I'm trying to gently coax you into considering whether you're defending this guy a little too hard.



I have no interest in defending him. I said however many pages ago I think the conviction was fair and justified. On the available evidence he seems like a pretty loathsome character. It's the use of needlessly emotive language I object to, particularly from certain posters (and I don't include you in this) who have been happy elsewhere on this thread to blame cyclists for their misfortunes, or indeed actively wish harm on them. 

We're all aware that someone has died in a preventable accident. I hope we can take it as read that we all consider this to be a bad thing. We should be able to disagree about certain things without accusing each other of not caring about bereaved children. The post I originally objected to was one responding to a general point about safety on the roads with a reference to the grieving family in this one particular case. Not only is that an unjustified misuse of the suffering of strangers, it's also bad reasoning. It's a trick you see used over and over again for all sorts of reactionary agendas and I have an instinctive reaction to it.


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

I've quite probably met or spoken to this young man by the way, not that he sticks out in my mind. I don't often control pushbikes anymore. I've certainly met a lot of kids like him. I made some stupid mistakes when I first went to work on a bike, when I was older than he is, because I wanted to make money and get given more work.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2017)

bemused said:


> 'Why I ride a bike without a brake' - BBC News
> 
> The person in this article has an interesting take on safety.



Have it and not need it though, surely.


----------



## snadge (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> So the same reason people drive fast cars.




No, fast cars have fucking ridiculously superb braking systems.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2017)

snadge said:


> No, fast cars have fucking ridiculously superb braking systems.



Still only as good as the person behind the wheel. In the case of boy-racer type hot hatchbacks and so on, that person is usually an abject cretin.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Still only as good as the person behind the wheel. In the case of boy-racer type hot hatchbacks and so on, that person is usually an abject cretin.



In those cases it's also true that the brakes are likely not up to scratch tbf.


----------



## snadge (Aug 24, 2017)

bemused said:


> 'Why I ride a bike without a brake' - BBC News
> 
> The person in this article has an interesting take on safety.





> He does concede that it makes riding "exciting" and "fun" but says his fellow couriers are among the most trained urban cyclists in London



Most trained, fuck me, my sides are splitting.


----------



## snadge (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Still only as good as the person behind the wheel. In the case of boy-racer type hot hatchbacks and so on, that person is usually an abject cretin.




With one advantage, they still can stop if they push on the the BRAKE.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> The post I originally objected to was one responding to a general point about safety on the roads with a reference to the grieving family in this one particular case. Not only is that an unjustified misuse of the suffering of strangers, it's also bad reasoning. It's a trick you see used over and over again for all sorts of reactionary agendas and I have an instinctive reaction to it.



I'm not sure which exact post you are referring to (it's an emotive issue and there has been iffy reasoning on all sides), but thanks for the clarification.

When someone has died and was not doing anything actively illegal, though (and even if they were), it's not great form to weigh up levels of equivalence, or of apportioning responsibility.  If someone is a bit drunk and crosses the road badly and is run over by a speeding motorist, say, then the motorist takes the rap.

The word 'victim' in this case does have shades of implying malice aforethought, I admit (if malice aforethought had been estabished, then a manslaughter charge would be perfectly applicable).  

I think what likely happened here was that the cyclist had the 'retain momentum at all costs' mindset (we all know that momentum is basically expensive when you're on a bike, literally so if you are a courier), and saw it as his entitlement to take risks to get past the obstruction.  And then was furious when the obstruction defied him, so he came back to remonstrate.  

To a degree, I don't think he was really seeing her as a human being at this point.


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

8ball said:


> I'm not sure which exact post you are referring to (it's an emotive issue and there has been iffy reasoning on all sides), but thanks for the clarification.
> 
> When someone has died and was not doing anything actively illegal, though (and even if they were), it's not great form to weigh up levels of equivalence, or of apportioning responsibility.  If someone is a bit drunk and crosses the road badly and is run over by a speeding motorist, say, then the motorist takes the rap.
> 
> ...


I think he was more likely furious at being flung across the road himself. It hurts. Believe me.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> I think he was more likely furious at being flung across the road himself. It hurts. Believe me.



It does, but I find my responses have been tempered by my knowledge of whose fault it was when this has happened to me.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2017)

8ball said:


> I'm not sure which exact post you are referring to (it's an emotive issue and there has been iffy reasoning on all sides), but thanks for the clarification.
> 
> When someone has died and was not doing anything actively illegal, though (and even if they were), it's not great form to weigh up levels of equivalence, or of apportioning responsibility.  If someone is a bit drunk and crosses the road badly and is run over by a speeding motorist, say, then the motorist takes the rap.
> 
> ...



I'm thinking of this as if it was me on the bike (my bike has brakes, new blocks this very afternoon, just to head that one off at the pass) and assumed that the guy, besides shouting and swerving, was making an effort to stop by whatever means fixie riders usually do that. It didn't occur to me that he would have just kept on rolling at full speed, but then I've been caught out before by assuming that everyone has some basic level of human decency.

Whatever happened, and regardless of exactly how much of a dick this guy was, these kinds of accidents are mercifully rare and hopefully this particular situation will never happen again. If a few twats have to get their bikes confiscated to get the message across about the non-optional nature of brakes, that's far better than someone else getting hurt.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2017)

And why are there even still bike messengers? I would have thought fax machines would have killed them off, never mind email.


----------



## snadge (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'm thinking of this as if it was me on the bike (my bike has brakes, new blocks this very afternoon, just to head that one off at the pass) and assumed that the guy, besides shouting and swerving, was making an effort to stop by whatever means fixie riders usually do that. It didn't occur to me that he would have just kept on rolling at full speed, but then I've been caught out before by assuming that everyone has some basic level of human decency.
> 
> Whatever happened, and regardless of exactly how much of a dick this guy was, these kinds of accidents are mercifully rare and hopefully this particular situation will never happen again. If a few twats have to get their bikes confiscated to get the message across about the non-optional nature of brakes, that's far better than someone else getting hurt.



When I asked why anyone wouldn't fit a front brake to a fixie, I was looking for a legitimate reason for not doing so, mainly a weight factor, you can get a fucking awesome ceramic hydraulic disk system that adds about 1kg to the mass of a bike and with the advantages that a fixie gives having a 1kg weight penalty that would give you so much more added functionality to a fixie, an awesome front brake would make one so much fun, it's a fucking no brainer really, maybe these cunts with no brakes think they are the hard men of cycling..


----------



## maomao (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> And why are there even still bike messengers? I would have thought fax machines would have killed them off, never mind email.


It's not what it used to be. I've delivered legal documents, shoes, urine samples, chocolates and on one occasion a suspicious jar in an envelope from the Mayfair hotel to a doctor at the old hospital of tropical diseases in St Pancras. He came out to collect it in a facemask from behind an airlock style double door. Fax or email any of that lot.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> And why are there even still bike messengers? I would have thought fax machines would have killed them off, never mind email.



Sensitive documents, protection money, legal stuff and high volumes of data that are sometimes more easily sent by physical media.
The business is dying out slowly but some habits die hard, and for big volumes of data (like unmixed digital music recordings, which can run into many Gb), the technical infrastructure can be prohibitive for small operators.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 24, 2017)

snadge said:


> When I asked why anyone wouldn't fit a front brake to a fixie, I was looking for a legitimate reason for not doing so, mainly a weight factor, you can get a fucking awesome ceramic hydraulic disk system that adds about 1kg to the mass of a bike and with the advantages that a fixie gives having a 1kg weight penalty that would give you so much more added functionality to a fixie, an awesome front brake would make one so much fun, it's a fucking no brainer really, maybe these cunts with no brakes think they are the hard men of cycling..



V brakes weigh diddly squat and are vast improvement on no brakes.


----------



## snadge (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> V brakes weigh diddly squat and are vast improvement on no brakes.



Agreed but a fixie with a dead stop but controllable hydraulic disk setup on the front would be fun extreme.

As I said, the hard men of cycling, or the look at me brigade.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 24, 2017)

8ball said:


> In those cases it's also true that the brakes are likely not up to scratch tbf.


To be fair, cars have to pass an MOT, which includes testing of the brakes on a rolling road. And if the brakes are in any way substandard, the car fails its MOT.


----------



## 8ball (Aug 24, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> To be fair, cars have to pass an MOT, which includes testing of the brakes on a rolling road. And if the brakes are in any way substandard, the car fails its MOT.



The brakes may be entirely unsuitable for the power the car now has, though.


----------



## snadge (Aug 24, 2017)

8ball said:


> The brakes may be entirely unsuitable for the power the car now has, though.



Cars that are inherently tune-able 90% of the time have a braking system that is capable of that extreme.

Anything more than the extreme of the standard engine internals and everyone that chucks money at fast things are looking at the best braking upgrade options before anything else, then suspension.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 24, 2017)

8ball said:


> The brakes may be entirely unsuitable for the power the car now has, though.


Regardless of how much added power the car has, the braking effort required to stop it from 60mph is the same.



snadge said:


> Cars that are inherently tune-able 90% of the time have a braking system that is capable of that extreme.
> 
> Anything more than the extreme of the standard engine internals and everyone that chucks money at fast things are looking at the best braking upgrade options before anything else, then suspension.


This^^^
The first things people tend to throw money at when they're tuning their cars are suspension, brakes and wheels/tyres, which all tend to improve the car's stopping ability.
I'm not suggesting that there are no cars on the road with inadequate braking systems, but the likelihood is very slim.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> And why are there even still bike messengers? I would have thought fax machines would have killed them off, never mind email.


Only if people start hurling obsolete fax machines at cycle couriers


----------



## 8ball (Aug 24, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> The first things people tend to throw money at when they're tuning their cars are suspension, brakes and wheels/tyres, which all tend to improve the car's stopping ability.
> I'm not suggesting that there are no cars on the road with inadequate braking systems, but the likelihood is very slim.



This is kind of comforting - it certainly wasn't the way with shonky modders when I were a lad.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 24, 2017)

8ball said:


> This is kind of comforting - it certainly wasn't the way with shonky modders when I were a lad.


It's an awful long time since I were a lad, driving MK1 and MK2 Escorts, and even back then the norm was fit Billstien struts and shocks, uprated springs, vented disks, wider wheels/tyres, anti tramp bars, stronger anti roll bar, a 2.8 Capri rear axle with a LSD... then remove the 1300cc engine and gearbox, batter the bulkhead with a sledgehammer and shoehorn in a 2 litre Pinto engine and box from a Cortina


----------



## 8ball (Aug 24, 2017)

When I was a lad my Uncle had a souped-up cut and shut Ford Escort.  0-60 in less than 5 seconds, but it was a death trap thinking back.

A mate of my Dad's had a Renault 5 turbo which could spin the wheels at 70mph.  Both were terrifying.

I find it hard to believe there aren't equivalent monstrosities on the road these days.


----------



## alan_ (Aug 24, 2017)

maomao said:


> Summary?


oh you'll be wanting the two minute argument then


----------



## Saul Goodman (Aug 24, 2017)

8ball said:


> When I was a lad my Uncle had a souped-up cut and shut Ford Escort.  0-60 in less than 5 seconds, but it was a death trap thinking back.
> 
> A mate of my Dad's had a Renault 5 turbo which could spin the wheels at 70mph.  Both were terrifying.
> 
> I find it hard to believe there aren't equivalent monstrosities on the road these days.


I had a Sunbeam Lotus and a HS Chevette. Both were absolute animals. It was all but impossible to keep the Sunbeam in a straight line, but the grin factor was enormous 
Modern cars have no soul


----------



## 8ball (Aug 24, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> I had a Sunbeam Lotus and a HS Chevette. Both were absolute animals. It was all but impossible to keep the Sunbeam in a straight line, but the grin factor was enormous
> Modern cars have no soul



_Christine_ was a car with a soul, and that didn't end well...


----------



## not-bono-ever (Aug 25, 2017)

'Why I ride a bike without a brake' - BBC News

Couriers now on edge as pedestrian look at them differently.
/


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 25, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> 'Why I ride a bike without a brake' - BBC News
> 
> Couriers now on edge as pedestrian look at them differently.
> /



The weird thing about that article is that there is really no attempt to explain why he rides a dangerous bike, no real justification.  He might as well just say 'I ride one because I'm a cock'.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Aug 25, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> 'Why I ride a bike without a brake' - BBC News
> 
> Couriers now on edge as pedestrian look at them differently.
> /



Blimey, the repeats on this thread out do the bloody BBC, and are catching-up on the Dave channel.


----------



## maomao (Aug 25, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> The weird thing about that article is that there is really no attempt to explain why he rides a dangerous bike, no real justification.  He might as well just say 'I ride one because I'm a cock'.



I've had a colleague of mine (who according to another poster here is a figment of my imagination) in my office this morning try to argue that a front brake actually makes it more dangerous because it 'breaks the connection between the rider and the road'. Yes, he is a cock. Yes, I told him he's talking shit. But there are people who believe this nonsense.


----------



## nick (Aug 25, 2017)

maomao said:


> But there are people who believe this nonsense.



This kind of thing doesn't help:
Wilee: I can't work in an office. I don't like wearing suits. I like to ride. Fixed gear, steel frame, no brakes. The bike cannot coast. The pedals never stop turning. Can't stop. Don't want to either. There are 1,500 bike messengers on the streets of New York City. You can e-mail it, FedEx it, fax it, scan it, but when none of that shit works and this thing has to be at that place by this time, you need us.

Wilee: Brakes are death. 

Wilee: Just runnin' reds and killin' peds.

From the movie Premium Rush (which I quite enjoyed with a 6 pack and a curry) 

Still - for contrast I give you: Fast & Furious 1 through 8, vanishing point, Bullitt, Ronin, Bourne, James Bond etc ad nauseam for glorification of stupid behaviour on the roads


----------



## maomao (Aug 25, 2017)

nick said:


> This kind of thing doesn't help:
> Wilee: I can't work in an office. I don't like wearing suits. I like to ride. Fixed gear, steel frame, no brakes. The bike cannot coast. The pedals never stop turning. Can't stop. Don't want to either. There are 1,500 bike messengers on the streets of New York City. You can e-mail it, FedEx it, fax it, scan it, but when none of that shit works and this thing has to be at that place by this time, you need us.
> 
> Wilee: Brakes are death.
> ...


There used to be a CITV series about pushbike couriers where they were all terribly nice and helped people. No-one except me remembers it though. 

You don't even need a vehicle for risk taking and macho posturing. There's plenty of parkour enthusiasts are just as bad I'm sure.


----------



## nick (Aug 25, 2017)

Those kids riding in ET had obviously also missed out on doing their cycling proficiency badges - they were all over the road


----------



## T & P (Aug 25, 2017)

nick said:


> Those kids riding in ET had obviously also missed out on doing their cycling proficiency badges - they were all over the road


And with their eyes closed as well. The little shits.


----------



## hash tag (Aug 29, 2017)

I notice air Chris hoy was speaking about malins and puffins into today's mirror...similar article in today's torygraph but longer and no mention of puffins. I believe Alexi sayle was credited with the term puffins and I quite like it, rather apt...pathetic un fit fuckers in nappies.


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Aug 31, 2017)

Apologies for the click bait title. 

'Unbelievable' Blackpool Road Rage Video Shows Cyclist Rip Windscreen Wiper Off Taxi | HuffPost UK


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 1, 2017)

The mask slips further......

Cycling Weekly sorry for 'token attractive woman' caption - BBC News


----------



## maomao (Sep 1, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> The mask slips further......
> 
> Cycling Weekly sorry for 'token attractive woman' caption - BBC News


What have people got against underpaid sub-editors thread - - - - - - - - >


----------



## nick (Sep 1, 2017)

Who is the cyclist against who people are meant to have a dislike?

The (presumably) cycling sub editor of cycling weekly?
The woman in the photo, who also appears to be a cyclist ?
I'm now confused about how to direct my ire


----------



## maomao (Sep 2, 2017)

Just been speaking to a fixie riding courier. He's very aware of the case and apparently they're all getting front brakes fitted now. Mainly because they're getting pressure from the fleet guys in the companies they work for. He says he's never used it and doesn't need it though. I guess he'd know. He's fairly insistent that his bike stops quickly when he pedals backwards.


----------



## patman post (Sep 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> pics or stfu


You might like drooling over arseholes in Lycra, but I can't be bothered to post pics of those who peddle themselves around town...


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2017)

patman post said:


> You might like drooling over arseholes in Lycra, but I can't be bothered to post pics of those who peddle themselves around town...


People who peddle themselves around town often different people from people who pedal themselves around town

Not atm interested in the people who advertise themselves in phone boxes, chuck


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2017)

patman post said:


> Many like me regularly drive in London and are appalled at the risks to motorists, pedestrians and, yes, cyclists themselves as they ignore traffic conditions, road regulations, and by-laws as they weave in and out of traffic, on pavements,  through pedestrian-only alleyways, etc. I've had my car scratched more than a few times by incompetent and unskilled cyclists as they wobble through traffic and giving the finger to other road users. I'd be happy to support all bikes being chipped so the owner gets fined every time a bike contravenes the Highway Code. I'd also like cycle rider training and testing — though I don't see how that could be accomplished...


Oh, and I was after pictures of the scratches, not of the cyclists


----------



## maomao (Sep 2, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> People who peddle themselves around town often different people from people who pedal themselves around town
> 
> Not atm interested in the people who advertise themselves in phone boxes, chuck


That was surely 'the joke' as they say.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 2, 2017)

maomao said:


> That was surely 'the joke' as they say.


you hold patman post in far higher regard, then, than i do.


----------



## patman post (Sep 4, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> you hold patman post in far higher regard, then, than i do.


Why would I care? I post what I mean. You obviously believe Campagnolo is an Italian cheese...


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 4, 2017)

patman post said:


> Why would I care? I post what I mean. You obviously believe Campagnolo is an Italian cheese...




Give it up now chuck


----------



## snadge (Sep 6, 2017)

Government to look at extending dangerous driving offence to cyclists

And microchip the fuckers so no escape either.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 6, 2017)

I like the idea of micro-chipping them, over comes the problem of readable number plates on bikes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2017)

cupid_stunt said:


> I like the idea of micro-chipping them, over comes the problem of readable number plates on bikes.


Several microchips spread across the body in case something nasty happens


----------



## keybored (Sep 6, 2017)

Maybe incorporating those detonating collars from The Running Man.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 6, 2017)




----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2017)

keybored said:


> Maybe incorporating those detonating collars from The Running Man.


Which was itself a rip-off of the pedalling man


----------



## snadge (Sep 6, 2017)

cupid_stunt said:


> I like the idea of micro-chipping them, over comes the problem of readable number plates on bikes.




At the cyclists expense, any one found riding an unchipped cycle gets fined also.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 6, 2017)

snadge said:


> At the cyclists expense, any one found riding an unchipped cycle gets fined also.



Shot, surely?


----------



## T & P (Sep 6, 2017)

They should have put number plates/ readable reg. numbers on the Boris bikes. Massive missed opportunity.


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 6, 2017)

Back brake surely safer than a single front. Otherwise it's over the bars into whoever or whatever you collide with.
They'll be banning pedestrians from using mobile phones next!


----------



## keybored (Sep 6, 2017)

Sprocket. said:


> Back brake surely safer than a single front. Otherwise it's over the bars into whoever or whatever you collide with.



Like cars, most of the stopping power on bike brakes is in the front brake. If someone can't use the front brake without going over the bars then they shouldn't really be riding a bike on the road.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2017)

keybored said:


> Like cars, most of the stopping power on bike brakes is in the front brake. If someone can't use the front brake without going over the bars then they shouldn't really be riding a bike on the road.


Or the pavement


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 6, 2017)

keybored said:


> Like cars, most of the stopping power on bike brakes is in the front brake. If someone can't use the front brake without going over the bars then they shouldn't really be riding a 'fixed wheel'
> bike on the road.


FTFY.
Whenever I have to do an emergency stop on the bike the rear brake is applied seconds before the front to stop such action occurring.
On a fixed wheel bike the inertia used by back pedalling whilst also sliding to the back of the saddle to get more weight over the rear wheel is used.
An inexperienced fixie rider may not have the required stopping ability.
The stopping power of the cyclists legs should compensate for the absent rear brake.
Perhaps the answer is no fixed wheel bikes on the road but single speed bikes with a rear hub brake that operates when the single freewheel is back pedalled.


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 6, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Or the pavement



There is no excuse for this, except on dual use purpose built paths.


----------



## keybored (Sep 6, 2017)

Sprocket. said:


> FTFY.



No, *any* bike. Not just a fixie.

This poster explained it well.



squirrelp said:


> Absolutely
> 
> The fastest way to stop a bicycle is by just using the front brake to the point where the rear wheel is just about to come up. It's good to practice this, the braking should be accompanies by thrusting the arms forward / body backwards to work against the unweighting of the back wheel allowing really strong brake pressure.
> 
> Not having a front brake is dangerous posing and should have no place on a public road



ETA Sheldon (RIP) gets it.



> * Maximum Deceleration--Emergency Stops *
> The fastest that you can stop any bike of normal wheelbase is to apply the front brake so hard that the rear wheel is just about to lift off the ground. In this situation, the rear wheel cannot contribute to stopping power, since it has no traction.
> 
> 
> ...



Braking and Turning Your Bicycle


----------



## Sprocket. (Sep 6, 2017)

keybored said:


> No, *any* bike. Not just a fixie.
> 
> This poster explained it well.


I agree wholeheartedly I never said or believe in no front brakes. A standard road bike can stop faster than a track bike.
I have been an avid road cyclist for 50 years and accept that most of those called cyclists are really just twats on bikes with no road sense and ride as if in a bubble of self centred egotism.
Defensive riding should be learned by anyone thinking about taking to the road. Respect and good road manners stop incidents.


----------



## lefteri (Sep 6, 2017)

Sprocket. said:


> FTFY.
> Whenever I have to do an emergency stop on the bike the rear brake is applied seconds before the front to stop such action occurring.


Yes this is the way to brake on a bike effectively.  I think the natural urge is to grab the brake with the dominant hand which is why I wire my brakes the opposite way round to the British standard so that the rear brake is on the right hand (which I believe is the standard way on the continent)


----------



## T & P (Sep 6, 2017)

Everyone should act defensively from peds to truck drivers and everything in between, and more importantly, regardless of priority.

Anyone who've seen one of those dashcam crash compilation Russian videos on YouTube will have noticed how many drivers seem to choose crashing over braking and/ or giving way to the other vehicle simply because they are in the right as far as the rules are concerned. It's almost as if the concept of slowing down or letting someone in when having priority is so inconceivable as to not being an option at all.


----------



## keybored (Sep 6, 2017)

T & P said:


> Everyone should act defensively from peds to truck drivers and everything in between, and more importantly, regardless of priority.
> 
> Anyone who've seen one of those dashcam crash compilation Russian videos on YouTube will have noticed how many drivers seem to choose crashing over braking and/ or giving way to the other vehicle simply because they are in the right as far as the rules are concerned. It's almost as if the concept of slowing down or letting someone in when having priority is so inconceivable as to not being an option at all.


That's unfair, some of them are great drivers.


----------



## nuffsaid (Sep 8, 2017)

Get orf my land

Stick-wielding farmers attack cyclists during Scottish borders road race


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 8, 2017)

nuffsaid said:


> Get orf my land
> 
> Stick-wielding farmers attack cyclists during Scottish borders road race


Yeh. Curious to see you giving Scottish farmers comedy English accents


----------



## nuffsaid (Sep 8, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. Grand to see Scottish farmers being given amusing English accents. Top stuff there, chuck



Couldn't be bothered to make up a Scottish accent, the usual yokel refrain 'Get orf moi laand' didn't fit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 8, 2017)

nuffsaid said:


> Couldn't be bothered to make up a Scottish accent, the usual yokel refrain 'Get orf moi laand' didn't fit.


Surprised to see you belittling people in this way, leaves a bad taste in the mouth.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 8, 2017)

Git tae fuck ya radge bike cunts!


----------



## nuffsaid (Sep 8, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Surprised to see you belittling people in this way, leaves a bad taste in the mouth.



? I'm just reporting an incident related to this thread title. Seemed appropriate. Country farmer anger at townies is a well known meme. No intention to belittle.


----------



## nuffsaid (Sep 8, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Git tae fuck ya radge bike cunts!



That's better. Thank you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 8, 2017)

nuffsaid said:


> ? I'm just reporting an incident related to this thread title. Seemed appropriate. Country farmer anger at townies is a well known meme. No intention to belittle.


Justified anger in this case. And ancient.


----------



## keybored (Sep 8, 2017)

Not content to inconvenience hard working truckers delivering food around our cities, these lunatics are now trying to disrupt our harvests. Are they trying to cause a famine?


----------



## BigTom (Sep 8, 2017)

lefteri said:


> Yes this is the way to brake on a bike effectively.  I think the natural urge is to grab the brake with the dominant hand which is why I wire my brakes the opposite way round to the British standard so that the rear brake is on the right hand (which I believe is the standard way on the continent)



Yeah, standard on the continent to have brakes the other way round, have some issues with European truck drivers on our driver training courses having learnt with the brakes the other way round.
There's good reason for it being how it is though, which is that you can often/usually get away with not doing a left signal without it being dangerous (just uncorteous), but the right signal is needed more often so having the rear brake on the left hand makes sense because if you need to brake for a turn you are basically always wanting to use the rear brake which you can always do if you are signalling right.
(not saying you should change, do what works for you, but that's the reasoning behind left=rear brake, and why it's the other way round on the continent)


----------



## lefteri (Sep 8, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Yeah, standard on the continent to have brakes the other way round, have some issues with European truck drivers on our driver training courses having learnt with the brakes the other way round.
> There's good reason for it being how it is though, which is that you can often/usually get away with not doing a left signal without it being dangerous (just uncorteous), but the right signal is needed more often so having the rear brake on the left hand makes sense because if you need to brake for a turn you are basically always wanting to use the rear brake which you can always do if you are signalling right.
> (not saying you should change, do what works for you, but that's the reasoning behind left=rear brake, and why it's the other way round on the continent)


Ah didn't know that


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 8, 2017)

nuffsaid said:


> Get orf my land
> 
> Stick-wielding farmers attack cyclists during Scottish borders road race



Now I'm a famously even-tempered and reasonable sort of bloke but if some fucker tried to knock me off my bike with a stick I reckon I'd have to stop and find out what happens if I pick up my bike and repeatedly smash them in the face with it. 

Not that I'd expect urban's resident cabal of 'corporal punishment for cyclists' advocates to support my actions. But if you're spending your day deliberately trying to hurt people and one of those people puts you in the hospital instead of standing for it, well tough shit.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 8, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Now I'm a famously even-tempered and reasonable sort of bloke but if some fucker tried to knock me off my bike with a stick I reckon I'd have to stop and find out what happens if I pick up my bike and repeatedly smash them in the face with it.
> 
> Not that I'd expect urban's resident cabal of 'corporal punishment for cyclists' advocates to support my actions. But if you're spending your day deliberately trying to hurt people and one of those people puts you in the hospital instead of standing for it, well tough shit.



I agree, I am not a cyclist, but in spirit I am with you on this. As much as it maybe frustrating having road closures for a bike race, their reaction is bang out of order, complete twats, worst than the worst twat cyclists.


----------



## maomao (Sep 8, 2017)

cupid_stunt said:


> I agree, I am not a cyclist, but in spirit I am with you on this. As much as it maybe frustrating having road closures for a bike race, their reaction is bang out of order, complete twats, worst than the worst twat cyclists.


But still better and less deadly than the worst twat motorists.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 8, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Now I'm a famously even-tempered and reasonable sort of bloke but if some fucker tried to knock me off my bike with a stick I reckon I'd have to stop and find out what happens if I pick up my bike and repeatedly smash them in the face with it.
> 
> Not that I'd expect urban's resident cabal of 'corporal punishment for cyclists' advocates to support my actions. But if you're spending your day deliberately trying to hurt people and one of those people puts you in the hospital instead of standing for it, well tough shit.


Cyclists Vs farmers. 

Time to brake out the popcorn.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 8, 2017)

emanymton said:


> Cyclists Vs farmers.
> 
> Time to brake out the popcorn.



It's not 'farmers' it's just these two twats.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 8, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's not 'farmers' it's just these two twats.


Cyclists Vs two farmers

Time to break out the popcorn.


----------



## T & P (Sep 8, 2017)

Sane farmer last year... (not really)


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 10, 2017)

CNN coverage of hurricane Irma, their reporter in Miami Beach is holding on to a rail to avoid being blown away by the gusts of up to 100 mph+, and two fucking cyclists go pass in background.


----------



## hash tag (Sep 10, 2017)

I bet they ran a red as well.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 11, 2017)

"come on Dave, we'll get the wind behind us and smash those Strava sections”

There was a bike race cancelled due to extreme winds that produced some amusing videos
International bike race cancelled due to extreme winds – video


----------



## bemused (Sep 11, 2017)

cupid_stunt said:


> CNN coverage of hurricane Irma, their reporter in Miami Beach is holding on to a rail to avoid being blown away by the gusts of up to 100 mph+, and two fucking cyclists go pass in background.



I was watching some chap on Facebook streaming from his garden in the middle of the hurricane as bits of his roof flew off. In the background, you could hear his wife begging for him to come in and his answer was he had 2000 people watching his stream.  People do crazy things.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 11, 2017)

bemused said:


> I was watching some chap on Facebook streaming from his garden in the middle of the hurricane as bits of his roof flew off. In the background, you could hear his wife begging for him to come in and his answer was he had 2000 people watching his stream.  People do crazy things.



I did think after posting though that maybe it wasn't that bad, and actually the conversations was the producer telling the reporter "we'll get some fans in to blow your hair/clothes, grip that railing, make it look like you are about to be blown away and shout down the mic"
then two cyclists ride past in the background...
but obviously not seen the clip so may be clear that the wind really is gusting that bad at that moment/place.


----------



## bemused (Sep 11, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I did think after posting though that maybe it wasn't that bad, and actually the conversations was the producer telling the reporter "we'll get some fans in to blow your hair/clothes, grip that railing, make it look like you are about to be blown away and shout down the mic"
> then two cyclists ride past in the background...
> but obviously not seen the clip so may be clear that the wind really is gusting that bad at that moment/place.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 11, 2017)

bemused said:


>




lol. Looks like strava segment chasers to me. Knowing my luck if I did that it'd be a headwind whatever direction I was going!


----------



## maomao (Sep 11, 2017)

bemused said:


>



She's overstating it a bit. There's fuck all traffic on the road. About the worst that could happen is that they'd fall off.


----------



## bemused (Sep 11, 2017)

maomao said:


> She's overstating it a bit. There's fuck all traffic on the road. About the worst that could happen is that they'd fall off.



I was watching that news report live as one of my friends in a police officer over there and I was being noisy. Those palm trees had coconuts on them which were flying around at a fair rate of knots, along with all the other shit blowing around. I'm sure they were having fun.


----------



## maomao (Sep 11, 2017)

bemused said:


> I was watching that news report live as one of my friends in a police officer over there and I was being noisy. Those palm trees had coconuts on them which were flying around at a fair rate of knots, along with all the other shit blowing around. I'm sure they were having fun.


Lucky police officer.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 11, 2017)

It's up to people to decide on what risks they choose to take with their lives. 

Did like that fact that the emergency services are no longer responding to calls though; you've had your warnings, chose to ignore 'em and you're on your own!


----------



## bemused (Sep 11, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Did like that fact that the emergency services are no longer responding to calls though; you've had your warnings, chose to ignore 'em and you're on your own!



When folks who chase armed robbers, run into burning buildings or hold your arm on whilst driving you really fast to hospital say it is too dangerous to go outside I take the hint 

However, compared to the cyclists the idiots taking selfies on the sea walk take the prize for World class fuckwittery.


----------



## hash tag (Sep 11, 2017)

Woman injured in horror crash with RideLondon cyclist dies in hospital


----------



## hash tag (Sep 11, 2017)

I went to visit a client today who coincidentally lives in a neighbouring block to mine, her daughter was also present.
Totally unprompted, the daughter totally went off on one, complaining about the cyclists racing along our tow path, swearing at people, knocking people over, lashing out at them and dogs...I had to change to subject. She hated the antics of cyclists!


----------



## maomao (Sep 11, 2017)

bemused said:


> When folks who chase armed robbers, run into burning buildings or hold your arm on whilst driving you really fast to hospital say it is too dangerous to go outside I take the hint


Yeah, the police particularly have a worldwide reputation for honesty and trustworthiness.


----------



## maomao (Sep 11, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Woman injured in horror crash with RideLondon cyclist dies in hospital


Doubt you'll get any details on that one for a few months but it was an organised race with closed roads. It'll be a long time before cycling catches up with Le Mans 55.


----------



## bemused (Sep 11, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Woman injured in horror crash with RideLondon cyclist dies in hospital



Although I feel ashamed, this comment on that article made me lol


----------



## maomao (Sep 11, 2017)

Jesus fucking Christ.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 11, 2017)

maomao said:


> Jesus fucking Christ.



Indeed, but hi-jacking JC's name for the 'joke' is fucking funny TBF.


----------



## maomao (Sep 11, 2017)

cupid_stunt said:


> Indeed, but hi-jacking JC's name for the 'joke' is fucking funny TBF.


If you think laughing at people who've been killed in horrible accidents is funny. Don't expect much better on this thread tbh.

The good news is that however it happened it was an organised sporting event so the cyclist was fully insured and was even wearing a registration number. I'm sure the bereaved family will be delighted.


----------



## hash tag (Sep 11, 2017)

I am sure the bereaved family would rather not be bereaved. No amount of cash will ever make up for a loss like that.


----------



## maomao (Sep 11, 2017)

hash tag said:


> I am sure the bereaved family would rather not be bereaved. No amount of cash will ever make up for a loss like that.


Indeed. That was my point.


----------



## emanymton (Sep 12, 2017)

maomao said:


> Doubt you'll get any details on that one for a few months but it was an organised race with closed roads. It'll be a long time before cycling catches up with Le Mans 55.


Considering this was an organised race, and she presumably crossed the 'track'. If anyone is found to be at fault, isn't it most likely to be the organisers for not having proper barriers/stewarding?


----------



## hash tag (Sep 12, 2017)

I was at work that day and was watching the Putney high street junction, which is at the bottom of a fast downhill stretch. The "stewards" were clueless with the way they did not control the junction. They got in an almighty pickle letting cars and pedestrians cross the route. An ambulance was on scene for half an hour or more mid-afternoon treating a cyclist, I think, who had an accident there.


----------



## hash tag (Sep 14, 2017)

Another ped death  Woman dies after being hit by cyclist on Oxford Street


----------



## a_chap (Sep 14, 2017)

Should we start listing all the cyclist deaths also to give some balance?


----------



## BigTom (Sep 14, 2017)

a_chap said:


> Should we start listing all the cyclist deaths also to give some balance?



and all the pedestrian deaths following a collision with a motor vehicle?


----------



## hash tag (Sep 14, 2017)

I was trying to give balance to PED deaths because we often hear about cyclists deaths yet rarely hear about PED deaths, regardless of circumstances....a fact previously commented on.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 14, 2017)

hash tag said:


> I was trying to give balance to PED deaths because we often hear about cyclists deaths yet rarely hear about PED deaths, regardless of circumstances....a fact previously commented on.



iirc you started a thread about pedestrian deaths, why not post it to there? Why not post about all the deaths following collisions with motor vehicles? They mostly won't make the papers though because they happen so often.


----------



## bubblesmcgrath (Sep 14, 2017)

a_chap said:


> Should we start listing all the cyclist deaths also to give some balance?



Sure ........  how many cyclists have been mowed down by pedestrians?


----------



## gentlegreen (Sep 14, 2017)

I may have come quite close myself this evening on the way home - guy 60-ish - i.e. around my age - looked like he was about to step out into my path without looking to his left as I was leaning into a turn - my shout may have prevented it.
... or perhaps it was excessive nervousness following at least three car drivers NOT looking properly as they prepared to pull out into my path today ...


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 14, 2017)

gentlegreen said:


> I may have come quite close myself this evening on the way home - guy 60-ish - i.e. around my age - looked like he was about to step out into my path without looking to his left as I was leaning into a turn - my shout may have prevented it.
> ... or perhaps it was excessive nervousness following at least three car drivers NOT looking properly as they prepared to pull out into my path today ...


Wrong thread.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 14, 2017)

I'm just going to mention in the thread that the cyclist in this collision wasn't arrested for the collision so it's unlikely that it was their fault. 
It's always interesting to look at the language used in the media around road deaths. Notice here how the pedestrian was hit by the cyclist, though it's unlikely to be the cyclist's fault, but then you'll see the media talking about cyclists colliding with cars in stories where the driver has clearly driven into the cyclist (I mean stuff where the driver has hit the cyclist from behind, how can you collide with a vehicle that hits you from behind? That vehicle hits you, not the other way round). Plus it's always the car that crashes, never the driver. It's always the cyclist though, never the bicycle.
this BBC tweet for instance:  how is that allegedly, they wouldn't use that language with a cyclist but they will with a driver.
Once you start seeing this stuff you realise it's everywhere and it's interesting and telling to see


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 14, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I'm just going to mention in the thread that the cyclist in this collision wasn't arrested for the collision so it's unlikely that it was their fault.


No, that's just an explanation of the fact that he was arrested for something else. They wouldn't have had an opportunity to investigate and apportion any blame when that piece was written.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 14, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> No, that's just an explanation of the fact that he was arrested for something else. They wouldn't have had an opportunity to investigate and apportion any blame when that piece was written.



Police often arrest drivers at the scene of a fatal collision, I assume cyclists too.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 14, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Police often arrest drivers at the scene of a fatal collision, I assume cyclists too.


Not if there's no reason to. Drivers are automatically tested for alcohol (and I think drugs now) at RTAs where an injury has occurred so that's more than likely the reason for the arrest if one is made where no other law has obviously been broken.


----------



## hash tag (Sep 14, 2017)

For a_chap and others


Why are pedestrian deaths not as well reported as cyclists?


----------



## BigTom (Sep 14, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Not if there's no reason to. Drivers are automatically tested for alcohol (and I think drugs now) at RTAs where an injury has occurred so that's more than likely the reason for the arrest if one is made where no other law has obviously been broken.



I think when a driver tests positive for drugs/alcohol and is arrested for that it's mentioned but often articles say the driver was arrested without mentioning this. Perhaps unlikely was too strong a word but if it was clearly the cyclist's fault, they would have been arrested at the scene and they weren't so there's no reason to assume that they were at fault, let alone that they "mowed down" the pedestrian here.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 14, 2017)

BigTom said:


> ... so there's no reason to assume that they were at fault, let alone that they "mowed down" the pedestrian here.


There's a huge reason to assume he was at fault; he's a cyclist. _Cyclist at fault_ should be everyone's default starting point.


----------



## a_chap (Sep 14, 2017)

ZZZzzz...


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 14, 2017)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Sure ........  how many cyclists have been mowed down by pedestrians?



There was one mentioned on here about a week ago:

Berkshire cyclist died after pedestrian stepped out in front of him, finds inquest

Pedestrians have also killed motorcyclists by walking in front of them, there was one on Park St in Bristol years back that I remember.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 14, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> There was one mentioned on here about a week ago:
> 
> Berkshire cyclist died after pedestrian stepped out in front of him, finds inquest
> 
> Pedestrians have also killed motorcyclists by walking in front of them, there was one on Park St in Bristol years back that I remember.


Mowed down - to cut down with scythe or machine. Was this pedestrian the other week carrying a scythe?


----------



## Winot (Sep 15, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I'm just going to mention in the thread that the cyclist in this collision wasn't arrested for the collision so it's unlikely that it was their fault.
> It's always interesting to look at the language used in the media around road deaths. Notice here how the pedestrian was hit by the cyclist, though it's unlikely to be the cyclist's fault, but then you'll see the media talking about cyclists colliding with cars in stories where the driver has clearly driven into the cyclist (I mean stuff where the driver has hit the cyclist from behind, how can you collide with a vehicle that hits you from behind? That vehicle hits you, not the other way round). Plus it's always the car that crashes, never the driver. It's always the cyclist though, never the bicycle.
> this BBC tweet for instance:  how is that allegedly, they wouldn't use that language with a cyclist but they will with a driver.
> Once you start seeing this stuff you realise it's everywhere and it's interesting and telling to see




Yep as you may know there's a Twitter account dedicated to this (@absentdriver).


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 15, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Mowed down - to cut down with scythe or machine. Was this pedestrian the other week carrying a scythe?



Did you object to the phrase when applied to that lad on the track bike, who was also bereft of harvesting machinery at the time of the incident?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 15, 2017)

hash tag said:


> I was trying to give balance to PED deaths because we often hear about cyclists deaths yet rarely hear about PED deaths, regardless of circumstances....a fact previously commented on.



There are simply too many of them for any one case to bother the national news. 

Here in Nottingham the main bridge into the city now has concrete barriers protecting the pavements, because terrorists attack pedestrians on bridges now. Everywhere else in the city, where drivers mount the pavement as a matter of course whether there are people in the way or not, no action is taken because those people aren't terrorists, they're just part of the fun of living in a bustling urban environment.


----------



## maomao (Sep 15, 2017)

bubblesmcgrath said:


> Sure ........  how many cyclists have been mowed down by pedestrians?


I have been. 20 years ago on Clerkenwell Rd. I was filtering traffic slowly coming up the side of a bus. Silly cow running across the road without looking knocked me off my bike and I lost a week's work while my knee got better.

And of course all the accidents that could have happened swerving to dodge people crossing between lights particularly on Oxford Street. I don't think people should have to cross at lights I just wish they'd look properly. A large proportion of pedestrians simply don't register cyclists when they check for traffic.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 15, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Everywhere else in the city, where drivers mount the pavement as a matter of course whether there are people in the way or not ...


Why do they do that?


----------



## maomao (Sep 15, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Mowed down - to cut down with scythe or machine. Was this pedestrian the other week carrying a scythe?


To cut down with a scythe or a machine is simply 'to mow'. To 'mow down' is _always_ an extended meaning of the verb.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 15, 2017)

maomao said:


> Silly cow ...


Gender specific insult. Those aren't allowed on here.


----------



## maomao (Sep 15, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Gender specific insult. Those aren't allowed on here.


Report it then.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 15, 2017)

Why?


----------



## maomao (Sep 15, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Why?


You found it noteworthy not me. There is no such rule in the FAQ.


----------



## maomao (Sep 15, 2017)

Now if you'll excuse me I have to mow down the lawn.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 15, 2017)

maomao said:


> To cut down with a scythe or a machine is simply 'to mow'. To 'mow down' is _always_ an extended meaning of the verb.



What is the past tense of to mow down?


----------



## hash tag (Sep 15, 2017)

Mown down?


----------



## maomao (Sep 15, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> What is the past tense of to mow down?


hash tag is correct. In verb phrases the verb changes tense and the accompanying preposition remains the same.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 15, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Mown down?



That's what I thought, in relation to grass and pedestrians, which is why I asked, unless Pickman's model to make such a basic error...


----------



## maomao (Sep 15, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> That's what I thought, in relation to grass and pedestrians, which is why I asked, unless Pickman's model to make such a basic error...


If we can do cycling and grammar on the same thread I can ride two hobby horses at once.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 15, 2017)

maomao said:


> There is no such rule in the FAQ.


It's one of those unwritten ones that get you into trouble when you're not expecting it.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 15, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> It's one of those unwritten ones that get you into trouble when you're not expecting it.



Gender specific insult, innit.

#everydaysexism


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2017)

maomao said:


> To cut down with a scythe or a machine is simply 'to mow'. To 'mow down' is _always_ an extended meaning of the verb.


Yeh. It has the connotations of the mower approaching the mowee with speed. And a pedestrian simply can't do that to a bicycle or motorcycle as has been tacitly admitted. Don't play the pedant here as you'll only get shown up for the lightweight you are, chuck


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2017)

maomao said:


> If we can do cycling and grammar on the same thread I can ride two hobby horses at once.


Yeh and fuck them both up at the same time


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2017)

maomao said:


> To cut down with a scythe or a machine is simply 'to mow'. To 'mow down' is _always_ an extended meaning of the verb.


Just like a cunt you pull me up on it but, strangely, not bubblesmcgrath - in fact you quoted her post, the first one to mention mowed down and from which I drew the phrase, without mentioning it. Twat.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> That's what I thought, in relation to grass and pedestrians, which is why I asked, unless Pickman's model to make such a basic error...


Yeh. I didn't. 

Next.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2017)

maomao said:


> hash tag is correct. In verb phrases the verb changes tense and the accompanying preposition remains the same.


Yeh. Another maomao fail. What about 'i mowed down'? Perhaps you should Google the conjugation of the verb, chuck.


----------



## maomao (Sep 15, 2017)

*Jesus Christ*

'mow down' is a verb phrase with its own dictionary definition. It means to kill people with vehicles or guns (like all the young men 'mown down' in WW1 by completely fucking stationary machine guns). It has fuck all to do with scythes or cutting grass.

And why would I pull someone up on a (possibly dialect) grammatical irregularity? I wasn't the one playing pedant, I was just pointing out how badly you were doing it yourself.


----------



## maomao (Sep 15, 2017)

I mean really Jesus fucking Christ. Five posts cause someone said you were wrong (and you were).


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2017)

maomao said:


> *Jesus Christ*
> 
> 'mow down' is a verb phrase with its own dictionary definition. It means to kill people with vehicles or guns (like all the young men 'mown down' in WW1 by completely fucking stationary machine guns). It has fuck all to do with scythes or cutting grass.
> 
> And why would I pull someone up on a (possibly dialect) grammatical irregularity? I wasn't the one playing pedant, I was just pointing out how badly you were doing it yourself.


----------



## maomao (Sep 15, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 115666


Yes. That's pretty much what I just said. Well done.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2017)

maomao said:


> Yes. That's pretty much what I just said. Well done.


Perhaps while you're on  a roll you can demonstrate how right you are over the past tense.


----------



## maomao (Sep 15, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Perhaps while you're on  a roll you can demonstrate how right you are over the past tense.


Meh. Past participle/past tense who gives a fuck.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2017)

maomao said:


> Meh. Past participle/past tense who gives a fuck.


There speaks a man recognising he's fucked up


----------



## maomao (Sep 15, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> There speaks a man recognising he's fucked up


Firstly, yes, I was not completely correct in post #4210 and am capable of recognising and admitting that unlike you who is incapable of finding any error in the sewage you pour on to these boards.

Secondly, fuck off you irritating joyless fuckpig.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2017)

maomao said:


> Firstly, yes, I was not completely correct in post #4210 and am capable of recognising and admitting that unlike you who is incapable of finding any error in the sewage you pour on to these boards.
> 
> Secondly, fuck off you irritating joyless fuckpig.


Touched a nerve, I see, and just a couple of posts after I did what you say I never do. You'll not find me being casually sexist, another difference between the two of us. And fuckpig? Really? Is this the best you can do? Probably.


----------



## maomao (Sep 15, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Touched a nerve, I see, and just a couple of posts after I did what you say I never do. You'll not find me being casually sexist, another difference between the two of us. And fuckpig? Really? Is this the best you can do? Probably.


It's the best I'm going to use on you, fuckpig.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2017)

maomao said:


> If we can do cycling and grammar on the same thread I can ride two hobby horses at once.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2017)

maomao said:


> It's the best I'm going to use on you, fuckpig.


It's pisspoor, chuck. It doesn't hurt, my lovely, you might as well pelt me with cotton wool.


----------



## maomao (Sep 15, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


>


Sorry. Where do you think you've won any part of this argument? Other than me losing my temper at your inevitable fuckpiggery.


----------



## maomao (Sep 15, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> You'll not find me being casually sexist, another difference between the two of us.


My mum calls people silly cows and she's a well known feminist historian who wouldn't allow any casual sexism. You're just some nutter of the internet.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2017)

maomao said:


> Sorry. Where do you think you've won any part of this argument? Other than me losing my temper at your inevitable fuckpiggery.


Oh I thought you'd laid down the law on the past tense, my sweet, and cocked it up because you are unsure of the difference between a participle and a tense


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2017)

maomao said:


> My mum calls people silly cows and she's a well known feminist historian who wouldn't allow any casual sexism. You're just some nutter of the internet.


A novel variation on millions of PMs of support

E2A if a woman objected to you, a man, calling her a silly cow do you think "but my ma does it" would cut the mustard?


----------



## belboid (Sep 15, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> A novel variation on millions of PMs of support
> 
> E2A if a woman objected to you, a man, calling her a silly cow do you think "but my ma does it" would cut the mustard?


It is entirely true, in this case, though.


----------



## maomao (Sep 15, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> if a woman objected to you, a man, calling her a silly cow do you think "but my ma does it" would cut the mustard?



I'd hope she objected. I work a 42 hour week, do half the childcare and more than half the housework. I can get away with the odd 'silly cow' directed at someone who put me in A&E. I have to go cook for my family now. Who's cooking your dinner?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 15, 2017)

Pickman doesn't eat. he's a bot.


----------



## maomao (Sep 15, 2017)

https://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/singular-outbreak-of-mad-cow-disease.18910/#post-683465


----------



## snadge (Sep 15, 2017)

maomao said:


> https://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/singular-outbreak-of-mad-cow-disease.18910/#post-683465




Although I like the reference I have to say, that's pretty fucking desperate.

Internets are serious business I suppose.

lol, stupid rectangle box telling you how you should feel.


----------



## maomao (Sep 15, 2017)

snadge said:


> Although I like the reference I have to say, that's pretty fucking desperate.
> 
> Internets are serious business I suppose.
> 
> lol, stupid rectangle box telling you how you should feel.


Well, it was meant to start a conversation rather than 'you said that thirteen years ago ner, ner, ner'. But it won't. It'll be taken as 'you said that thirteen years ago ner, ner, ner'. Because at the end of the day it's all about point scoring for some people.


----------



## snadge (Sep 15, 2017)

maomao said:


> Well, it was meant to start a conversation rather than 'you said that thirteen years ago ner, ner, ner'. But it won't. It'll be taken as 'you said that thirteen years ago ner, ner, ner'. Because at the end of the day it's all about point scoring for some people.




It's always about point scoring on the internet. I'm surprised you didn't know that.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 15, 2017)

As my mother used to say to my brother & me, 'six of one, half a dozen of the other.'


----------



## maomao (Sep 15, 2017)

cupid_stunt said:


> As my mother used to say to my brother & me, 'six of one, half a dozen of the other.'


My mum used to say that too but in fact it was always my brother what started it the cunt.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 15, 2017)

Likewise.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2017)

maomao said:


> I'd hope she objected. I work a 42 hour week, do half the childcare and more than half the housework. I can get away with the odd 'silly cow' directed at someone who put me in A&E. I have to go cook for my family now. Who's cooking your dinner?


Don't know, never saw them but it was bloody good - started with a nice orange, onion and olive salad followed by tonno palermitana and with canoli to finish.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2017)

maomao said:


> https://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/singular-outbreak-of-mad-cow-disease.18910/#post-683465


Yes, and I was wrong to say that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 15, 2017)

maomao said:


> Well, it was meant to start a conversation rather than 'you said that thirteen years ago ner, ner, ner'. But it won't. It'll be taken as 'you said that thirteen years ago ner, ner, ner'. Because at the end of the day it's all about point scoring for some people.


Yeh when you drag up something from 13 years ago it's hard to avoid the conclusion it's point scoring.


----------



## maomao (Sep 16, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yes, and I was wrong to say that.



Meh. At least I've consistently argued the same point for years unlike you who've had a secret Damascene conversion that you've only let the rest of us in on when it's a handy stick to beat someone with. You'll happily call people 'pig' which means different things for men and women. You'll happily call women cunts even though a proportion of readers will read it as one of the worst gendered insults available. But the u75 rulebook says those are fine and 'cow' isn't so score away you big phony.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 16, 2017)

maomao said:


> Meh. At least I've consistently argued the same point for years unlike you who've had a secret Damascene conversion that you've only let the rest of us in on when it's a handy stick to beat someone with. You'll happily call people 'pig' which means different things for men and women. You'll happily call women cunts even though a proportion of readers will read it as one of the worst gendered insults available. But the u75 rulebook says those are fine and 'cow' isn't so score away you big phony.


A proportion of readers. Yeh. Ask your ma about that one, chuck, she'll tell you not to use it because it's devoid of meaning. I've had no damascene conversion - and I'd be under no obligation to tell anyone if I had - rather, like anyone here I've shifted over the years. Some of what I posted in 2004 I still agree with, other bits make me cringe. Be surprising and rather worrying if it was different. Not sure what your point about pigs is, when you'll happily call people fuckpigs which I'm sure is supposed to be worse than pig. Yeh. Anyway, a proportion of readers say... Anything. A proportion  of readers think you're by far the best looking poster here. A proportion of readers wish you'd stop posting. A proportion of readers want my canoli recommendations for palermo. Enjoy your weekend.


----------



## maomao (Sep 16, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> A proportion of readers. Yeh. Ask your ma about that one, chuck, she'll tell you not to use it because it's devoid of meaning. I've had no damascene conversion - and I'd be under no obligation to tell anyone if I had - rather, like anyone here I've shifted over the years. Some of what I posted in 2004 I still agree with, other bits make me cringe. Be surprising and rather worrying if it was different. Not sure what your point about pigs is, when you'll happily call people fuckpigs which I'm sure is supposed to be worse than pig. Yeh. Anyway, a proportion of readers say... Anything. A proportion  of readers think you're by far the best looking poster here. A proportion of readers wish you'd stop posting. A proportion of readers want my canoli recommendations for palermo. Enjoy your weekend, chuck.


And a significant proportion have you on ignore.

For the record I don't think either of us are sexist, or racist  and I'm sick of silly point scoring.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 16, 2017)

maomao said:


> And a significant proportion have you on ignore.
> 
> For the record I don't think either of us are sexist, or racist  and I'm sick of silly point scoring.


Yeh. So moving on...


----------



## bemused (Sep 16, 2017)

Last night I nearly killed a cyclist who decided it was cool to ride around a 9pm with no lights dressed in his dark blue football kit....  what a wally


----------



## maomao (Sep 16, 2017)

bemused said:


> Last night I nearly killed a cyclist who decided it was cool to ride around a 9pm with no lights dressed in his dark blue football kit....  what a wally


One of my last bike rides in London I was dressed completely in black at night and forgot to switch my back lights on. 

I pulled over after a car overtook me and missed me by inches as I was overtaking a bus (in a completely sensible manner apart from having no light and being dressed as a ninja). When I realised what I'd done and how close I'd come to getting myself killed it put me off cycling for a while.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 16, 2017)

maomao said:


> One of my last bike rides in London I was dressed completely in black at night and forgot to switch my back lights on.
> 
> I pulled over after a car overtook me and missed me by inches as I was overtaking a bus (in a completely sensible manner apart from having no light and being dressed as a ninja). When I realised what I'd done and how close I'd come to getting myself killed it put me off cycling for a while.


One of the very few cyclists in London who actually _has_ lights, but he forgets to put them on.


----------



## maomao (Sep 16, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> One of the very few cyclists in London who actually _has_ lights, but he forgets to put them on.


The vast majority of cyclists riding properly on the roads have lights. You get kids floating about pavements in the evenings with no lights but seeing an actual adult on the road with no lights in the dark is rare enough that I would find it shocking.

And I only forgot the back ones once. Once almost being enough to get myself killed


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 16, 2017)

maomao said:


> The vast majority of cyclists riding properly on the roads have lights.


Yes, but the vast majority of cyclists don't ride properly or anywhere near it.

Many times I have politely informed cyclists that they had no rear light and that I came close to hitting them. Responses ranged from them pretending not to hear me to telling me to fuck off. One woman said "I have a light", looked round to check, and seemed surprised that she didn't. Let's face it, most cyclists are utter morons.


----------



## bemused (Sep 16, 2017)

maomao said:


> One of my last bike rides in London I was dressed completely in black at night and forgot to switch my back lights on.
> 
> I pulled over after a car overtook me and missed me by inches as I was overtaking a bus (in a completely sensible manner apart from having no light and being dressed as a ninja). When I realised what I'd done and how close I'd come to getting myself killed it put me off cycling for a while.



I think it's the time of year, people don't realise how dark it gets in the evening.


----------



## maomao (Sep 16, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Yes, but the vast majority of cyclists don't ride properly or anywhere near it.
> 
> Many times I have politely informed cyclists that they had no rear light and that I came close to hitting them. Responses ranged from them pretending not to hear me to telling me to fuck off. One woman said "I have a light", looked round to check, and seemed surprised that she didn't. Let's face it, most cyclists are utter morons.


I suppose her light could have fallen off. As usual it's like you're driving in a different cou try from everyone else or possibly only seeing what you want to see. Apart from a few teenagers floating around in the evening almost every cyclist I see on the road has lights.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 16, 2017)

maomao said:


> Apart from a few teenagers floating around in the evening almost every cyclist I see on the road has lights.


I don't believe you. Listening to U75 cyclists you'd think they were in another world. Even (non-U75) cyclists I know decry the piss poor standards of road use by cyclists in London. The enormous gulf between the experiences of real people, and those of the U75  cycling community can only be explained one way. Cyclists on here are, in the main, full of shit.


----------



## maomao (Sep 16, 2017)

I work on a main cycling route from the city into South East London. I walk a mile to and from the station every day at dawn and dusk, soon to be dark. I always pay attention to cyclists because I am jealous and wish I still road a bike and am hyper critical when I see them doing things wrong. I promise to report here should I see any cyclists without lights. Don't hold your breath.


----------



## nick (Sep 16, 2017)

Often (and even more so as the evenings draw in) you see cyclists with lights that are so dim as to be useless - probably due to exhausted batteries that have been say in the light all summer unused.
I am not perfect and have ridden in London without lights - the normal reason being that I forgot to remove them when parked and some scumbag has nicked them again


----------



## maomao (Sep 16, 2017)

nick said:


> Often (and even more so as the evenings draw in) you see cyclists with lights that are so dim as to be useless - probably due to exhausted batteries that have been say in the light all summer unused.
> I am not perfect and have ridden in London without lights - the normal reason being that I forgot to remove them when parked and some scumbag has nicked them again



The flashing leds at the back tend to be very visible and run for ages on one set of double AAs. Front light quality varies greatly.


----------



## nick (Sep 16, 2017)

They do run for ages and are great. But they don't run forever. 
Also I find that when the batteries are failing they start off bright at the beginning of the journey - but will then fade within about 10 minutes.
My curent USB rechargeables tend to only give about 10 minutes warning that they are low before shutting down completely - so its always good to have a backup


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 16, 2017)

Perhaps some sort of dynamo might be an idea


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 16, 2017)

maomao said:


> I work on a main cycling route from the city into South East London. I walk a mile to and from the station every day at dawn and dusk, soon to be dark. I always pay attention to cyclists because I am jealous and wish I still road a bike and am hyper critical when I see them doing things wrong. I promise to report here should I see any cyclists without lights. Don't hold your breath.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 16, 2017)

Spymaster said:


>


Have you ever considered how invisible cyclists without lights are, pa? I'd be surprised if we hear of one such.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 16, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Have you ever considered how invisible cyclists without lights are, pa?


Al the time. It's not just the ones without lights either. Half of the ones that do have them seem to think a tiny rear lamp that glows like a fag end is sufficient!


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 16, 2017)

maomao said:


> The flashing leds at the back tend to be very visible and run for ages on one set of double AAs.



These are shite in city traffic.


----------



## maomao (Sep 16, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> These are shite in city traffic.


They're a lot more visible than the letter-of-the-law complying incandescent ones. Do I need to dig up studies?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 16, 2017)

maomao said:


> They're a lot more visible than the letter-of-the-law complying incandescent ones. Do I need to dig up studies?


Do what you like. The flashing ones tend to merge into the cityscape or create confusion (really bad in street-lit areas like shopping streets) and don't give adequate distance perception to anyone behind. They should only be used in conjunction with solid lights, imo.


----------



## maomao (Sep 16, 2017)

Well when they changed the law in 2005 I'm pretty sure it was on the basis of actual tests by scientists rather than some old waffle about 'blending into cityscapes'.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 16, 2017)

maomao said:


> Well when they changed the law in 2005 I'm pretty sure it was on the basis of actual tests by scientists rather than some old waffle about 'blending into cityscapes'.


Yeah yeah yeah. Do some reading.


----------



## maomao (Sep 16, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Yeah yeah yeah. Do some reading.


For instance?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 16, 2017)

maomao said:


> For instance?


Just have a Google around, old chap. Got better things to do at the moment.


----------



## maomao (Sep 16, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Just have a Google around, old chap. Got better things to do at the moment.


I don't I'm at work. Doesn't mean I can be arsed looking for sources for your waffle though.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 16, 2017)

I'm both on my phone and cba but I'm pretty sure that studies have shown that flashing lights are better for catching attention (they create contrast) whilst solid lights are better for judging speed/distance. I have both.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 16, 2017)

maomao said:


> I don't I'm at work. Doesn't mean I can be arsed looking for sources for your waffle though.


Your choice to stay ignorant. I'm not here to join the list of people who have failed to educate you.


----------



## maomao (Sep 16, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Your choice to stay ignorant. I'm not here to join the list of people who have failed to educate you.


Whatevs


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 16, 2017)

LMAO at this thread.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 16, 2017)

after 3 months off after injury , about 6000 miles of driving,  10kg or so in added lard and newly pumped up tyres to cope with the weight, i am starting the daily cycle commute on monday again. I shall report back objectively with my findings on this heated subject


----------



## maomao (Sep 16, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I'm both on my phone and cba but I'm pretty sure that studies have shown that flashing lights are better for catching attention (they create contrast) whilst solid lights are better for judging speed/distance. I have both.


Possibly. I had both too. A lot of people do. It was the other waffle I was on about.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 16, 2017)

maomao said:


> Possibly. I had both too.


----------



## maomao (Sep 16, 2017)

Spymaster said:


>


Well done. As a professional cyclist who didn't want to die I couldn't possibly have afforded more than one 7 or 8 pound LED and you've cleverly exposed me by putting up a photo of a dead celebrity. Well done indeed sir.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 16, 2017)

bemused said:


> Last night I nearly killed a cyclist who decided it was cool to ride around a 9pm with no lights...



Yeah me too, but by the time I'd got off the sofa, grabbed a knife and run out to the street he had a good 70metres on me, I ran after him brandishing my knife, but the fucker got away. Should really get a gun so I can take potshots at these divs from my front room...


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 16, 2017)

maomao said:


> Well done. As a professional cyclist who didn't want to die I couldn't possibly have afforded more than one 7 or 8 pound LED and you've cleverly exposed me by putting up a photo of a dead celebrity. Well done indeed sir.


You're a funny (peculiar) fellow!

You amuse me.


----------



## bemused (Sep 16, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> after 3 months off after injury , about 6000 miles of driving,  10kg or so in added lard and newly pumped up tyres to cope with the weight, i am starting the daily cycle commute on monday again. I shall report back objectively with my findings on this heated subject



Starting in the autumn, if I wore a hat I'd doff it to you. Good luck.


----------



## bemused (Sep 16, 2017)

double post


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 17, 2017)

I was out on one of my night rides up in Stokey a few weeks back and got a bit sweary after a couple of cars had completely ignored my right of way and driven straight at me when there were cars parked on their side of the road. Then a few minutes later when I stopped at a junction I noticed my front light was out 

On rare occasions it will go off if I hit a big bump (fucking speed bumps) but I think on this occasion I'd simply stopped somewhere for a few minutes and turned it off then forgot to put it back on. Not something I haven't done in the car either, usually at well-lit petrol stations in work hire cars that get all tetchy and beepy if you leave the lights on after opening the door to get out.


----------



## George & Bill (Sep 17, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> I don't believe you. Listening to U75 cyclists you'd think they were in another world. Even (non-U75) cyclists I know decry the piss poor standards of road use by cyclists in London. The enormous gulf between the experiences of real people, and those of the U75  cycling community can only be explained one way. Cyclists on here are, in the main, full of shit.



So, would you say that this video is staged?



It shows cycling (and driving) of highly variable quality, but I only manage to spot one cyclist out of dozens lacking a rear light.


----------



## maomao (Sep 18, 2017)

Wow. One cyclist without lights (out of a couple of dozen or so) at about 6.15 on Westferry Rd. If he started on the island he's possibly been caught out by the night closing in but if he'd come up through the tunnel he started in proper night time.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 18, 2017)

bemused said:


> Starting in the autumn, if I wore a hat I'd doff it to you. Good luck.


You could tug your forelock instead


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 18, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yeah me too, but by the time I'd got off the sofa, grabbed a knife and run out to the street he had a good 70metres on me, I ran after him brandishing my knife, but the fucker got away. Should really get a gun so I can take potshots at these divs from my front room...


Crossbow ftw

Or slingshot


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 18, 2017)

Ok, first cycle in for 2/3 months. Conditions- moist but firm underfoot. total time - 35 mins ( taking it very easy) Traffic density - less than average apart from the gridlock of London bridge.

Cars Jumping red lights :0
Cars banging into me as I am stationary: 0
Cycles with headphones jumping red light lights: 2
Cyclists without headphones jumping red lights : 3
Cyclists banging into me as I am stationary : 1 (boardman rider for the record)

Update on return commute to follow


----------



## George & Bill (Sep 18, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> Ok, first cycle in for 2/3 months. Conditions- moist but firm underfoot. total time - 35 mins ( taking it very easy) Traffic density - less than average apart from the gridlock of London bridge.
> 
> Cars Jumping red lights :0
> Cars banging into me as I am stationary: 0
> ...



Incidence of statistical cherry-picking: 100%


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> So, would you say that this video is staged?
> 
> 
> 
> It shows cycling (and driving) of highly variable quality, but I only manage to spot one cyclist out of dozens lacking a rear light.






George & Bill said:


> Incidence of statistical cherry-picking: 100%


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2017)

maomao said:


> If he started on the island he's possibly been caught out by the night closing in but if he'd come up through the tunnel he started in proper night time.


Easily done. It's not as if lighting-up times are fucking obvious or widely published.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Easily done. It's not as if lighting-up times are fucking obvious or widely published.


not to mention cyclists' perpetual surprise that it gets dark at night.


----------



## George & Bill (Sep 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


>



I went to Youtube and searched for 'London night cycling' – this was the first video that came up showing any significant number of other cyclists. It's certainly not definitive – but does show a fairly typical selection of London roads during evening commute time.

You're welcome to respond with evidence to the contrary, which I will consider with an open mind  (though I doubt you'll have any, considering that you're lying )


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> You're welcome to respond with evidence to the contrary, which I will consider with an open mind  (though I doubt you'll have any, considering that you're lying )


Nonsense. What evidence could I provide? YouTube videos won't show them because you can't see the cunts.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> not to mention cyclists' perpetual surprise that it gets dark at night.


Weird eh?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 18, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> I went to Youtube and searched for 'London night cycling' – this was the first video that came up showing any significant number of other cyclists. It's certainly not definitive – but does show a fairly typical selection of London roads during evening commute time.
> 
> You're welcome to respond with evidence to the contrary, which I will consider with an open mind  (though I doubt you'll have any, considering that you're lying )


right. so there are a number of things i can identify in your post which undermine your claims. from the top:

"this was the first video" - whatever the ranking system used by youtube, you fell for it.
"that came up showing any significant number of other cyclists" - how significant? 10? 20? many?
"not definitive" - yeh that part's true
"show(s) a fairly typical selection of london roads" - on what criteria?
"during evening commute time"  - so people who are in work, not necessarily students, dolees, part-time cyclists, schoolchildren etc


----------



## Reiabuzz (Sep 18, 2017)

This guy doesn't exactly give the rest of us a good name. What a fucking prick. 18 months in feltham then.

Cyclist Charlie Alliston who killed a mum-of-two is jailed | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 18, 2017)

That's quite a high sentence for killing somebody with a vehicle. Unlucky.

Reckon that could be appealed.


----------



## George & Bill (Sep 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Nonsense. What evidence could I provide? YouTube videos won't show them because you can't see the cunts.





Pickman's model said:


> right. so there are a number of things i can identify in your post which undermine your claims. from the top:
> 
> "this was the first video" - whatever the ranking system used by youtube, you fell for it.
> "that came up showing any significant number of other cyclists" - how significant? 10? 20? many?
> ...



Happy to help you out here.

This was one piece of evidence chosen by me at my convenience. I don't know he intricacies of Youtube's search algorithm, but I don't think they have a strong bias on the whole 'do cyclists tend to use lights' debate.

The video showed, at a guess, a few dozen cyclists, spread over a variety of the sort of roads you'd tend to ride on if you wanted to cross a chunk of inner London.

Like I say – not definitive. It shows commuters. They tend to be more disciplined an organised than some other cyclists. But they also make up by far the largest single group of London cyclists (much bigger than all the rest combined, I'd fathom).


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 18, 2017)

Reiabuzz said:


> This guy doesn't exactly give the rest of us a good name. What a fucking prick. 18 months in feltham then.
> 
> Cyclist Charlie Alliston who killed a mum-of-two is jailed | Daily Mail Online


sadly he'll almost certainly be out in nine.


----------



## George & Bill (Sep 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Nonsense. What evidence could I provide? YouTube videos won't show them because you can't see the cunts.



I know that eyesight worsens with age, but cyclists without lights aren't invisible. They would appear in a video, if you had one.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 18, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> Happy to help you out here.
> 
> This was one piece of evidence chosen by me at my convenience. I don't know he intricacies of Youtube's search algorithm, but I don't think they have a strong bias on the whole 'do cyclists tend to use lights' debate.
> 
> ...


yeh. as you underline here it was very much a piece of "evidence" chosen at random with no consideration given to why it was made, why it was posted, why inner london privileged (not to mention what inner london is)...

in summary it's a video of no evidential value whatsoever


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> I know that eyesight worsens with age, but cyclists without lights aren't invisible. They would appear in a video, if you had one.





The first one I opened. At least half a dozen unlit and several of the ones with lights have those pitiful little fag-end things that may as well not be there. That's without commenting on the appalling standard of cycling being displayed in general here. Was one of them you?

Lots of pavement cyclists too.


----------



## bemused (Sep 18, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> sadly he'll almost certainly be out in nine.



On Good Morning in 10


----------



## Reiabuzz (Sep 18, 2017)

Dogsauce said:


> That's quite a high sentence for killing somebody with a vehicle. Unlucky.
> 
> Reckon that could be appealed.



He didn't do himself any favours by his use of social media afterwards and complete lack of remorse in the courtroom. He probably wouldn't have got such a harsh deal if he hadn't been such an utter cunt. Apparently he even shouted at her as she was lying on the floor.


----------



## Reiabuzz (Sep 18, 2017)

Maybe getting a bleeding skull tatoo on your head before trial wasn't such a good idea either.


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 18, 2017)

Reiabuzz said:


> He didn't do himself any favours by his use of social media afterwards and complete lack of remorse in the courtroom. He probably wouldn't have got such a harsh deal if he hadn't been such an utter cunt. Apparently he even shouted at her as she was lying on the floor.


 
If someone stepped out in front of me and knocked me off the bike there's a chance that I'd be a bit shouty immediately after, adrenaline kind of does that for you. Wouldn't mark someone down for that really. I don't imagine he'd thought that she'd died either, you'd be very unlucky to die as a result of such a low-speed/low-energy collision.


----------



## Reiabuzz (Sep 18, 2017)

he had no front brakes. case closed basically right there. i assume if he hadn't gone home afterwards and got straight on cycling forums he might not be looking at a stretch. he's an idiot. and he's a pretty boy. gonna be fun for him inside.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2017)

20 year olds go to young offenders institutions?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 18, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> Incidence of statistical cherry-picking: 100%


 
I admit that my sample size is a bit thin and there may be some confirmation bias going on, but will be go-proing it tomorrow for the lolz.


----------



## George & Bill (Sep 18, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. as you underline here it was very much a piece of "evidence" chosen at random with no consideration given to why it was made, why it was posted, why inner london privileged (not to mention what inner london is)...
> 
> in summary it's a video of no evidential value whatsoever



Not at all. I wouldn't have posted the video if it seemed to have an obvious anti-motorist axe to grind. As far as I can see, it's a pretty boring video with no obvious point to make overall. The commentary points out bad driving and cycling from various quarters. 

The reason for 'privileging' inner London is pretty obvious – that's where most of the cyclists are.


----------



## George & Bill (Sep 18, 2017)

not-bono-ever said:


> I admit that my sample size is a bit thin and there may be some confirmation bias going on, but will be go-proing it tomorrow for the lolz.



I'm also talking about the fact that you're picking things that cyclists do. I'd wager that more than a few cars also drove past you over the limit, or with drivers using phones on their laps...


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Sep 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> 20 year olds go to young offenders institutions?


Yup. It's the slightly less shit alternative to prison until you turn 22.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 18, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> Not at all. I wouldn't have posted the video if it seemed to have an obvious anti-motorist axe to grind. As far as I can see, it's a pretty boring video with no obvious point to make overall. The commentary points out bad driving and cycling from various quarters.
> 
> The reason for 'privileging' inner London is pretty obvious – that's where most of the cyclists are.


and your source for this pretty obvious claim is?


----------



## George & Bill (Sep 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> The first one I opened.




Yes, well done, that's the one I'd already posted. 



> One of the very few cyclists in London who actually _has_ lights



You'd concede, then, that at least as far as we can see from this video, most cyclists in London have lights.


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Sep 18, 2017)

Send me to prison. I dare you. Double dare you!


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 18, 2017)

Reiabuzz said:


> This guy doesn't exactly give the rest of us a good name. What a fucking prick. 18 months in feltham then.
> 
> Cyclist Charlie Alliston who killed a mum-of-two is jailed | Daily Mail Online



Good.

Also good to read the comments from his father...



> Speaking outside court, Alliston's father told reporters his son had been given a fitting sentence. He added: 'We express our sincere condolences to the Briggs family for their loss we know that they bear the heaviest loss of all in this case.
> 
> 'While my son Charlie, while acquitted of the most serious charge in this case, he has been sentenced appropriately. 'I would thank to thank the jury for the evident care they took in this landmark case also like to thank the judge for the fair way the case was conducted.'



...although I doubt the little prick will be happy with that.


----------



## Reiabuzz (Sep 18, 2017)

Must be a very tough decision for a dad to make a statement like that. Well done to him.

The little shit will probably be out in 3 months anyway.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 18, 2017)

Reiabuzz said:


> Must be a very tough decision for a dad to make a statement like that. Well done to him.
> 
> The little shit will probably be out in 3 months anyway.



nah, 9months for good behaviour, I don't think you can get out in 3 from an 18 month sentence.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> Yes, well done, that's the one I'd already posted.


Ah, I didn't look at yours. So you lied about it.


> You'd concede, then, that at least as far as we can see from this video, most cyclists in London have lights.


Of course not.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2017)

MAD-T-REX said:


> Yup. It's the slightly less shit alternative to prison until you turn 22.


Didn't know that.


----------



## ffsear (Sep 18, 2017)

Hope he enjoys his time inside.


----------



## steeplejack (Sep 18, 2017)

eighteen months in Feltham should soften those arrogant edges a little.

what a cunt.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 18, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> So, would you say that this video is staged?
> 
> 
> 
> It shows cycling (and driving) of highly variable quality, but I only manage to spot one cyclist out of dozens lacking a rear light.



Would you say THIS video is staged, where the vast majority of cyclists have no lights?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Would you say THIS video is staged, where the vast majority of cyclists have no lights?



Does that repeat?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Does that repeat?


I think he just cut out the parts with no cyclists in view, in order to shorten the video.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 18, 2017)

MAD-T-REX said:


> Yup. It's the slightly less shit alternative to prison until you turn 22.



I think an adult prison would be a more peaceful place to spend time than a YOI. 

But this wimpy, arrogant twat will probably have an interesting time wherever he ends up.


----------



## maomao (Sep 18, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> I think he just cut out the parts with no cyclists in view, in order to shorten the video.


Or rather he's cut out all the cyclists with lights on. But most motorists only notice cyclists that they judge to be misbehaving in some way anyway.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2017)

maomao said:


> Or rather he's cut out all the cyclists with lights on.


Even if that were the case there are at least 10 cyclists without lights on that. The guy cycling with no hands on the bars _and_ no lights was particularly impressive.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 18, 2017)

maomao said:


> Or rather he's cut out all the cyclists with lights on. But most motorists only notice cyclists that they judge to be misbehaving in some way anyway.


But he hasn't cut out all the cyclists with lights on, has he? There were a few cyclists with lights in the video. How many cars did you see without lights?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 18, 2017)

Of course anyone with half a brain knows the thing to do is buy a new Audi with their night-vision system, lets you intimidate cyclists without lights as well as those with...


----------



## maomao (Sep 18, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> But he hasn't cut out all the cyclists with lights on, has he? There were a few cyclists with lights in the video. How many cars did you see without lights?


What's it got to do with cars? Whenever I put anything up about cars I get told this is the bike thread.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 18, 2017)

If I can add another anecdata point into the cyclists lights discussion.
In 2014 or 2015 because some stupid councillor was doing the usual cyclists blah blah blah thing and had a massive rant about cyclists without lights, we said we'd satisfy their bullshit by spending some time, with police, at points on the two busiest cycling routes out of Birmingham city centre, two pinch points where cyclist's have to slow down to enter a park. We'd stop any without lights, the police would chat to them and then give them single-led lights (edit: and we'd offer them cycle training).
In four nights, two hours each night, two at each location we had over 300 cyclists pass us (in total). We stopped 0 cyclists. We gave out 0 lights. Literally every cyclist had lights. Every single one.
The councillor shut up about lights after we informed them about the hundreds and hundreds of pounds in police and council funding time they had just wasted.

I do sometimes see cyclists without lights but it's rare. Birmingham is not London tho as we've found out already on this thread.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2017)

maomao said:


> What's it got to do with cars?


He's pointing out that the ratio of dickheads to responsible road users, is significantly higher among cyclists than drivers. 

As if it needed mentioning.


----------



## sealion (Sep 18, 2017)

MAD-T-REX said:


> Yup. It's the slightly less shit alternative to prison until you turn 22.


If he gets sent to feltham he will get ruined. It's worse than Brixton and Wandsworth rolled into one. He will certainly take a hiding and get robbed in Feltham.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 18, 2017)

It has an appalling reputation, totally unsafe and virtually feral from what I hear.


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Sep 18, 2017)

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-con...-remarks-hhj-wendy-joseph-qc-r-v-alliston.pdf

The full sentencing remarks. Highlights:



> You have expressed in this court-room the view that you were a completely responsible rider adjusting your riding to the road conditions. Having heard your evidence, I have no doubt that, even now, after all that has happened, you remain obstinately sure of yourself and your own abilities. I have no doubt you are wrong in this assessment. You were an accident waiting to happen.





> It was clear to you that she was in danger. It was your responsibility as a road-user to ensure you did not run into her. This must have been obvious to you, and you did indeed swerve and slow to between 10-14 mph as you went through the yellow-box at the junction of Old St and Charlotte Road. You shouted at her twice to (in your own words) ‘get out of the fucking way’. She reached almost the centre of the road but could not go further because of on-coming traffic. On your own account you did not try to slow any more but, having shouted at her twice, you took the view she should get out of your way. You said in evidence ‘I was entitled to go on’. That meant threading a path between her in the middle of the road and a parked lorry on your left. We have together in this court-room watched those final seconds over and over on the CCTV footage that recorded them. When she realised her danger, in the shock of the moment, she clearly did not know what to do or which way to move for the best. The result was that you rode straight into her. If your bicycle had a front-wheel brake you could have stopped, but on this illegal bike, you could not. On your own evidence by this stage you weren’t even trying to slow or stop. You expected her to get out of your way. Thus I make it clear that it was not merely the absence of a front brake but your whole manner of riding that caused this accident.





> You have throughout sought to put your blame on her. Perhaps one of the most shocking things about this case is that you could not and apparently cannot still see any fault in your cycling or judgement. You began by posting messages on line saying she was using her mobile phone, but have retracted that assertion. You have criticised her for crossing in front of you. True it is that she could have walked a little further up the road and waited for the lights to change. True it is that she put herself in the middle of the road. But it was you, Charlie Alliston, who caused the accident by riding a bicycle in a condition that meant you could not stop in a safe distance and by trying to force your way through the gap between a parked lorry and a woman helplessly stranded between you and moving traffic in the opposite lane.





> As to your culpability, you chose to ride at a speed and on a bike when you could not stop, your attitude being that everyone else would just have to get out of your way. Of course you did not set out to cause the harm you did – but the jury have found that you were aware of the risks and went on to take them...I am satisfied from your evidence in this court, that your entire course of cycling at that time amounted to callous disregard for the safety of other road users and that your culpability was very significant.


Fucking tosser.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 18, 2017)

Blimey, those case notes are pretty damning and his defence gives a real insight into his attitude.  I thought maybe he'd be treated harshly due to the high profile nature of the case but this shines a new light on the whole thing.  He's fucked himself really but his arrogance won't allow him to see that it seems. What a piece of work.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Blimey, those case notes are pretty damning and his defence gives a real insight into his attitude.  I thought maybe he'd be treated harshly due to the high profile nature of the case but this shines a new light on the whole thing.  He's fucked himself really but his arrogance won't allow him to see that it seems. What a piece of work.


Ah, but he was scapegoated by cyclist haters, eh maomao ???


----------



## BigTom (Sep 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Ah, but he was scapegoated by cyclist haters, eh maomao ???



The point I've seen being made isn't that this is somehow wrong but that had this been a driver they would not have got anything like as harsh long* a sentence nor made national front page news. In that way yes they are being scapegoated for being a cyclist, rather than a driver, but that's more of a comment on how drivers are treated by the media and legal system than the merits of this case.
Personally I still think it should have been manslaughter and he should be facing more than 18 months in jail. I still think he's been treated differently and more harshly because he was riding a bike.

*edit cos saw this word in a quote and decided it was the wrong word to use. This was not a harsh sentence for the cyclist, this was a light sentence.


----------



## maomao (Sep 18, 2017)

MAD-T-REX said:


> https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-con...-remarks-hhj-wendy-joseph-qc-r-v-alliston.pdf
> 
> The full sentencing remarks. Highlights:
> 
> ...


I think the judgement was a bit OTT but I wouldn't call the judge a fucking tosser.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 18, 2017)

BigTom said:


> The point I've seen being made isn't that this is somehow wrong but that had this been a driver they would not have got anything like as harsh a sentence nor made national front page news. In that way yes they are being scapegoated for being a cyclist, rather than a driver, but that's more of a comment on how drivers are treated by the media and legal system than the merits of this case.
> .



Its hard to know for sure.  It deffo got more publicity, but then again unusual cases always do.

I would hope that if that had been a motorist who was knowingly driving with faulty brakes and had the same 'fuck her' attitude as this guy has they would have been dealt with in a similar matter.

His defence really was extraordinary by the looks of it.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 18, 2017)

maomao said:


> I think the judgement was a bit OTT but I wouldn't call the judge a fucking tosser.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 18, 2017)

BigTom said:


> The point I've seen being made isn't that this is somehow wrong but that had this been a driver they would not have got anything like as harsh a sentence nor made national front page news. In that way yes they are being scapegoated for being a cyclist, rather than a driver, but that's more of a comment on how drivers are treated by the media and legal system than the merits of this case.
> Personally I still think it should have been manslaughter and he should be facing more than 18 months in jail. I still think he's been treated differently and more harshly because he was riding a bike.


Yeh an unroadworthy bike.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2017)

BigTom said:


> The point I've seen being made isn't that this is somehow wrong but that had this been a driver they would not have got anything like as harsh a sentence nor made national front page news. In that way yes they are being scapegoated for being a cyclist, rather than a driver, but that's more of a comment on how drivers are treated by the media and legal system than the merits of this case.
> Personally I still think it should have been manslaughter and he should be facing more than 18 months in jail. I still think he's been treated differently and more harshly because he was riding a bike.


I don't. I think he's being treated this way because he's an arrogant little cunt who refused to take responsibility for his actions and blamed the whole thing on the woman he killed. His social media escapade and lies about her being on the phone really fucked him. If he'd shown some proper remorse he'd probably be at home tonight. If a driver had done the same I'd expect him to do time too.


----------



## Reiabuzz (Sep 18, 2017)

The bleeding skull tattoo really was a delightful touch. What an absolute cunt. Moaning because he lost his job and his girlfriend over it too. Two kids lost their mum for fucks sake.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2017)

What's this about a bleeding skull tattoo?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> What's this about a bleeding skull tattoo?





> Some five months after the tragedy, Alliston got a ghoulish skull tattoo behind his ear - which was only revealed as jurors began their deliberations.
> 
> Alliston is a fan of the controversial American stunt rider Lucas Brunelle, who hit a pedestrian after cycling through a red light in Boston in 2014.
> 
> Brunelle posts daredevil videos on Youtube of himself and other cyclists racing on public roads, weaving in and out of traffic and flouting safety laws.


Cyclist Charlie Alliston who killed a mum-of-two is jailed | Daily Mail Online

The kid is a cunt, who's going to have to do some fast growing-up now.


----------



## snadge (Sep 18, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> I'd wager that more than a few cars also drove past you over the limit, or with drivers using phones on their laps...




How the fuck do you know that?

I bet you anything there is a higher percentage of cyclists pissed up than car drivers at any one time on the road.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 18, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Its hard to know for sure.  It deffo got more publicity, but then again unusual cases always do.
> 
> I would hope that if that had been a motorist who was knowingly driving with faulty brakes and had the same 'fuck her' attitude as this guy has they would have been dealt with in a similar matter.
> 
> His defence really was extraordinary by the looks of it.





Spymaster said:


> I don't. I think he's being treated this way because he's an arrogant little cunt who refused to take responsibility for his actions and blamed the whole thing on the woman he killed. His social media escapade and lies about her being on the phone really fucked him. If he'd shown some proper remorse he'd probably be at home tonight. If a driver had done the same I'd expect him to do time too.



ok so his attitude is definitely a factor here, no doubt. I've seen quite a few stories posted today on twitter showing drivers with illegal vehicles getting sentenced but I could only look back enough to find one and remembered the details from two others:

No MOT, hit and run on pedestrian. 4 months: Driver jailed for four months following deadly hit and run

Illegally tinted windows, opened car door onto cyclist who was pushed into the path of a vehicle coming from behind and died, found not guilty of manslaughter (no other real charge possible apparently): The law is too weak, says father of cyclist killed after hitting car

Lorry with faulty brakes, kills 4. Driver found not guilty (rightly by the looks of things), owner & mechanic found guilty of manslaughter and got proper sentences (7yrs 6mnths and 5yrs 3mnths): Bath tipper truck crash: haulage company owner and mechanic jailed

Others I've found, when I've looked at them it's not been an illegal vehicle, just a joke of a sentence, like this £35 fine for killing a cyclist: Taxi driver fined £35 after killing Birmingham cyclist
So maybe there weren't others with illegal vehicles but I bet a search for no MOT would find you more than a few, my memory says most were like the first, however we can only consider the three I've got here which I think are all comparable in terms of illegal vehicle.

The first just looks like far too light a sentence to me, especially with the hit and run. The second is the most interesting, as from reading the available newspaper reports I don't know why they found him not guilty. West Mids police say there is an issue with road traffic laws in that they talk about "standard of driving falling (far/greatly) below that standard that would be expected of a driver" (paraphrased - the words in the brackets change depending on whether it's due care & attention or the two higher charges that I've forgotten what they are called right now) and that juries, being made up of people who drive, look at their own standard of driving and think that they could easily have done that and consider themselves a decent standard of driving so tend not to convict (more of a problem with the higher charges). I don't think that can extend to manslaughter really but I wonder if something like that went on, the driver admitted not looking and they jury felt they do that all the time so it's not manslaughter and the illegal tint is not relevant because he never looked so wouldn't have seen it in a legal vehicle.
The third is proper.
I may need to accept here that my view is very much coloured by cases like the £35 fine one that I've linked, not ones with illegal vehicles but ones where the driver has been charged lightly and sentenced lightly, and that is what happens generally, and my perception here is wrong, but I'd really want to find more cases with illegal cars tbh.

I don't remember any of them making front page news, the first one only in the local paper. Media goes for it for a few reasons - it's rare so it's news; clickbait supreme as the online cycling community (in as much as that exists) bites, so easily trolled; I'm sure there's a third non cyclist-hating reason I am forgetting. But that's not it, because when you look at the language that is used it tells you more is going on, pay attention to the stories and see how many times headlines and articles refer to drivers crashing, how often it's cars/vans/lorries. Then see how often it's cyclists, and how often its bicycles. Then pay attention to the articles where a driver has clearly hit a cyclist and how they talk about the cyclist colliding with the car. 
Honestly, it's fucking weird and this is in papers that have style guides and could sort it out if they wanted to, but they don't and journalists defend it. I think Winot  posted up the absent driver twitter feed earlier, have a look at it, never the driver's fault.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 18, 2017)

BigTom said:


> The point I've seen being made isn't that this is somehow wrong but that had this been a driver they would not have got anything like as harsh a sentence nor made national front page news.



If someone drove a car with no brakes and mowed someone down, then jumped out of the car and started shouting at the person on the floor as they lie there dieing, then took to social media to call the deceased all the cunts under the sun, I reckon 18 months would be on the cards.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> What's this about a bleeding skull tattoo?




He had this done after he smashed her head so hard he killed her...

 


A memento of the day.


----------



## George & Bill (Sep 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Ah, I didn't look at yours. So you lied about it.



About what, pray tell?



> Of course not.



And yet curiously, you proffer no evidence to the contrary...


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> He had this done after he smashed her head so hard he killed her...
> 
> View attachment 115861
> 
> ...


Wow. Just wow. 

I hope he gets the shit kicked out of him.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> About what, pray tell?
> 
> 
> 
> And yet curiously, you proffer no evidence to the contrary...


Hmmm. A liar who can't read. Interesting.


----------



## snadge (Sep 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Wow. Just wow.
> 
> I hope he gets the shit kicked out of him.




It's a terribly done tattoo also


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 18, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> About what, pray tell?
> 
> 
> 
> And yet curiously, you proffer no evidence to the contrary...


Pray tell ... Proffer ... 

You're a bit up your own arse, aren't you


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 18, 2017)

snadge said:


> It's a terribly done tattoo also


Looks like one national action would be proud of


----------



## George & Bill (Sep 18, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Pray tell ... Proffer ...
> 
> You're a bit up your own arse, aren't you



A bit, sure.


----------



## snadge (Sep 18, 2017)

Apart from anything, a vehicle MOT only states that the car is up to standard on the day of testing, someone has an accident with no MOT does not mean that the vehicle was unsafe to drive, yes it is a mitigating factor but look at it this way, acar that was involved in an fatality had FAILED an MOT due to defective brakes, compared to a car that was not MOT'd but would fail due to a hole in the floor.

The former driver would be doing a lot more than 18 months.


----------



## George & Bill (Sep 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Hmmm. A liar who can't read. Interesting.



To summarise:

You: Most cyclists don't have lights

Me: Here's a video of a few dozen cyclists at night, from a source with no obvious axe to grind, most of whom have lights

You: I have no evidence to offer in return, but stick by my claim anyway. 

Tell me if I missed anything.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 18, 2017)

snadge said:


> Apart from anything, a vehicle MOT only states that the car is up to standard on the day of testing, someone has an accident with no MOT does not mean that the vehicle was unsafe to drive, yes it is a mitigating factor but look at it this way, acar that was involved in an fatality had FAILED an MOT due to defective brakes, compared to a car that was not MOT'd but would fail due to a hole in the floor.
> 
> The former driver would be doing a lot more than 18 months.


Yeh where yer man bought a bike knowing it was unfit for road use and without making any adjustment used it on the road at the cost of a woman's life, uninsured as almost all cyclists are...


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 18, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> To summarise:
> 
> You: Most cyclists don't have lights
> 
> ...


This would be the video of no evidential value I suppose


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2017)

BigTom said:


> ok so his attitude is definitely a factor here, no doubt. I've seen quite a few stories posted today on twitter showing drivers with illegal vehicles getting sentenced but I could only look back enough to find one and remembered the details from two others:
> 
> No MOT, hit and run on pedestrian. 4 months: Driver jailed for four months following deadly hit and run
> 
> ...



The first one: agree with you. Driver should've served at least 5 years. 

Second one: I can see why manslaughter failed (same reason it did with this scumbag cyclist) and I'm not sure what law could be applied to the car dooring of a passer by. What if the passenger had done it? It's not _really_ a motoring offence is it? The guy has certainly been a twat but I can see how, if he showed masses of genuine remorse, he'd escape a custodial sentence. 

The third one we're agreed is correct. 

Fuck knows what happened in the Birmingham cab driver case. On the strength of that article it seems ridiculous but I'd want to read more about it.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 18, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> He had this done after he smashed her head so hard he killed her...
> 
> View attachment 115861
> 
> ...



Fucking cunt.


----------



## snadge (Sep 18, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> To summarise:
> 
> You: Most cyclists don't have lights
> 
> ...



I notice you haven't taken me up on my wager.


----------



## George & Bill (Sep 18, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Would you say THIS video is staged, where the vast majority of cyclists have no lights?






Saul Goodman said:


> I think he just cut out the parts with no cyclists in view, in order to shorten the video.





maomao said:


> Or rather he's cut out all the cyclists with lights on. But most motorists only notice cyclists that they judge to be misbehaving in some way anyway.





Spymaster said:


> Even if that were the case there are at least 10 cyclists without lights on that. The guy cycling with no hands on the bars _and_ no lights was particularly impressive.





Saul Goodman said:


> But he hasn't cut out all the cyclists with lights on, has he? There were a few cyclists with lights in the video. How many cars did you see without lights?



There you go. Perhaps I am crediting Youtubers with too much art, but if I was going to fabricate something, I might try not to make my fabrication too obvious.

Which is not to say that the video you posted is of no evidential value, Saul Goodman. But just to compare:

My video showed perhaps some dozens of cyclists – yours showed maybe 10.

My video was unedited – the time over which it took place was clear. Yours was edited – perhaps innocently, but we don't know.

My video was of streets I can identify – perhaps you can help us with where yours was shot?

My video was posted by someone with no obvious axe to grind – yours makes the point it wishes to make clear. 

So in short – thanks for posting something like some evidence, but I don't think you're winning the floating voters for now.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> Tell me if I missed anything.


Well there's the small matter of a video subsequently posted by someone else, and my own experience and that of just about every other Londoner on the thread who isn't deluded or lying. Away with you now, it looks like a decent discussion is about to break out. You won't be required.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> The first one: agree with you. Driver should've served at least 5 years.
> 
> Second one: I can see why manslaughter failed (same reason it did with this scumbag cyclist) and I'm not sure what law could be applied to the car dooring of a passer by. What if the passenger had done it? It's not _really_ a motoring offence is it? The guy has certainly been a twat but I can see how, if he showed masses of genuine remorse, he'd escape a custodial sentence.
> 
> ...



on the second one, afaik (ianal) there is a specific offence of something like "opening a car door causing injury" which is simply a fine. By the sounds of it this was an issue with the law meaning there was no secondary charge available, and then as you say the same thing as with the cyclist.

The taxi driver, from what I remember, it came down to the fact that they couldn't determine whether he died because of injuries sustained in the initial collision, or whilst being carried on the bonnet, or in the resulting collision with the tree, and for some reason that made a difference, because if he'd died from hitting the tree it wasn't as much the drivers fault (even though he'd been thrown into the tree by the crash with the driver). I was totally confused by the case when it happened and how the legal wranglings could end up where they did, it was a real wtf? thing even when I looked at it, so much so that I really can't remember the detail now because it made no real sense at all.


----------



## George & Bill (Sep 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Well there's the small matter of a video subsequently posted by someone else, and my own experience and that of just about every other Londoner on the thread that isn't deluded or lying. Away with you now, it looks like a decent discussion is about to break out. You won't be required.



I've dealt with that other video above. Meanwhile, forgive me for not spending too much time on your 'some people who agree with me agree with me' argument


----------



## maomao (Sep 18, 2017)

Anyway, on this matter I must say I agree wholeheartedly and enthusiastically with Saul Goodman who has put it far better than I ever could:



Saul Goodman said:


> Why don't people just not cross the road until it's safe to do so?





Saul Goodman said:


> Actually, no. Enforcing crossing at designated crossing points does not in any way affect their freedom.
> Roads are for vehicles. Footpaths (it's in the name) are for pedestrians.
> How is asking someone to cross the road at a designated crossing point an infringement on their human rights, any more so than limiting car drivers' speed to 20mph?





Saul Goodman said:


> How so?
> I have basic survival instincts, which prevent me from walking out in front of moving vehicles.





Saul Goodman said:


> Does anyone here believe that at some stage people have a responsibility to not get themselves killed?





Saul Goodman said:


> I really do fear that we're heading into Americanism. Where it's always someone elses fault.





Saul Goodman said:


> It isn't a thread on car use. It's a thread on physics and common sense, which, it appears, isn't so common.
> If you walk out in front of a two ton vehicle, there's only going to be one loser, no matter what speed it's travelling at.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 18, 2017)

I bet this cunt jumped a whole load of red lights - Cyclist breaks around the world record


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 18, 2017)

BigTom said:


> on the second one, afaik (ianal) there is a specific offence of something like "opening a car door causing injury" which is simply a fine.



When I was hit by a truck door the copper who came to see me in St Thomas' said the offence was 'opening the door to danger' and that they only ever did people for it if they were professional drivers, as the truck driver was. But it was only going to be a fine, which was OK with me, poor bloke was in bits and I got a slug of morphine and two weeks in the Caribbean out of it...


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2017)

BigTom said:


> The taxi driver, from what I remember, it came down to the fact that they couldn't determine whether he died because of injuries sustained in the initial collision, or whilst being carried on the bonnet, or in the resulting collision with the tree, and for some reason that made a difference, because if he'd died from hitting the tree it wasn't as much the drivers fault (even though he'd been thrown into the tree by the crash with the driver). I was totally confused by the case when it happened and how the legal wranglings could end up where they did, it was a real wtf? thing even when I looked at it, so much so that I really can't remember the detail now because it made no real sense at all.


What was the reason given for the cyclist being carried 90 meters by the car?


----------



## George & Bill (Sep 18, 2017)

snadge said:


> How the fuck do you know that?
> 
> I bet you anything there is a higher percentage of cyclists pissed up than car drivers at any one time on the road.





snadge said:


> I notice you haven't taken me up on my wager.



Sorry, there are quite a few boring and thick people for me to attempt to educate here, you have to wait your turn sonny.

I know that a significant proportion of motorists break the speed limit because there are these things by the side of the road that display the speed of passing vehicles. I know that a significant number of people text and drive, because I see them do it as I am cycling (or sometimes walking) along.

As to your bet – I agree with you.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> When I was hit by a truck door the copper who came to see me in St Thomas' said the offence was 'opening the door to danger' and that they only ever did people for it if they were professional drivers, as the truck driver was. But it was only going to be a fine, which was OK with me, poor bloke was in bits and I got a slug of morphine and two weeks in the Caribbean out of it...


Oh yes, I remember that.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 18, 2017)

maomao said:


> Anyway, on this matter I must say I agree wholeheartedly and enthusiastically with Saul Goodman who has put it far better than I ever could:



Saul's basic premise is wrong though; roads are not just for vehicles.


----------



## maomao (Sep 18, 2017)

I got doored by a silly cow who jumped out of a taxi that hadn't even pulled over on Moorgate. Driver and passenger fucked off leaving me on the floor. Lovely people.


----------



## alan_ (Sep 18, 2017)

How much blame (out of interest) should be laid ate the victims door for attempting to cross a road in such a way that the ensuing circumstances followed.Is this now carte blanche for anyone to run into the road to test the reactions /brakes/MOT/legality of the other users or should we still look left and right.
As for tattoos tweets etc., I thought Lady Justice was blind.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> I've dealt with that other video above.


By no means convincingly. Now go away.


----------



## maomao (Sep 18, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Saul's basic premise is wrong though; roads are not just for vehicles.


Okay, I've changed my mind I don't agree with him at all.


----------



## maomao (Sep 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> By no means convincingly. Now go away.


It's a video about cyclists without lights that repeatedly cuts to another section several seconds long showing a cyclist without lights passing. Without a time frame it's meaningless.


----------



## maomao (Sep 18, 2017)

Hopefully he'll learn how to nick cars in Feltham and he can stop being a menace.


----------



## George & Bill (Sep 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> By no means convincingly. Now go away.



Don't you feel embarrassed, making a claim, failing to back it up, then having to have some even bigger loser on the internet try to back you up, only to post something that's obviously doctored and of almost no evidential value?

I must say that I'd be feeling embarrassed, if I were you.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> What was the reason given for the cyclist being carried 90 meters by the car?



There was a collision but they couldn't determine the cause of the collision - this is the legal wrangling, there were only two witnesses and one of them is dead, the other is the taxi driver. So they collided, not known whose fault. Then the taxi driver drove 90m with him on the bonnet, eventually crashing into a tree. The coroner/court/whoever couldn't determine if the death was caused by:
(a) the collision, which may or may not have been the drivers fault.
(b) the 90 meter journey
(c) the final collision
(d) a combination of the above.

So they charged the driver with due care and attention and the court only fined him £35, as it the CPS felt it would not be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the cyclist hadn't caused and died in the original collision, in which case the driver was only guilty of managing to drive for 90m with someone on their bonnet, taking out road signs before crashing into a tree, which is, apparently, driving without due care and attention. 
I can sort of see the legal issue with charging the driver with death by dangerous driving, although it's a stretch really, but not even charging them with dangerous driving (or whatever the other due care type charges are called) is disgraceful.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 18, 2017)

alan_ said:


> , I thought Lady Justice was blind.




Then you're a fucking idiot.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 18, 2017)

maomao said:


> Okay, I've changed my mind I don't agree with him at all.




Good stuff.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> Don't you feel embarrassed, making a claim, failing to back it up, then having to have some even bigger loser on the internet try to back you up, only to post something that's obviously doctored and of almost no evidential value?
> 
> I must say that I'd be feeling embarrassed, if I were you.


 You ain't from round here are ya boy?


----------



## George & Bill (Sep 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> You ain't from round here are ya boy?



If you mean 'you spend a higher proportion of your life than me somewhere other than here', then yes, you're obviously and happily right.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 18, 2017)

alan_ said:


> How much blame (out of interest) should be laid ate the victims door for attempting to cross a road in such a way that the ensuing circumstances followed.Is this now carte blanche for anyone to run into the road to test the reactions /brakes/MOT/legality of the other users or should we still look left and right.
> As for tattoos tweets etc., I thought Lady Justice was blind.


Blindfolded as anyone can see, chuck


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 18, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> If you mean 'you spend a higher proportion of your life than me somewhere other than here', then yes, you're obviously and happily right.


If you're unhappy here there's an obvious remedy


----------



## snadge (Sep 18, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> Sorry, there are quite a few boring and thick people for me to attempt to educate here, you have to wait your turn sonny.
> 
> I know that a significant proportion of motorists break the speed limit because there are these things by the side of the road that display the speed of passing vehicles. I know that a significant number of people text and drive, because I see them do it as I am cycling (or sometimes walking) along.
> 
> As to your bet – I agree with you.



Sonny LOL, you really are an obnoxious cunt aren't you.

You were fucking wrong and you knew it yet you decided to lie for effect and insult me.

BTW, you are educating no one, just lying and obfuscating like the cunt you are.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 18, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> Sorry, there are quite a few boring and thick people for me to attempt to educate here, you have to wait your turn sonny.
> 
> I know that a significant proportion of motorists break the speed limit because there are these things by the side of the road that display the speed of passing vehicles. I know that a significant number of people text and drive, because I see them do it as I am cycling (or sometimes walking) along.
> 
> As to your bet – I agree with you.


How do you know the proportion of people breaking the speed limit is significant?


----------



## maomao (Sep 18, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> If you're unhappy here there's an obvious remedy


He said he's happy.


----------



## George & Bill (Sep 18, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> If you're unhappy here there's an obvious remedy



Thanks for the thought, but I don't spend enough time here to make it necessary to put you on ignore.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> If you mean 'you spend a higher proportion of your life than me somewhere other than here', then yes ...


I can guess where you're spending your time "other than here". Can you go away now please?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 18, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> Sorry, there are quite a few boring and thick people for me to attempt to educate here, you have to wait your turn sonny.



Oh, fucking hell, this should be worth a few pages.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 18, 2017)

maomao said:


> He said he's happy.


Perhaps you should read the post again, chuck.


----------



## snadge (Sep 18, 2017)

snadge said:


> Sonny LOL, you really are an obnoxious cunt aren't you.
> 
> You were fucking wrong and you knew it yet you decided to lie for effect and insult me.
> 
> BTW, you are educating no one, just lying and obfuscating like the cunt you are.




Also, keep your eyes on the road instead of peering into car windows, daft cunt.


----------



## George & Bill (Sep 18, 2017)

snadge said:


> Sonny LOL, you really are an obnoxious cunt aren't you.
> 
> You were fucking wrong and you knew it yet you decided to lie for effect and insult me.
> 
> BTW, you are educating no one, just lying and obfuscating like the cunt you are.



I admit that I do sometime enjoy being obnoxious to people who'll react, yes. 

You'll have to forgive me – I'm not aware of having lied about anything.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2017)

BigTom said:


> There was a collision but they couldn't determine the cause of the collision - this is the legal wrangling, there were only two witnesses and one of them is dead, the other is the taxi driver. So they collided, not known whose fault. Then the taxi driver drove 90m with him on the bonnet, eventually crashing into a tree. The coroner/court/whoever couldn't determine if the death was caused by:
> (a) the collision, which may or may not have been the drivers fault.
> (b) the 90 meter journey
> (c) the final collision
> ...


But what was the cabbies defence?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 18, 2017)

maomao said:


> I got doored by a silly cow ...



Leave the sexist comments out of this, please.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> You'll have to forgive me – I'm not aware of having lied about anything.


You said that there was only one cyclist without lights in you're video. Now that was a big fibby wibby wasn't it?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 18, 2017)

On the subject of cyclists being hit by car doors last week I learned of the Dutch Reach, which is taught to all new drivers in Holland; a driver of a right hand drive car should open the door with his left hand, the passenger in that car with his right hand. Simple, but makes you look to ensure you can time it just right to splat the fucker...


----------



## snadge (Sep 18, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> I admit that I do sometime enjoy being obnoxious to people who'll react, yes.
> 
> You'll have to forgive me – I'm not aware of having lied about anything.




You lied about pissed up car drivers, yes there are some but guess what, they get fined heavily and banned, what happens to pissed up cyclists, fuck all, £50 fine if they are caught and it's nigh on impossible to catch them if they have any savvie, apart from the fact the filth are not looking for over the limit cyclists, you know this anyway, so your statement was a blatant lie to detract from cunty cyclists.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> But what was the cabbies defence?



I can't remember tbh, if I've got time tomorrow I'll see if I can find some more info for you.


----------



## George & Bill (Sep 18, 2017)

snadge said:


> Also, keep your eyes on the road instead of peering into car windows, daft cunt.



I've ridden thousands of miles on London roads without any collisions, in no small part due to strong use of eye contact with other road users (and looking out for dumb pricks who aren't paying attention). When I need advice from a knuckle-dragger like you, I'll go down my local Vauxhall dealership or something.


----------



## maomao (Sep 18, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Perhaps you should read the post again, chuck.


He said he's happy that he doesn't spend as much time here as other people. That doesn't follow that spending time here makes him unhappy. One could be happy to have a couple of drinks and at the same time happy that one is not an alcoholic. And my name's not chuck.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I can't remember tbh, if I've got time tomorrow I'll see if I can find some more info for you.


I'm looking now but can't find much.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> I'm looking now but can't find much.



There was definitely more at the time than that mail article, there must have been a sentencing report and I'm sure that would have been analyised by some people, there's a few bloggers who I can't remember but I can find easily at work that post about this kind of stuff and hopefully I can find something from them tomorrow.


----------



## snadge (Sep 18, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> I've ridden thousands of miles on London roads without any collisions, in no small part due to strong use of eye contact with other road users (and looking out for dumb pricks who aren't paying attention). When I need advice from a knuckle-dragger like you, I'll go down my local Vauxhall dealership or something.



KTM dealership prick. I wouldn't be seen dead in a Vauxhall heap of shite.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 18, 2017)

maomao said:


> He said he's happy that he doesn't spend as much time here as other people. That doesn't follow that spending time here makes him unhappy. One could be happy to have a couple of drinks and at the same time happy that one is not an alcoholic. And my name's not chuck.


And back we go to the post until you've understood it. The only person he said was happily right was Spymaster. He didn't say he was happy.


----------



## George & Bill (Sep 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> You said that there was only one cyclist without lights in you're video. Now that was a big fibby wibby wasn't it?



Well except that I said:



> _I only manage to spot_ one cyclist out of dozens lacking a rear light


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> I've ridden thousands of miles on London roads without any collisions, in no small part due to strong use of eye contact with other road users ...


LMAO! Do you say that in a Roy Cropper voice? 

All these perfect London cyclists we have on here! 

I think Jimmy deserves another run-out.


----------



## Sirena (Sep 18, 2017)

A ittle clip from a place where cycling is sane....


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> Well except that I said:


So you are arguing that you are myopic and inattentive rather than a total liar.

Fair enough.


----------



## George & Bill (Sep 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> LMAO! Do you say that in a Roy Cropper voice?
> 
> All these perfect London cyclists we have on here!



Don't misunderstand me, Sonny Jim. I've run more red lights than you've had lukewarm breakfasts – and I've taken the odd couple of wing mirrors of dopey cunts like you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> So you are arguing that you are myopic and inattentive rather than a total liar?


Economical with the truth


----------



## snadge (Sep 18, 2017)

Sirena said:


> A ittle clip from a place where cycling is sane....



That's not sane, that bike is top heavy as fuck, sorry but that is endangerment.


----------



## maomao (Sep 18, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> And back we go to the post until you've understood it. The only person he said was happily right was Spymaster. He didn't say he was happy.


So why did you think he was unhappy??


----------



## snadge (Sep 18, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> Don't misunderstand me, Sonny Jim. I've run more red lights than you've had lukewarm breakfasts – and I've taken the odd couple of wing mirrors of dopey cunts like you.




So as well as a liar, you are also a threat to pedestrians and a vandal.


----------



## George & Bill (Sep 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> So you are arguing that you are myopic and inattentive rather than a total liar.
> 
> Fair enough.



I guess I was judging the evidence according to the test laid down. Question: do a majority of cyclists lack lights, as you claimed? Answer: from this particular video, no, they don't.


----------



## George & Bill (Sep 18, 2017)

snadge said:


> So as well as a liar, you are also a threat to pedestrians and a vandal.



I've done things in the past I wouldn't do now, sure. And yet I still don't feel that bad, because you can replace a good driver with a sub-par cyclist, and the world will still be a better place.

As for my being a liar – you'll have to elucidate that claim, or else a liar is what you are.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 18, 2017)

maomao said:


> So why did you think he was unhappy??


I said if you are unhappy, I didn't say as you are unhappy. My suspicion of his unhappiness here based around his spending little time here esp for one so long a member.


----------



## snadge (Sep 18, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> I've done things in the past I wouldn't do now, sure. And yet I still don't feel that bad, because you can replace a good driver with a sub-par cyclist, and the world will still be a better place.
> 
> As for my being a liar – you'll have to elucidate that claim, or else a liar is what you are.




You really are a dick lol.

As well as a liar, you answer what you want and ignore everything else.

Why did you point out that you pass pissed up car drivers ( without any means of verification) when we both know that the percentage of pissed up cyclists is far, far greater?

You then changed that to speeding motorists, how the fuck do you know how fast a car is going, anything with an engine is going to overtake a cyclist you stupid fucking lying cunt.


----------



## maomao (Sep 18, 2017)

snadge said:


> You really are a dick lol.


Yes. The sooner this thread can get back to jokes about killing, maiming and sexually assaulting cyclists the better.


----------



## alan_ (Sep 18, 2017)

snadge said:


> That's not sane, that bike is top heavy as fuck, sorry but that is endangerment.


All bikes are top heavy
leaving one kid behind on the pavement, that is endangerment


----------



## maomao (Sep 18, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> I said if you are unhappy, I didn't say as you are unhappy. My suspicion of his unhappiness here based around his spending little time here esp for one so long a member.


----------



## George & Bill (Sep 18, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Economical with the truth



Let me help you out here. 

If I say to you 'I have never seen Pickman's model washing down a tin of rice pudding with funsize can of Virgin Cola under Marble Arch', does that mean I'm asserting you have never in your life done as such? No! My statement allows for the very real possibility that you have done just this. All that it attests to is that to which I have personally borne witness.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> Don't misunderstand me, Sonny Jim. I've run more red lights than you've had lukewarm breakfasts – and I've taken the odd couple of wing mirrors of dopey cunts like you.


Yeah man, you're a tough guy, I can tell. The cyclists Terminator, meting out justice, running red lights and breaking mirrors. Woo hoo!!!


----------



## snadge (Sep 18, 2017)

alan_ said:


> All bikes are top heavy
> leaving one kid behind on the pavement, that is endangerment




Maybe get a CAR if you gonna take 3 squirming toddlers out for the day, 3 kids plus a rider on a standard bike is fucking reckless, a motorcycle is only allowed by law to have ONE pillion and some are not allowed ANY and they are far more centred than a fucking sit up and beg push bike.

As an added note if you had one fucking toddler with no idea what they are doing on the back of a Motorcycle, the filth would FUCKING THROW THE BOOK AT YOU.

But here we go again, look at the fucking cute cyclist with FUCKING THREE screaming brats on their push bike, how sensible.

Fuck off.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> I've done things in the past I wouldn't do now ...


I'll bet. That memory implant in _Total Recall_ was a big mistake.


----------



## George & Bill (Sep 18, 2017)

snadge said:


> You really are a dick lol.
> 
> As well as a liar, you answer what you want and ignore everything else.
> 
> ...



I didn't change anything. There was an ambiguety in what I posted originally, it's true:



> I'd wager that more than a few cars also drove past you over the limit



That's my bad to some extent – 'over the limit' could indeed be read as alcohol rather than speed (though generally it's the driver who drinks the alcohol, not the car). However, you might notice that in every subsequent post I made reference to the speed of cars – and when you brought up booze, I happily agreed with you that cyclists are probably more often pissed than drivers.

As to the speed of cars – I already explained to you some of the amazing technology that helps me gain an insight into that


----------



## George & Bill (Sep 18, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> I said if you are unhappy, I didn't say as you are unhappy. My suspicion of his unhappiness here based around his spending little time here esp for one so long a member.



I find it genuinely endearing that you think happiness is positively correlated to the amount of time spent here.

To be clear: I am happy about the time I spend here. I'm also happy that I don't spend as much time here as you.


----------



## George & Bill (Sep 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Yeah man, you're a tough guy, I can tell. The cyclists Terminator, meting out justice, running red lights and breaking mirrors. Woo hoo!!!



I'm really not sure that he would say 'woo hoo!!!'


----------



## alan_ (Sep 18, 2017)

snadge said:


> Maybe get a CAR if you gonna take 3 squirming toddlers out for the day, 3 kids plus a rider on a standard bike is fucking reckless, a motorcycle is only allowed by law to have ONE pillion and some are not allowed ANY and they are far more centred than a fucking sit up and beg push bike.
> 
> As an added note if you had one fucking toddler with no idea what they are doing on the back of a Motorcycle, the filth would FUCKING THROW THE BOOK AT YOU.
> 
> ...


----------



## alan_ (Sep 18, 2017)

i vote we leave the dog then


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 18, 2017)

maomao said:


>


It's a pity that for someone so keen on grammar you find it remarkably tricky to comprehend a sentence on the first two readings.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 18, 2017)

.


----------



## snadge (Sep 18, 2017)

alan_ said:


>




Do you think that is sensible, looks like Iran or India, when I was in Iran there were cars with like no doors driving around, just because it is allowed in other countries DOES NOT FUCKING MEAN IT IS SAFE.

Would you cycle around with 3 kids on your pushbike?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 18, 2017)

snadge said:


> Do you think that is sensible, looks like Iran or India, when I was in Iran there were cars with like no doors driving around, just because it is allowed in other countries DOES NOT FUCKING MEAN IT IS SAFE.
> 
> Would you cycle around with 3 kids on your pushbike?


Not met alan_'s kids so wouldn't presume to comment


----------



## maomao (Sep 18, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> It's a pity that for someone so keen on grammar you find it remarkably tricky to comprehend a sentence on the first two readings.


I rolled my eyes cause I can't be arsed arguing the toss over the agency of adverbs in a throwaway post on the internet with you. I am however right.


----------



## maomao (Sep 18, 2017)

snadge said:


> Do you think that is sensible, looks like Iran or India, when I was in Iran there were cars with like no doors driving around, just because it is allowed in other countries DOES NOT FUCKING MEAN IT IS SAFE.
> 
> Would you cycle around with 3 kids on your pushbike?


Depends how far I was going and what the roads were like.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> I guess I was judging the evidence according to the test laid down. Question: do a majority of cyclists lack lights, as you claimed? Answer: from this particular video, no, they don't.


A backpedal like that could only be executed by someone who's cycled thousands of miles in London without an accident, whilst jumping red lights and knocking off door mirrors.






I salute you, sir.


----------



## bemused (Sep 18, 2017)

alan_ said:


>



the look on that dog's face makes me think it is dinner.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 18, 2017)

maomao said:


> I rolled my eyes cause I can't be arsed arguing the toss over the agency of adverbs in a throwaway post on the internet with you. I am however right.


Yeh yeh. Like you were right about tenses just the other day, chuck


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 18, 2017)

maomao said:


> And my name's not chuck.



Thanks for the tagline.


----------



## snadge (Sep 18, 2017)

maomao said:


> Depends how far I was going and what the roads were like.



As a cyclist you should have to follow rules and regulations, same as any road user, cyclists don't have to, that is why you have that dangerous attitude as evidenced above.

Plenty of motorists have thought the same when in their local pub in the backwaters of no where, luckily, powered vehicle drivers have taken notice and the message has got through, cyclists seems to think that common sense does not matter and the laws laid down for road users do not apply to them.

As a sensible road user myself and a cyclist, there is no way on this vibrant, blue, green planet I would ever consider riding a push bike with 3 uninterested ankle biters squirming around on it, lack of common sense.


----------



## snadge (Sep 18, 2017)

cupid_stunt said:


> Thanks for the tagline.




Bastard, beat me to it.


----------



## maomao (Sep 18, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh yeh. Like you were right about tenses just the other day.


Past participles are called past participle for a reason.

If 'happily' doesn't refer to G&B's happiness and only DM is happily right then to whom is it obvious?

The adverbs are the opinion of the speaker, not the literal manner of SM's being right. Therefore it is correct to say (and has been confirmed) that it is G&B that is happy about not spending as much time as other people here and any misunderstanding of your post on my part was only the result of me having (perhaps mistakenly) assumed that you were capable of comprehending simple fucking English.


----------



## George & Bill (Sep 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> A backpedal like that could only be executed by someone who's cycled thousands of miles in London without an accident, whilst jumping red lights and knocking off door mirrors.



I know it must hard to take, but yes: I am the guy filtering past you, glancing pityingly first at your mid-range saloon and then and your flabby middle-aged jowels. 

Or rather, I am one of the hundreds of people falling into this category.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 18, 2017)

Spy has a 'mid-range saloon'?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2017)

BigTom said:


> There was definitely more at the time than that mail article, there must have been a sentencing report and I'm sure that would have been analyised by some people, there's a few bloggers who I can't remember but I can find easily at work that post about this kind of stuff and hopefully I can find something from them tomorrow.


Ok. From what I can gather, the CPS didn't feel that they could prove that Bhamra's careless driving caused the collision which led to the lad's death. So, the thinking seems to be that the defence could have argued that Tom's cycling caused the collision, and there were no witnesses to say otherwise. That doesn't explain his being charged with due care and attention though. I'll be interested in what you can find tomorrow.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> I know it must hard to take, but yes: I am the guy filtering past you, glancing pityingly first at your mid-range saloon and then and your flabby middle-aged jowels.


More nonsense. I never leave enough space for you to filter past me.


----------



## bemused (Sep 18, 2017)

cupid_stunt said:


> Spy has a 'mid-range saloon'?



He doesn't want his chauffeur to get too comfortable.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 18, 2017)

'flabby middle-aged jowels', I can believe.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 18, 2017)

maomao said:


> Past participles are called past participle for a reason.
> 
> If 'happily' doesn't refer to G&B's happiness and only DM is happily right then to whom is it obvious?
> 
> The adverbs are the opinion of the speaker, not the literal manner of SM's being right. Therefore it is correct to say (and has been confirmed) that it is G&B that is happy about not spending as much time as other people here and any misunderstanding of your post on my part was only the result of me having (perhaps mistakenly) assumed that you were capable of comprehending simple fucking English.


whatever, chuck. We both know how much this means to you, so if you want it then yeh, have the point, sweetling. So much for your not getting down and dirty with the adverbs.


----------



## George & Bill (Sep 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> More nonsense. I never leave enough space for you to filter past me.



In that case, I feel sorry for your wing mirrors.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> I feel sorry for your wing mirrors.


I'll inform them of your concern. They'll appreciate it.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> More nonsense. I never leave enough space for you to filter past me.



Spymaster, popping out to the shops yesterday:


----------



## George & Bill (Sep 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> I'll inform them of your concern. They'll appreciate it.



I'm afraid it's more pity that I feel for you all, old chap.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> I'm afraid it's more pity that I feel for you all, old chap.


You mean me _and_ the wing mirrors, old fruit?


----------



## George & Bill (Sep 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> You mean me _and_ the wing mirrors, old fruit?



The whole sorry lot of you, Sonny Bobby


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 18, 2017)

snadge said:


> Would you cycle around with 3 kids on your pushbike?


In this country? No.

In somewhere like Holland? Yes.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 18, 2017)

Another video where 100% of the cyclists have no lights.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> The whole sorry lot of you, Sonny Bobby


Who?


----------



## George & Bill (Sep 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Who?



You, your wing mirrors, your sagging jowls (I'm not sure whether to count the latter as two, four, or just a single entity...)


----------



## George & Bill (Sep 18, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> Another video where 100% of the cyclists have no lights.




Hit rate: 100%
Sample size: maybe two?
Comments: try again


----------



## mrs quoad (Sep 18, 2017)

maomao said:


> In my case because I think he's being scapegoated to satisfy an irrational public hatred of cyclists.


18 months. Fwiw. 

@charliealliston


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> You, your wing mirrors, your sagging jowls (I'm not sure whether to count the latter as two, four, or just a single entity...)


You're fibbing again, aren't you?


----------



## George & Bill (Sep 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> You're fibbing again, aren't you?



About the number of your jowls? If there are more than four, then I can only apologise – they might have been flapping in the wind when I saw them.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> About the number of your jowls?


No, you were right about those. I meant everything else you've posted.


----------



## George & Bill (Sep 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> No, you were right about those. I meant everything else you've posted.



Bed time for you, Sonny Bobby.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 18, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> Bed time for you, Sonny Bobby.


I'm still driving.


----------



## George & Bill (Sep 18, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> I'm still driving.



Mummy says it's time to put your train away.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 19, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> Hit rate: 100%
> Sample size: maybe two?
> Comments: try again


2 out of 2 = 100%
Try again

It's astonishing to see so many cyclists apparently defending outrageous behaviour by cyclists. The mind boggles!


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 19, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> Bed time for you, Sonny Bobby.


You're a bit of a condescending twat, aren't you.
Are you a cyclist, perchance?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 19, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> Mummy says it's time to put your train away.


She's still dead.


----------



## EastEnder (Sep 19, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> He had this done after he smashed her head so hard he killed her...
> 
> View attachment 115861
> 
> ...


That kid is a vile piece of shit. Irrespective of the apportioning of blame with regard to the incident itself, he was involved in an accident that killed a mother of 2. Maybe it was partially her fault for inattention whilst crossing a busy road, maybe it was partially his fault for riding recklessly on a road with many inattentive pedestrians (it's not just mothers of 2, but old folk, small children, etc). Nonetheless a woman died & his attitude was despicable. If I was running across a field & bumped into an old dear and caused her to have a heart attack I would be filled with guilt & remorse. This odious excuse for a human being cares about no one but himself - that tattoo suggests to me a contemptuous attitude towards ones fellow human beings.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 19, 2017)

Spymaster can;t find the previous conversation we'd had last night about the taxi driver. Suspect you found this blog yesterday anyway: The Cycling Lawyer: Update from Court: CPS v Bhamra
That's the best detailed information I can find, and includes a comment from the parents of the cyclist who I assume would have been in court (and probably the only people there, there would have been no reason for a court reporter to notice or attend this case until after the sentencing).

Was originally arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving Cyclist killed in Shirley is Hall Green student Tom Ridgway
CPS decided they couldn't be sure of the prosecution on the higher charge.
pled guilty so think he didn't need to offer any evidence to court.
So I think we don't know what is supposed to have happened in the original collision, but the 90 metre journey the taxi driver said he paniced and hit the accelerator rathe than the brake (Great professional driving!) and that the following collisions with road signs and the tree were because he couldn't see as he had a cyclist on his windscreen.


----------



## maomao (Sep 19, 2017)

EastEnder said:


> That kid is a vile piece of shit. Irrespective of the apportioning of blame with regard to the incident itself, he was involved in an accident that killed a mother of 2. Maybe it was partially her fault for inattention whilst crossing a busy road, maybe it was partially his fault for riding recklessly on a road with many inattentive pedestrians (it's not just mothers of 2, but old folk, small children, etc). Nonetheless a woman died & his attitude was despicable. If I was running across a field & bumped into an old dear and caused her to have a heart attack I would be filled with guilt & remorse. This odious excuse for a human being cares about no one but himself - that tattoo suggests to me a contemptuous attitude towards ones fellow human beings.


Is being a vile piece of shit a crime though?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 19, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Spymaster can;t find the previous conversation we'd had last night about the taxi driver. Suspect you found this blog yesterday anyway: The Cycling Lawyer: Update from Court: CPS v Bhamra
> That's the best detailed information I can find, and includes a comment from the parents of the cyclist who I assume would have been in court (and probably the only people there, there would have been no reason for a court reporter to notice or attend this case until after the sentencing).
> 
> Was originally arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving Cyclist killed in Shirley is Hall Green student Tom Ridgway
> ...


Yes, cheers. That's what I found yesterday. At first blush these cases look like something's gone badly wrong, but when you look into them it's often that, as here, there are no witnesses to support heavier charges, or indeed, there's a gap in the law.


----------



## keybored (Sep 19, 2017)

_I refute your argument because YouTube. Moreover, you have a fat chin. Take that, Sonny Delight._

Fucking cyclists


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 19, 2017)

maomao said:


> Is being a vile piece of shit a crime though?


No. Killing someone through reckless behaviour is though. Being a vile piece of shit will, however, affect people's attitudes towards you, and when those people are a judge and a jury and you're a defendant, your demeanour is going to have a very direct impact on the quality of your immediate future.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 19, 2017)

EastEnder said:


> - that tattoo suggests to me a contemptuous attitude towards ones fellow human beings.


I find the tattoo absolutely gobsmacking. To kill a woman by fracturing her skull and then get tattooed with a bleeding skull is beyond disgusting. It's a massive fuck you to the woman's family. I can only assume that the judge didn't see it otherwise he should have maxed out the sentence to 2 years. I rarely wish violence on anyone but I really do hope he gets some good hidings. Just for the tattoo.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 19, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> No. Killing someone through reckless behaviour is though. Being a vile piece of shit can, however, affect people's attitudes towards you, and when those people are a jury and a judge and you're a defendant, your demeanour is going to have a direct impact on the quality of your immediate future.



Also demonstrates whether you are someone who has made a horrible mistake, recognises this and will take steps in their life to not do it again, or if you are a fucking wanker who will likely go out and continue to behave in the same way.
The first is possibly not still a threat to other people (sometimes I think their behaviour has fallen so far below the required standard that no matter how remorseful they are, how genuine they seem to be or are about changing, that they simply should not be allowed to drive again). The latter definitely still is.
Personally I think jail should be used primarily to keep dangerous people away from other people. It's use as punishment/deterrence is questionable and the idea of rehabilitation is a joke for the most part.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 19, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> I find the tattoo absolutely gobsmacking. To kill a woman by fracturing her skull and then get tattooed with a bleeding skull is beyond disgusting. It's a massive fuck you to the woman's family. I can only assume that the judge didn't see it otherwise he should have maxed out the sentence to 2 years. I rarely wish violence on anyone but I really do hope he gets some good hidings. Just for the tattoo.


she, pa. the judge was a woman.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 19, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Also demonstrates whether you are someone who has made a horrible mistake, recognises this and will take steps in their life to not do it again, or if you are a fucking wanker who will likely go out and continue to behave in the same way.
> The first is possibly not still a threat to other people (sometimes I think their behaviour has fallen so far below the required standard that no matter how remorseful they are, how genuine they seem to be or are about changing, that they simply should not be allowed to drive again). The latter definitely still is.
> Personally I think jail should be used primarily to keep dangerous people away from other people. It's use as punishment/deterrence is questionable and the idea of rehabilitation is a joke for the most part.


On prison I think it should be used to keep dangerous people away from others, punish, and I believe it does have a deterrent effect, certainly for some crimes/people. The reason I won't rob a bank has a lot to do with me not wanting to go to prison and I haven't set about Anjem Choudary with a baseball bat for the same reason. Deterrence is notoriously difficult to prove, more so in the case of capital punishment, but intuitively it's difficult to argue against. Agree with you on rehabilitation.


----------



## bemused (Sep 19, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Personally I think jail should be used primarily to keep dangerous people away from other people. It's use as punishment/deterrence is questionable and the idea of rehabilitation is a joke for the most part.



Losing your liberty is undeably an effective punishment and is how society signals the limits of acceptable behavior. I'd agree with you regarding rehabilitation.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 19, 2017)

bemused said:


> Losing your liberty is undeably an effective punishment and is how society signals the limits of acceptable behavior. I'd agree with you regarding rehabilitation.



I don't necessarily agree. I think that a lot of drivers who kill are haunted by the death they have caused and that is a bigger / more effective punishment than jail. Secondly I think banning people from driving is, as a general principle, a more appropriate punishment than jail (for driving offences).


----------



## Winot (Sep 19, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I don't necessarily agree. I think that a lot of drivers who kill are haunted by the death they have caused and that is a bigger / more effective punishment than jail. Secondly I think banning people from driving is, as a general principle, a more appropriate punishment than jail (for driving offences).



It might also be more likely to lead to a conviction on the part of juries.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 19, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> The reason I won't rob a bank has a lot to do with me not wanting to go to prison


it has more to do with the fiasco the one time you tried to rob a branch of bradford and bingley's, pa, when you came out having opened an account instead.


----------



## George & Bill (Sep 19, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> 2 out of 2 = 100%
> Try again
> 
> It's astonishing to see so many cyclists apparently defending outrageous behaviour by cyclists. The mind boggles!



Sonny, we're talking about majorities – that means looking at something that might approach a representative sample. That's difficult, I know. But your attempt is not even close.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 19, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> it has more to do with the fiasco the one time you tried to rob a branch of bradford and bingley's, pa, when you came out having opened an account instead.



Free biro and money tube though.


----------



## bemused (Sep 19, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I don't necessarily agree. I think that a lot of drivers who kill are haunted by the death they have caused and that is a bigger / more effective punishment than jail. Secondly I think banning people from driving is, as a general principle, a more appropriate punishment than jail (for driving offences).



For example, this chap: Biker jailed for wheelie-pulling, selfie-taking M6 stunts

He didn't kill anyone or even cause an accident. 

I don't think being jailed for dangerous driving, in this case, was over the top.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 19, 2017)

There does seem a bias towards short jail sentences rather than long bans.  I guess this is more to do with the restraint of trade aspect, people need to be able to work to support the family etc.

I think I agree with others though, longer bans would be a more suitable punishment and hopefully a better deterrent.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 19, 2017)

bemused said:


> For example, this chap: Biker jailed for wheelie-pulling, selfie-taking M6 stunts
> 
> He didn't kill anyone or even cause an accident.
> 
> I don't think being jailed for dangerous driving, in this case, was over the top.




In that case, as in most others where the judge makes the call to jail or community sentence other factors come in to play; for some people being jailed will be a lot harsher than for others, a person with a mortgage who is the only earner in the household with children will suffer more than an unemployed single sofa-surfer...


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 19, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> In that case, as in most others where the judge makes the call to jail or community sentence other factors come in to play; for some people being jailed will be a lot harsher than for others, a person with a mortgage who is the only earner in the household with children will suffer more than an unemployed single sofa-surfer...



Yeah, it's like Rooney's recent sentence for D/D.  100 hours community service on top of the the 2 year ban is quite unusual for a 1st offence of this magnitude. But then again what use would a fine be?

Doubt we'll see him painting over graffiti in a high viz anytime soon mind.


----------



## bemused (Sep 19, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Doubt we'll see him painting over graffiti in a high viz anytime soon mind.



I hope they have a sense of humour and put him in an old peoples' home.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 19, 2017)

bemused said:


> For example, this chap: Biker jailed for wheelie-pulling, selfie-taking M6 stunts
> 
> He didn't kill anyone or even cause an accident.
> 
> I don't think being jailed for dangerous driving, in this case, was over the top.



No, I'd probably agree with this (depends on the biker's general attitude). However I would be in favour of lifetime bans for stuff like that, 28 months is fair within the law but I think we should be able to say to people that there's now way they can be trusted with such machinery again ever. To some extent I think the possibility of lifetime driving bans might be more of a deterrent and punishment than short jail sentences.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 19, 2017)

BigTom said:


> the possibility of lifetime driving bans might be more of a deterrent and punishment than short jail sentences.


Absolutely. I'd start with drink driving. Zero tolerance. If you're over the limit you never drive again.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 19, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> Sonny, we're talking about majorities – that means looking at something that might approach a representative sample. That's difficult, I know. But your attempt is not even close.


Oh, you're back.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 19, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Oh, you're back.


like a bad penny


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 19, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Absolutely. I'd start with drink driving. Zero tolerance. If you're over the limit you never drive again.


Well that would certainly thin the numbers of drivers on the roads. I think it should be an option but not mandatory, especially for a first offence. Half the drivers I know got busted for d&d as kids (I did at 19) and have never done it since.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Sep 19, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Well that would certainly thin the numbers of drivers on the roads. I think it should be an option but not mandatory, especially for a first offence. Half the drivers I know got busted for d&d as kids (I did at 19) and have never done it since.


"Tough shit" would be my response to any 19 year old.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 19, 2017)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> "Tough shit" would be my response to any 19 year old.


Yeah, I think unless you make the alcohol limit zero (I probably wouldn't have a problem with that), there needs to be varying degrees of penalty and the ability for discretion to be used in sentencing. Should someone who unwittingly finds themselves slightly over the limit the morning after, get the same ban as someone who drives home from the pub totally fucked after 10 pints?


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 19, 2017)

The concept of lifetime bans is an interesting subject.  There appears to be an idea that driving is some sort of inherent right that can be taken away for limited periods of time for transgressions a bit like liberty but I cannot recall ever hearing about a lifetime ban. Yet there are people on the roads who have proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted, yet it is just a never ending series of bans.  Its this idea that a lot of people need to be able to drive to make a living therefore bans are only ever temporary.

I'd certainly be in favour of longer bans working up to lifetime, but one strike and you're out?  Not sure.  Do we do that kind of sentencing for anything already?  Also if you take that approach to d/d then statistically there are other things which are just as dangerous - being on your phone, massively excessive speed etc.  You'd have to be consistent so we'd end up with a huge amount of people with life bans. It sounds great in principle but I'm not so sure.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 19, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> The concept of lifetime bans is an interesting subject.  There appears to be an idea that driving is some sort of inherent right that can be taken away for limited periods of time for transgressions a bit like liberty but I cannot recall ever hearing about a lifetime ban. Yet there are people on the roads who have proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted, yet it is just a never ending series of bans.  Its this idea that a lot of people need to be able to drive to make a living therefore bans are only ever temporary.
> 
> I'd certainly be in favour of longer bans working up to lifetime, but one strike and you're out?  Not sure.  Do we do that kind of sentencing for anything already?  Also if you take that approach to d/d then statistically there are other things which are just as dangerous - being on your phone, massively excessive speed etc.  You'd have to be consistent so we'd end up with a huge amount of people with life bans. It sounds great in principle but I'm not so sure.



Driving is some sort of inherent right though, living in a city it is easy to forget that in many parts of the country without a car who are well and truly stuck. Yeah, you shouldn't do naughty things, but to be banished from village you grew up in for life and away from any kind of countryside career you may have carved out for yourself would clearly make for a far harsher punishment for the country dweller over dem dair cityfolk...


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 19, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Yeah, I think unless you make the alcohol limit zero (I probably wouldn't have a problem with that), there needs to be varying degrees of penalty and the ability for discretion to be used in sentencing. Should someone who unwittingly finds themselves slightly over the limit the morning after, get the same ban as someone who drives home from the pub totally fucked after 10 pints?


Someone who unwittingly finds themselves over the limit the next day must have had one over the eight the night before


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 19, 2017)

Another problem with overly draconian bannings is that people are likely to drive illegally if they've no chance of ever getting their licences back.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 19, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Another problem with overly draconian bannings is that people are likely to drive illegally if they've no chance of ever getting their licences back.


Or cycle, pa


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 19, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Driving is some sort of inherent right though, living in a city it is easy to forget that in many parts of the country without a car who are well and truly stuck. Yeah, you shouldn't do naughty things, but to be banished from village you grew up in for life and away from any kind of countryside career you may have carved out for yourself would clearly make for a far harsher punishment for the country dweller over dem dair cityfolk...



Well yes and no.  There are quite a few medical reasons why you can have your licence revoked regardless of where you live.  You are deemed not safe to drive yet I've never heard of anyone deemed not safe to drive because of constantly breaking the laws.

I do get your point regarding it impacting different people in different ways which is why it should be graded like any other punishment.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 19, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Another problem with overly draconian bannings is that people are likely to drive illegally if they've no chance of ever getting their licences back.



Yes but they do that on temp bans anyway.  Eventually they have to go inside I guess, but then you argue you end up in the same place anyway. Hmmm.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 19, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Or cycle, pa


I doubt it. Many kids who lose their licence for life at 18 or 19, will very likely drive at some point in the next 50 years and that means uninsured as well ...


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 19, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Well yes and no.  There are quite a few medical reasons why you can have your licence revoked regardless of where you live.  You are deemed not safe to drive yet I've never heard of anyone deemed not safe to drive because of constantly breaking the laws.
> 
> I do get your point regarding it impacting different people in different ways which is why it should be graded like any other punishment.



Generally though when you are declared medically unfit to drive there are various state run transport options open to you, which whilst not as flexible as driving yourself, are a lot better than replying on buses or taxis.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 19, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Yeah, I think unless you make the alcohol limit zero (I probably wouldn't have a problem with that), there needs to be varying degrees of penalty and the ability for discretion to be used in sentencing. Should someone who unwittingly finds themselves slightly over the limit the morning after, get the same ban as someone who drives home from the pub totally fucked after 10 pints?



You can't make it zero because alcohol occurs naturally in very low (but varying) quantities in the blood stream.



Teaboy said:


> The concept of lifetime bans is an interesting subject.  There appears to be an idea that driving is some sort of inherent right that can be taken away for limited periods of time for transgressions a bit like liberty but I cannot recall ever hearing about a lifetime ban. Yet there are people on the roads who have proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted, yet it is just a never ending series of bans.  Its this idea that a lot of people need to be able to drive to make a living therefore bans are only ever temporary.
> 
> I'd certainly be in favour of longer bans working up to lifetime, but one strike and you're out?  Not sure.  Do we do that kind of sentencing for anything already?  Also if you take that approach to d/d then statistically there are other things which are just as dangerous - being on your phone, massively excessive speed etc.  You'd have to be consistent so we'd end up with a huge amount of people with life bans. It sounds great in principle but I'm not so sure.



I think there are some things that people do where we can just say that they should never have a licence again. The lorry driver who was changing the music on their phone and crashed into the back of a traffic jam, killing 4 people springs to mind. That person should never be allowed behind a wheel again. I would look at the two things you've mentioned as being the same as drink/drug driving. The other one of the fatal four is not wearing a seatbelt, which tbh I wouldn't look at the same, I guess because not wearing a seatbelt is likely to only kill the person who doesn't wear the seatbelt (people in the back of the car killing someone in the front being the exception, I guess there might be some edge cases where someone else is killed by the person not wearing the seatbelt).

Generally though I don't think it would be one strike, I think it would be a build up to the lifetime ban, or something so outrageous that it's just clear this person cannot be trusted to drive.



Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Driving is some sort of inherent right though, living in a city it is easy to forget that in many parts of the country without a car who are well and truly stuck. Yeah, you shouldn't do naughty things, but to be banished from village you grew up in for life and away from any kind of countryside career you may have carved out for yourself would clearly make for a far harsher punishment for the country dweller over dem dair cityfolk...



Yes, this is a problem, but they can always get a horse and cart 
The alternative would be jail really. I don't think that is a reason to let someone who has been shown to be seriously dangerous when driving to be allowed to continue to drive. At the same time I think that there needs to be a recognition that this is somewhat of a harsh and unusual punishment and efforts should be made to connect the countryside better (which should be happening anyway tbf).



Spymaster said:


> Another problem with overly draconian bannings is that people are likely to drive illegally if they've no chance of ever getting their licences back.



This is a proper reason not to have lifetime bans.
Anyway, hopefully autonomous cars will make this whole issue moot. For now I'd like to (a) see no drivers with 12+ points driving, not so much happiness to accept hardship pleas to avoid bans and (b) if black box/gps tech is good enough to have people who are banned not just retested but monitored after the test for a court mandated period as well. I would like the courts to be able to hand out longer (as in decades) / lifetime bans for repeat/ludicrous offenders, and jailtime for banned drivers caught driving (idk what they get atm tbh so that may already be the case)


----------



## maomao (Sep 19, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Generally though when you are declared medically unfit to drive there are various state run transport options open to you, which whilst not as flexible as driving yourself, are a lot better than replying on buses or taxis.


State run transport options? What are they?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 19, 2017)

maomao said:


> State run transport options? What are they?



Should say state paid for, rather than run; taxis/minibuses to school for statemented kids, a bus round here that scoops up all the care in  community folk and takes them to their various jobs and back home again, the various community buses round here that bring oldies to Sainsbury's and so on.


----------



## maomao (Sep 19, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Should say state paid for, rather than run; taxis/minibuses to school for statemented kids, a bus round here that scoops up all the care in  community folk and takes them to their various jobs and back home again, the various community buses round here that bring oldies to Sainsbury's and so on.



It's all run by Dial a Ride afaik. They work out what their buses can do then divvy up the rest between minicab companies. My drivers refuse to do it cause it pays shit. Don't know if you get access to that if they take your license away for being bipolar for instance.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 19, 2017)

BigTom said:


> This is a proper reason not to have lifetime bans.
> Anyway, hopefully autonomous cars will make this whole issue moot. For now I'd like to (a) see no drivers with 12+ points driving, not so much happiness to accept hardship pleas to avoid bans and (b) if black box/gps tech is good enough to have people who are banned not just retested but monitored after the test for a court mandated period as well. I would like the courts to be able to hand out longer (as in decades) / lifetime bans for repeat/ludicrous offenders, and jail time for banned drivers caught driving (idk what they get atm tbh so that may already be the case)



Usually it seems they just get time lengthened to their ban and fines, community service etc.  There is clearly a hardcore of people out there who just carry on driving regardless. I guess they've probably resigned themselves to never being road legal.  I think eventually they give a couple or weeks of months in chokey but people who end up in this position are unlikely to be strangers to prison.

In general though most people don't really come into conflict with the Police in their life.  Motoring in the one exception to this.  Otherwise law abiding people are quite happy to break the law regardless so would a lifetime ban stop people getting behind the wheel?  I dunno but agree its not a reason in itself not to do it.


----------



## hash tag (Sep 19, 2017)

Permit me to turn some thinking on this thread around....Do cyclists actually know what a traffic light is? I suspect there may be a training issue here.


----------



## maomao (Sep 19, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Permit me to turn some thinking on this thread around....Do cyclists actually know what a traffic light is? I suspect there may be a training issue here.


Do you actually find this sort of thing amusing or are you stupid enough to believe it's true. It's been demonstrated on this thread and on these boards many times that about fifteen to twenty percent of cyclists jump red lights and the vast majority are law abiding.

Do you think it's witty or something? It's just tedious and offensive.


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 19, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Should say state paid for, rather than run; taxis/minibuses to school for statemented kids, a bus round here that scoops up all the care in  community folk and takes them to their various jobs and back home again, the various community buses round here that bring oldies to Sainsbury's and so on.



There was fuck all for my dad when he was banned after a brain eneurism caused epilepsy. Fortunately he was fit enough to cycle seven miles to work on hilly country roads. Got the license back after a couple of years when it was figured out he only had night time fits while sleeping with medication.

(Some preposterous bad luck - he later had another year ban after being stung by a bee while gardening, which he's highly allergic to, and the stuff they gave him to limit the allergic reaction to the bee sting stopped his epilepsy meds working, causing him to have another fit)


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 22, 2017)

We are living in the end times.

I just saw not one but two cyclists, not travelling together, dismount at a 'cyclists dismount' sign.


----------



## maomao (Sep 22, 2017)

I'll start dismounting at cyclists dismount signs when they put up signs telling motorists to get out and push.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 22, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> We are living in the end times.
> 
> I just saw not one but two cyclists, not travelling together, dismount at a 'cyclists dismount' sign.


Pictures or it didn't happen.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Sep 22, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> We are living in the end times.
> 
> I just saw not one but two cyclists, not travelling together, dismount at a 'cyclists dismount' sign.


I just found this when I did a Google search for cyclist. 







Urban Dictionary: cyclist


----------



## T & P (Sep 22, 2017)

maomao said:


> I'll start dismounting at cyclists dismount signs when they put up signs telling motorists to get out and push.


I'd gladly get out and push my car (if I had one) if that meant I was being allowed to push it through a closed road or a busy pavement or walkway- which is normally why cyclists are asked to dismount their bikes.


----------



## mauvais (Sep 26, 2017)

Your pushed car would, thanks to automotive efficiencies, roll away from you at the first sign of an incline and crush countless pedestrians on your busy pavement. It's presumably only that your car is imaginary that keeps you from bringing this flavour of murderous mayhem to our nation's streets. It's this kind of thoughtless and grossly negligent attitude that means cyclists shouldn't be trusted with any kind of responsibility.


----------



## hash tag (Sep 29, 2017)

I am sorry that another person has lost their life in such a terrible way and mpressed that a 15 year old should help like this.

But, there is something deeply concerning to me about the picture (I dont want to lead people with my thoughts, is it just me)?



Schoolboy battled desperately to save life of cyclist hit by truck on Chelsea Bridge


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 29, 2017)

hash tag said:


> I am sorry that another person has lost their life in such a terrible way and mpressed that a 15 year old should help like this.
> 
> But, there is something deeply concerning to me about the picture (I dont want to lead people with my thoughts, is it just me)?
> 
> ...


You're right: poorly composed. Photographer should have moved back a bit to get all of both vehicles in the picture


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 29, 2017)

hash tag said:


> I am sorry that another person has lost their life in such a terrible way and mpressed that a 15 year old should help like this.
> 
> But, there is something deeply concerning to me about the picture (I dont want to lead people with my thoughts, is it just me)?
> 
> ...


Too early in the morning for riddles, Hash. 

What are you on about?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 29, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> You're right: poorly composed. Photographer should have moved back a bit to get all of both vehicles in the picture


What do you think, Spymaster?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 29, 2017)

Dunno. Emergency vehicle parked ahead of the stop line?


----------



## maomao (Sep 29, 2017)

Bike under the outside wheel of lorry making an inside turn. WHich means it either wasn't the usual left turn crushing or the bike (and rider  ) got dragged all the way under the truck.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 29, 2017)

maomao said:


> Bike under the outside wheel of lorry making an inside turn. WHich means it either wasn't the usual left turn crushing or the bike (and rider  ) got dragged all the way under the truck.


But the article makes it clear it wasn't a left turn crush anyway.

'Lorry driver took corner wide and clipped cyclist'


----------



## OzT (Sep 29, 2017)

Most trucks in narrower streets needs to make turns wide if they are to get into where they want to be.

I guess by the photo in this case he went a lot more wider on his offside to do his left turn and caught the cyclist who was going the same direction alongside the offside pavement?


----------



## mauvais (Sep 29, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> But the article makes it clear it wasn't a left turn crush anyway.
> 
> 'Lorry driver took corner wide and clipped cyclist'





> Witnesses said the cyclist was turning left off a cycle superhighway onto the bridge when she was clipped by a tipper truck and pulled under the back wheels.


Sounds like a left turn to me.


----------



## hash tag (Sep 29, 2017)

Exactly. The bike is under the outside of a lorry that's turned left. It is a traffic lights...i hate to speculate how they got like that, maybe we will never know.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 29, 2017)

mauvais said:


> Sounds like a left turn to me.


It's the lorry taking the corner wide bit though. If he did that I'd expect the cyclist NOT to get crushed.


----------



## Lambert Simnel (Sep 29, 2017)

mauvais said:


> Sounds like a left turn to me.
> 
> Witnesses said the cyclist was turning left off a cycle superhighway onto the bridge when she was clipped by a tipper truck and pulled under the back wheels.



Never believe witnesses, especially for descriptions of shocking events.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 29, 2017)

Lambert Simnel said:


> Never believe witnesses, especially for descriptions of shocking events.


so you're saying ignore the 30 or so people who went to the aid of the unfortunate woman, not to mention the driver who must be broken up about this.


----------



## Lambert Simnel (Sep 29, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> so you're saying ignore the 30 or so people who went to the aid of the unfortunate woman, not to mention the driver who must be broken up about this.



No the "witnesses said the cyclist was turning left off a cycle superhighway onto the bridge when she was clipped by a tipper truck and pulled under the back wheels."

The only way to turn "left off a cycle superhighway onto the bridge" at that junction is to be on the left hand side of the ambulance car in that photo i.e. on the opposite carriageway going in the opposite direction.


----------



## mauvais (Sep 29, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> It's the lorry taking the corner wide bit though. If he did that I'd expect the cyclist NOT to get crushed.


Perhaps not in the usual way, but ultimately if you're there at the wrong point as it turns in, you would get crushed. An HGV's rear wheels follow a tighter turning circle than the fronts.


----------



## mauvais (Sep 29, 2017)

Lambert Simnel said:


> The only way to turn "left off a cycle superhighway onto the bridge" at that junction is to be on the left hand side of the ambulance car in that photo i.e. on the opposite carriageway going in the opposite direction.


Google Maps

That's what we're looking at, right?


----------



## Lambert Simnel (Sep 29, 2017)

mauvais said:


> Google Maps
> 
> That's what we're looking at, right?



Yes, so we can speculate she was either turning right off the bridge or left before the bridge.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 29, 2017)

That haulage firm is a new registration under the wife's name after the owners were banned from operating after one of their drivers killed a cyclist in a truck turning left.


----------



## weepiper (Sep 29, 2017)

Thread here


----------



## mauvais (Sep 29, 2017)

Lambert Simnel said:


> Yes, so we can speculate she was either turning right off the bridge or left before the bridge.


Or, err, left onto the bridge


----------



## Lambert Simnel (Sep 29, 2017)

mauvais said:


> Or, err, left onto the bridge



From where exactly?


----------



## mauvais (Sep 29, 2017)

Lambert Simnel said:


> From where exactly?


From here: Google Maps


----------



## Lambert Simnel (Sep 29, 2017)

mauvais said:


> From here: Google Maps



That's on the opposite side of the road to the bike and lorry in the photo, unless you think they both jumped over the traffic lights and central island?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 29, 2017)

mauvais said:


> Google Maps
> 
> That's what we're looking at, right?


Yes. Looks like she went right under then.


----------



## mauvais (Sep 29, 2017)

Lambert Simnel said:


> That's on the opposite side of the road to the bike and lorry in the photo, unless you think they both jumped over the traffic lights and central island?


No it isn't.


----------



## Silas Loom (Sep 29, 2017)

weepiper said:


> That haulage firm is a new registration under the wife's name after the owners were banned from operating after one of their drivers killed a cyclist in a truck turning left.



It sounds weird, but this is reassuring. It suggests that this was entirely the fault of the lorry driver and of a criminally negligent owner. Something can be done. It would be much worse if deaths like this were just a horrible consequence of London being badly designed for lorries and bicycles to co-exist.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 29, 2017)

weepiper said:


> Thread here





Fucking hell. the utter cunts

Still cannot get my head around how this accident happened- can anyone explain slowly why the bike is on the right of the lorry ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 29, 2017)

Lambert Simnel said:


> No the "witnesses said the cyclist was turning left off a cycle superhighway onto the bridge when she was clipped by a tipper truck and pulled under the back wheels."
> 
> The only way to turn "left off a cycle superhighway onto the bridge" at that junction is to be on the left hand side of the ambulance car in that photo i.e. on the opposite carriageway going in the opposite direction.





Lambert Simnel said:


> Never believe witnesses, especially for descriptions of shocking events.


never believe is what you said. whether i believe you in future: that's unlikely.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 29, 2017)

Silas Loom said:


> It sounds weird, but this is reassuring. It suggests that this was entirely the fault of the lorry driver and of a criminally negligent owner. Something can be done. It would be much worse if deaths like this were just a horrible consequence of London being badly designed for lorries and bicycles to co-exist.


something can be done? what can be done for this unfortunate woman?


----------



## EastEnder (Sep 29, 2017)

Silas Loom said:


> It sounds weird, but this is reassuring. It suggests that this was entirely the fault of the lorry driver and of a criminally negligent owner. Something can be done. It would be much worse if deaths like this were just a horrible consequence of London being badly designed for lorries and bicycles to co-exist.


I suspect it's a combination of the two.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 29, 2017)

anyway, i'm not sure why this has been raised in the what do people have against cyclists thread and not some more appropriate forum.


----------



## Silas Loom (Sep 29, 2017)

EastEnder said:


> I suspect it's a combination of the two.



Indeed, but _pace _Pickman's, some good will be done if the Drummonds are jugged and other rogue directors are deterred from cutting corners on driver checks.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 29, 2017)

Silas Loom said:


> Indeed, but _pace _Pickman's, some good will be done if the Drummonds are jugged and other rogue directors are deterred from cutting corners on driver checks.


and which part of this is about what you have against cyclists?


----------



## Silas Loom (Sep 29, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> and which part of this is about what you have against cyclists?



None, and if a moderator was to decide that a new thread was needed to discuss this issue, and to move all the relevant posts, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. Seems an odd aspect of the conversation to focus on, though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 29, 2017)

Silas Loom said:


> None, and if a moderator was to decide that a new thread was needed to discuss this issue, and to move all the relevant posts, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. Seems an odd aspect of the conversation to focus on, though.


you don't need a mod to start a new thread, chuck.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 29, 2017)

lets hastily and in the heat of emotion declare existing law insufficient then backed by a newspapers chest-prodding campaign get some new law in place. Summary execution at the roadside sounds about right in this case


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 29, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> lets hastily and in the heat of emotion declare existing law insufficient then backed by a newspapers chest-prodding campaign get some new law in place. Summary execution at the roadside sounds about right in this case


yeh if there were fewer cyclists about then there would be fewer cases like this one. but remember, no executions of cyclists should occur on the pavement.


----------



## hash tag (Sep 29, 2017)

I posted story on here as I could not get my head around how a cyclist would end up on the right side of a left turning lorry.

In response to above, there is a train of thought that says the more cyclists there are on the road the safer things will become. Cyclists become more visible en masse. Motorists become more aware of cyclists. The more cyclists there are, the more facilities/road safety features they get.
the laws of probability state that the more cyclists there are, the more accidents there will be.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 29, 2017)

hash tag said:


> the laws of probability state that the more cyclists there are, the more accidents there will be.


yeh but that's cyclists for you


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 29, 2017)

Drivers that are in London regularly get used to cyclists and their sometimes erratic movement. A fair few accidents in recent years have involved drivers from out of town (such as lorries and coaches) where the operator may not have been acclimatised to the London volume of cyclists. I still remember the first time I drove in London (in a van for work) and it required a lot of attention (and stress) having to keep your eyes peeled for bikes coming up the inside and outside at all times. 

This is probably why there is hostility from some drivers towards cyclists - it's actually hard work driving when there are a lot of them about. This is also an argument for decent infrastructure to keep cyclists out of the way and moving in an orderly fashion, but half-baked infrastructure won't cut it (the likes of me will stay riding in the road if the alternative takes significantly longer).


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 29, 2017)

maomao said:


> I'll start dismounting at cyclists dismount signs when they put up signs telling motorists to get out and push.


Yeh but that's because you're utterly selfish and see it as your birthright to cycle through crowds of people on a narrow pavement outside a busy tube station.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 29, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> lets hastily and in the heat of emotion declare existing law insufficient then backed by a newspapers chest-prodding campaign get some new law in place.


No need. There are perfectly adequate laws in place to deal with drivers who kill. It's getting the convictions and subsequent sentencing that's the issue.


----------



## maomao (Sep 29, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh but that's because you're utterly selfish and see it as your birthright to cycle through crowds of people on a narrow pavement outside a busy tube station.


Which tube station is this then? My objection to cyclists dismount signs was that they tend to pepper badly designed and underfunded cycle routes as an alternative to providing for cyclists properly at junctions. There are occasions on which they do make sense.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 29, 2017)

maomao said:


> Which tube station is this then? My objection to cyclists dismount signs was that they tend to pepper badly designed and underfunded cycle routes as an alternative to providing for cyclists properly at junctions. There are occasions on which they do make sense.



Like when a shared pavement passes a driveway...


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 29, 2017)

maomao said:


> Which tube station is this then? My objection to cyclists dismount signs was that they tend to pepper badly designed and underfunded cycle routes as an alternative to providing for cyclists properly at junctions. There are occasions on which they do make sense.


Angel


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 29, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Like when a shared pavement passes a driveway...



   That's got to be photoshopped!


----------



## maomao (Sep 29, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Angel


I've cycled past Angel station hundreds of times never once on the pavement. Can't even think where the bike lane is there. Most cyclists just use the road rather than bike lanes when the bike lane is shit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 29, 2017)

maomao said:


> I've cycled past Angel station hundreds of times never once on the pavement. Can't even think where the bike lane is there. Most cyclists just use the road rather than bike lanes when the bike lane is shit.


Yeh. There are roadworks at angel junction and a diversion. Obvs it would be particularly selfish for cyclists to ride down the tubeside pavement which is narrow and crowdef by the station.
 I don't believe there is a cycle lane at that point


----------



## gentlegreen (Sep 29, 2017)

I missed that this had been done in Bristol where a famous bridge is being repaired :-


----------



## BigTom (Sep 29, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> That's got to be photoshopped!



Probably not, although the original page it was posted on is no longer live, and it's from 2007 and has been totally changed now so no real way to 100% verify it but the cyclestreets stuff is generally reliable (if sometimes historical) CycleStreets Photomap: Seven CYCLISTS DISMOUNT signs within a distance of 380 ya&hellip

It's so insane you'd think it had to be. Until you start cycling and realise that this is entirely believable, and from the people who bring you bus stops and phone boxes in cycle parts of shared pavements. @bollocksinfra on twitter is amusing for seeing this stuff from all over the uk Bollocks Infra (@bollocksinfra) | Twitter


----------



## maomao (Sep 29, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. There are roadworks at angel junction and a diversion. Obvs it would be particularly selfish for cyclists to ride down the tubeside pavement which is narrow and crowdef by the station.
> I don't believe there is a cycle lane at that point


Why is there a cyclists dismount sign then? Usually only found on cycle paths IME.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 29, 2017)

BigTom said:


> Probably not, although the original page it was posted on is no longer live, and it's from 2007 and has been totally changed now so no real way to 100% verify it but the cyclestreets stuff is generally reliable (if sometimes historical) CycleStreets Photomap: Seven CYCLISTS DISMOUNT signs within a distance of 380 ya&hellip
> 
> It's so insane you'd think it had to be. Until you start cycling and realise that this is entirely believable, and from the people who bring you bus stops and phone boxes in cycle parts of shared pavements. @bollocksinfra on twitter is amusing for seeing this stuff from all over the uk Bollocks Infra (@bollocksinfra) | Twitter



I had a grin this afternoon. I was pulling out of a parking space and saw a cyclist bimbling up the road behind in the door mirror. I had the nose out a little and could probably have pulled out safely but decided to wait until he had passed me. As he went past he gave me a thumbs up, in a "thanks for not driving into me" gesture!


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 29, 2017)

maomao said:


> Why is there a cyclists dismount sign then? Usually only found on cycle paths IME.


Because the southbound carriageway closed.


----------



## Dogsauce (Sep 29, 2017)

maomao said:


> Why is there a cyclists dismount sign then? Usually only found on cycle paths IME.


 
There is a cyclepath leading up to this a bit further back but that gets absorbed into bus lanes (might be some of those painted bikes on the road past this).  Road is blocked to cars/buses completely, with a lengthy diversion. They're pointing out to cyclists the option of wheeling 50m or so along the pavement to bypass the works. Prior to this there is a signposted diversion for cyclists via a back road that runs parallel to the east and ends at a crossing over the loop road (one of the quietway routes) but that might not be very direct for some people.


----------



## IC3D (Sep 29, 2017)

Timely reminder for cyclists that riding two a breast in dangerous road conditions is preferable until it's is safer. 
Also helpful is weaving through traffic as it increases your visibility massively to drivers as our vision is biased to horizontal objects.
Both these actions are completely legal and I've used them for years to protect myself.


----------



## T & P (Sep 30, 2017)

gentlegreen said:


> I missed that this had been done in Bristol where a famous bridge is being repaired :-
> 
> View attachment 116695


Surely if the cyclists are going at the same speed as the peds there is no need or opportunity to pass anyone?


----------



## maomao (Sep 30, 2017)

T & P said:


> Surely if the cyclists are going at the same speed as the peds there is no need or opportunity to pass anyone?


Only if all pedestrians travel at the same speed.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Oct 1, 2017)

I'm seeing more and more cyclists cycling one handed on the road while checking phone.

Just fucking don't, I don't care how slow you are going or seemingly quiet the street, it's not safe and you'd be pissed if a car driver was looking at his phone not the road. You'd also be dead.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 1, 2017)

Artaxerxes said:


> I'm seeing more and more cyclists cycling one handed on the road while checking phone.
> 
> Just fucking don't, I don't care how slow you are going or seemingly quiet the street, it's not safe and you'd be pissed if a car driver was looking at his phone not the road. You'd also be dead.


I've seen lots of cyclists cycling with both hands on phone 

Next time I'll shout boo


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 1, 2017)

T & P said:


> Surely if the cyclists are going at the same speed as the peds there is no need or opportunity to pass anyone?


Not everyone is travelling in the same direction


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 1, 2017)

maomao said:


> Only if all pedestrians travel at the same speed.


And in the same direction


----------



## gentlegreen (Oct 1, 2017)

I once refused to obey a council official on a crowded bridge.
I was more than capable of cycling at walking pace and my particular pedals might have appealed to Boudicca and my soft shoes were at least protecting *my* shins if not others too.
It was the day of a closed road cycling event when I also declined the instructions that I should sign-in and wear a helmet and hi-viz.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 1, 2017)

gentlegreen said:


> I once refused to obey a council official on a crowded bridge.
> I was more than capable of cycling at walking pace and my particular pedals might have appealed to Boudicca and my soft shoes were at least protecting *my* shins if not others too.
> It was the day of a closed road cycling event when I also declined the instructions that I should sign-in and wear a helmet and hi-viz.


I'll see your refusal to obey a council official and raise you refusal to obey a police officer


----------



## BigTom (Oct 2, 2017)

maomao said:


> Which tube station is this then? My objection to cyclists dismount signs was that they tend to pepper badly designed and underfunded cycle routes as an alternative to providing for cyclists properly at junctions. There are occasions on which they do make sense.



How about this one that I passed today (actually there were at least 3 like this):



Google Maps

If the link doesn't work it's the junction of Vicarage Road West and the Birmingham New Road (A4123) heading towards Oak Lane/the park.
You can't read it but the rectangular blue sign on the approach to the junction on the shared pavement/cycle path is a Cyclist Dismount sign. I cannot work it out, I think it is saying that cyclists are advised to dismount and walk across the side road, before remounting to continue on the shared pavement the other side. I'm going to speak to the council about these as I can't imagine they are legal.

Spymaster what do you reckon these are for?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 2, 2017)

Spymaster is currently tied-up on the naked artist thread, he'll get back to you as soon as possible.


----------



## maomao (Oct 2, 2017)

BigTom said:


> How about this one that I passed today (actually there were at least 3 like this):
> 
> View attachment 116916
> 
> ...


Classic example of half-arsed cycle route. 'We've got a bit of tarmac and we need to say we've got a green transport policy but we can't be arsed ti do it properly'. Noone's going to get off their bike there and anyone who wants to stay on the right side of the law is going to stay in the road.


----------



## BigTom (Oct 2, 2017)

maomao said:


> Classic example of half-arsed cycle route. 'We've got a bit of tarmac and we need to say we've got a green transport policy but we can't be arsed ti do it properly'. Noone's going to get off their bike there and anyone who wants to stay on the right side of the law is going to stay in the road.



You wouldn't really want to be cycling on the main carriageway here, 40mph very busy dual carriageway, and the shared pavement is ok, wide and paint separated for most of the way, with some points having the cycle lane fully separated from the pedestrian pavement by a grass verge... except that for some reason they seem to want you to walk across the side roads?
There are some really odd points at some traffic lit junctions where they've put toucan crossings in on all four sides, even though there's only a shared pavement on one side. There are then cyclist dismount signs following the toucan crossing on the pavements on all but the shared pavement side, but no signage to say there is a shared pavement on the other side of the road!


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 2, 2017)

BigTom said:


> How about this one that I passed today (actually there were at least 3 like this):
> 
> View attachment 116916
> 
> ...



Absolutely no idea. Particularly when twinned with the give way marking on the ground.


----------



## BigTom (Oct 2, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Absolutely no idea. Particularly when twinned with the give way marking on the ground.



I'm going to ask some people who really should know (including the council responsible for it). I will let you know if I get an answer!
Lots of shared pavements have marked give way signs at side roads (one of the main reasons faster cyclists will not use shared pavements - carraigeway does not give way to those same side roads) but I have never seen a cyclist dismount sign at that point.


----------



## mauvais (Oct 2, 2017)

You should look it up in the big bumper book of boring that is the TSRGD. It's probably legal, not sure why you think it isn't.


----------



## BigTom (Oct 2, 2017)

mauvais said:


> You should look it up in the big bumper book of boring that is the TSRGD. It's probably legal, not sure why you think it isn't.



I just don't understand it - what is the cyclist meant to be dismounting for? Clearly cycling on the carriageway is legal, so are they really being told to dismount to cross the side road? If not then what is it they are being asked to dismount for? The pavement is marked as shared both on the pavement up to that give way sign/dismount sign, and immediately after the side road. If it's there to instruct cyclists to dismount to cross the side road, I don't really see how that's legal signage, as cycling on the carriageway is legal.


----------



## mauvais (Oct 2, 2017)

BigTom said:


> I just don't understand it - what is the cyclist meant to be dismounting for? Clearly cycling on the carriageway is legal, so are they really being told to dismount to cross the side road?


Yes. Cycling on (across) the carriageway is in theory legal, but always only within a set of largely undefined parameters just as with everything else, e.g. not cycling down the wrong side of the road.

The sign probably exists as an attempt at risk mitigation, the well-I-did-warn-you of traffic signs.


----------



## gentlegreen (Oct 2, 2017)

They ought to put fecking great bollards on corners like that instead of radiuses.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 3, 2017)

My youngest started primary school full-time last Monday, I am lucky enough to be able to walk her to school, however to get back home to be at my desk for 9 I need to take my bike with me. There are two routes home, the long one with a busy roundabout, or up her school's road the wrong way, on to the high street and up that against the one-way restrictions, then up a one-way hill the wrong way. Loving the outlaw life


----------



## maomao (Oct 3, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> My youngest started primary school full-time last Monday, I am lucky enough to be able to walk her to school, however to get back home to be at my desk for 9 I need to take my bike with me. There are two routes home, the long one with a busy roundabout, or up her school's road the wrong way, on to the high street and up that against the one-way restrictions, then up a one-way hill the wrong way. Loving the outlaw life


Remember to always use the pavement when going the wrong way up a one-way road. It's much safer.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 3, 2017)

maomao said:


> Remember to always use the pavement when going the wrong way up a one-way road. It's much safer.



There is a 30m stretch between the high st and hill which is two way, I feel more comfortable on the pavement for that bit. 

Sadly no traffic lights on my route though


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 3, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> There is a 30m stretch between the high st and hill which is two way, I feel more comfortable on the pavement for that bit.
> 
> Sadly no traffic lights on my route though


how do the pedestrians feel about it?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 3, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> how do the pedestrians feel about it?



No  idea, if they have anything to say the noise is drowned out by my expletives.


----------



## maomao (Oct 3, 2017)

I was once approached (well, screamed at) by a policewoman going the wrong way on a one way in the city (Lothbury, back of the bank of England, my map says it's not one way anymore). Of course I responded by trotting out the old classic 'I'm only going one way' swerved round her and continued on my merry way. To my surprise, rather than chuckle at my witty comment and see me on my way with a smile and a wink she radioed her two big bastard mates round the corner on Bartholomew Lane who then grabbed me and gave me a good talking to. No fucking sense of humour some people.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 3, 2017)

You twat.


----------



## maomao (Oct 3, 2017)

For the record when approached by the police regarding suspected or alleged traffic offenses 'Why don't you catch some real criminals?' is not often well received either.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Oct 3, 2017)

TBF, the same applies if they find a bit of weed on you.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 5, 2017)




----------



## gentlegreen (Oct 5, 2017)

How do these drivers crash cars in built-up areas ?
I spotted some wreckage on the way home last night - 20MPH limit, wreckage on the pavement next to a substantial speed cushion.


----------



## snadge (Oct 11, 2017)

Here's another fucker, a seppo this time, proof that it is not just London.

Spokane woman is standing up to cyclist who yelled ‘Hot pizza!’ then smashed into her on trail

Quote of the moment:



> “I hate to slow down,”


----------



## maomao (Oct 11, 2017)

snadge said:


> Here's another fucker, a seppo this time, proof that it is not just London.
> 
> Spokane woman is standing up to cyclist who yelled ‘Hot pizza!’ then smashed into her on trail
> 
> Quote of the moment:


I don't get why he would shout hot pizza. Was he on his way to deliver some pizza? Fucking yanks.


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 11, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> My youngest started primary school full-time last Monday, I am lucky enough to be able to walk her to school, however to get back home to be at my desk for 9 I need to take my bike with me. There are two routes home, the long one with a busy roundabout, or up her school's road the wrong way, on to the high street and up that against the one-way restrictions, then up a one-way hill the wrong way. Loving the outlaw life



Wait.  You own an audi estate, you're doing the school run and it's in walking distance. Yet, you're not driving?  

I call bullshit.


----------



## OzT (Oct 11, 2017)

But it's only an estate, not a 4x4 . . . .


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 11, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Wait.  You own an audi estate, you're doing the school run and it's in walking distance. Yet, you're not driving?
> 
> I call bullshit.


he says he's able to, he doesn't say he does. i reckon he mounts the pavement in his audi estate and terrifies the local pedestrians.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 11, 2017)

Teaboy said:


> Wait.  You own an audi estate, you're doing the school run and it's in walking distance. Yet, you're not driving?
> 
> I call bullshit.



Frau Bahn picks her up in the car in the afternoons, in the mornings the Audi takes BB1 to school, a route that is served by school and public buses and a train. The infant school has given us a sticker which allows for 15 minute's parking in the town's main car park at drop off and pick up time, but of course she just slings it up on the double yellows outside the school gates.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 11, 2017)

OzT said:


> But it's only an estate, not a 4x4 . . . .



Whilst not an SUV it is a 4x4, which means that when you change one tyre you should change all four, a snip at £1200


----------



## OzT (Oct 11, 2017)

Oh that was what I meant, one of those big SUV 4.4s, lije a Range Rover et el


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 11, 2017)

OzT said:


> Oh that was what I meant, one of those big SUV 4.4s, lije a Range Rover et el



It's OK, when we change cars next Autumn we're thinking about this...








Should keep the haters hating


----------



## gentlegreen (Oct 11, 2017)

snadge said:


> Here's another fucker, a seppo this time, proof that it is not just London.
> 
> Spokane woman is standing up to cyclist who yelled ‘Hot pizza!’ then smashed into her on trail
> 
> Quote of the moment:



This arsehole appears to run a photography business ...

Ripoff Report | 7 Second Studio Complaint Review Spokane, Washington


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 11, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It's OK, when we change cars next Autumn we're thinking about this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


thought you'd drive a rolls


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 12, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It's OK, when we change cars next Autumn we're thinking about this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're thinking of getting a left hooker?

I guess it adds a certain thrill to the mundanity of overtaking on A roads.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 12, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It's OK, when we change cars next Autumn we're thinking about this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Great idea, I mean who wants to be second against the wall anyway?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Oct 12, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Great idea, I mean who wants to be second against the wall anyway?



Paint some double yellows or zig-zags in front of the wall and you'll get every Audi-Wanker in one go.


----------



## nuffsaid (Oct 13, 2017)

In answer to the thread title - my passenger door.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 13, 2017)

nuffsaid said:


> In answer to the thread title - my passenger door.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2017)

derby evening telegraph 19/6/1942

the good auld days


----------



## maomao (Oct 24, 2017)

My Uber driver jumped a red light on Saturday. I was very grateful cause it's a shit light.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 24, 2017)




----------



## T & P (Oct 24, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 118651
> derby evening telegraph 19/6/1942
> 
> the good auld days


You can tell this is an old newspaper clipping as the cyclist was reported as actually having been fined for their actions.


----------



## gentlegreen (Oct 24, 2017)

T & P said:


> You can tell this is an old newspaper clipping as the cyclist was reported as actually having been fined for their actions.


I bet they'd have had more of the mobile phone users too ...


----------



## hash tag (Oct 31, 2017)

I can only imagine that this thread has got a bit slow recently because cyclists are just constantly annoying, dangereous irrating arseholes!
For get the red lights I have seen them jumping today....I took a very tiny diversion today, the road was narrow, on coblles and had a very sharp right hand bend in it and
had jsut enough room for my car. It was of course one way. Going round the bend in it, I met head on a cyclist, coming the wrong way  FFS
2 seconds later, at a t junction with traffic lights, I correctly and legally pulled out crossed 3 lanes of a one way street to do a left hand turn. Indicated very clearly, fortunately, did a last check in my mirrors and there was a cyclist on the inside of me, who was within a hairs breath of being taken out. This is a turning that is used by many large lorrys and mini buses and anyone of them could easily have killed the bastard...yet whose fault would it have been?


----------



## hash tag (Oct 31, 2017)

Why do many cyclists where headphones these days? Is so they don't have to hear all the abuse hurled at them?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 31, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Why do many cyclists where headphones these days? Is so they don't have to hear all the abuse hurled at them?


It’s because they’re idiots, simple as that.


----------



## gentlegreen (Oct 31, 2017)




----------



## keybored (Nov 27, 2017)

hash tag said:


> Why do many cyclists where headphones these days??



I suspect they're listening to a recorded loop of their own voice, telling themselves that they are always in the right.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2017)

have we had this one? Family's heartbreak over 15-year-old Jessica who was hit by scrambler


----------



## maomao (Dec 13, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> have we had this one? Family's heartbreak over 15-year-old Jessica who was hit by scrambler


You do know that a 'scrambler' is a motorised vehicle don't you?

You want this thread :
What have people got against motorists?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2017)

maomao said:


> You do know that a 'scrambler' is a motorised vehicle don't you?
> 
> You want this thread :
> What have people got against motorists?


what a pleasant surprise it is to find you being helpful.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2017)

not had this one though

Man in dock accused of attacking couple, leaving one seriously injured


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 13, 2017)

Ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend apparently ...

Man who rammed into ex-girlfriend with his bike is facing jail sentence - Cycling Weekly

Cyclist faces jail after riding at couple

Friendly-looking chap :-

 

This man is facing jail for badly injuring a couple by cycling into them


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 13, 2017)

gentlegreen said:


> Ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend apparently ...
> 
> Man who rammed into ex-girlfriend with his bike is facing jail sentence - Cycling Weekly
> 
> ...



Woud have been so much better if he'd driven a car at them instead.


----------



## RainbowTown (Dec 13, 2017)

SpookyFrank said:


> Woud have been so much better if he'd driven a car at them instead.



Or maybe one driven right at him.

Maybe mumsy didn't buy him a tricycle for Xmas, hence his bike-rage later in life.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Dec 13, 2017)

RainbowTown said:


> Maybe mumsy didn't buy him a tricycle for Xmas, hence his bike-rage later in life.


The more assumptions you have to make, the higher the likelihood of you being wrong.
Just use Occam's razor to find your answer.
Was he angry? Yes
Is he a cyclist? Yes

Answer: He's just another angry cyclist.


----------



## RainbowTown (Dec 13, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


> The more assumptions you have to make, the higher the likelihood of you being wrong.
> Just use Occam's razor to find your answer.
> Was he angry? Yes
> Is he a cyclist? Yes
> ...


----------



## Saul Goodman (Dec 13, 2017)

RainbowTown said:


>


----------



## RainbowTown (Dec 13, 2017)

Saul Goodman said:


>



and.....etc etc etc etc etc........................................................................................................................(ad infinitum)


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2017)

RainbowTown said:


> and.....etc etc etc etc etc........................................................................................................................(ad infinitum)





RainbowTown said:


> Yes, quite.


etc ad nauseam


----------



## RainbowTown (Dec 13, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> etc ad nauseam



Yes, quite.


----------



## RainbowTown (Dec 13, 2017)

..............................................................................................................................................................


----------



## hash tag (Dec 13, 2017)

I appreciate motorist is a generic term, but I suspect it is meant to refer to car, van and lorry drivers.


----------



## maomao (Dec 13, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> what a pleasant surprise it is to find you being helpful.


Unfortunately no surprise at all to see you ignore the topic and go for a personal dig straight away.


----------



## maomao (Dec 13, 2017)

hash tag said:


> I appreciate motorist is a generic term, but I suspect it is meant to refer to car, van and lorry drivers.


Irregardless, a motorbike is not a bicycle.


----------



## hash tag (Dec 13, 2017)

I never said they were, but, I think it's important to keep them out of either camp.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2017)

maomao said:


> Irregardless, a motorbike is not a bicycle.


the clue's in the name: motorbike. so i think you'll find it is. of course, as you've made clear, this thread about the push variety of bicycles.


----------



## maomao (Dec 13, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> the clue's in the name: motorbike. so i think you'll find it is. of course, as you've made clear, this thread about the push variety of bicycles.


Too late. You're meant to start with the circular argument and then deacend/ascend into abuse.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2017)

maomao said:


> Too late. You're meant to start with the circular argument and then deacend/ascend into abuse.


yeh. all arguments about wheels necessarily circular, my sweet. but it's so 2016 to argue and then switch to abuse. i'd like to do it differently but you're so set in your ways.


----------



## maomao (Dec 13, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. all arguments about wheels necessarily circular, my sweet. but it's so 2016 to argue and then switch to abuse. i'd like to do it differently but you're so set in your ways.


Is 2017 creepy epithet year then?


----------



## maomao (Dec 13, 2017)

Cause if it is I can't fucking wait till 2018.


----------



## hash tag (Dec 13, 2017)

Oh no it's not. Refer to the title which says cyclists, which can include one or more rider on something like a tandem, a trike, trike recumbent, high wheeler, unicycle and more.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2017)

maomao said:


> Cause if it is I can't fucking wait till 2018.


Oh, you won't like 2018, chuck. You really won't.


----------



## gentlegreen (Dec 15, 2017)




----------



## T & P (Dec 15, 2017)

gentlegreen said:


>



Clearly staged, but top marks for the effort


----------



## souljacker (Dec 15, 2017)

gentlegreen said:


>




Used to do that on our bmx's when we were kids.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Dec 17, 2017)

I'm not into the let's 'video everything' malarkey but it's good sometimes to have an actual record of what it's like cycling in London in light of the 'Wanton & Furious' conviction. This video demonstrates numerous instances that could have been collisions with pedestrians with possible fatal results. I'd say the cyclist is probably going a bit fast in some takes but I think any cyclist will all have been in these situations.



Spoiler: Wanton & Furious


----------



## George & Bill (Dec 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> the clue's in the name: motorbike. so i think you'll find it is. of course, as you've made clear, this thread about the push variety of bicycles.



That's not really how language works though. "Bike", "motorbike" and "motorcycle" can all be synonyms, as can "bike" and "bicycle". However, you would be at best mocked and at worst not understood if you referred to any motor-powered vehicle as a bicycle.

Except one of these, maybe:


----------



## mauvais (Dec 17, 2017)

maomao said:


> Irregardless, a motorbike is not a bicycle.


A motorbike is a bicycle - the clue is in the name - but 'irregardless' is not a word.


----------



## George & Bill (Dec 17, 2017)

mauvais said:


> A motorbike is a bicycle - the clue is in the name - but 'irregardless' is not a word.



the definition of bicycle
bicycle | Definition of bicycle in English by Oxford Dictionaries

Dictionaries appear to define a bicycle as being peddle-powered.


----------



## mauvais (Dec 17, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> the definition of bicycle
> bicycle | Definition of bicycle in English by Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> Dictionaries appear to define a bicycle as being peddle-powered.


Pedal. To peddle is to sell. Anyway, I raise you 'quadricycle'. Have a look at the history of that.


----------



## George & Bill (Dec 17, 2017)

mauvais said:


> Pedal. To peddle is to sell. Anyway, I raise you 'quadricycle'. Have a look at the history of that.



Thanks, I'm happy to be corrected on that one! 

However, I'm not sure that I'm motivated to look into the history of 'quadricycle'. I don't think it will affect the fact that the meaning of words is determined by usage, and 'bicycle' is almost never used to mean anything with an engine.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 17, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> Thanks, I'm happy to be corrected on that one!
> 
> However, I'm not sure that I'm motivated to look into the history of 'quadricycle'. I don't think it will affect the fact that the meaning of words is determined by usage, and 'bicycle' is almost never used to mean anything with an engine.


Are you saying that the term was originally something to do with a two stroke engine?


----------



## mauvais (Dec 17, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> Thanks, I'm happy to be corrected on that one!
> 
> However, I'm not sure that I'm motivated to look into the history of 'quadricycle'. I don't think it will affect the fact that the meaning of words is determined by usage, and 'bicycle' is almost never used to mean anything with an engine.


Motorbikes and mopeds (actual mopeds, not scooters) developed from the literal motorisation of a normal bicycle, which FWIW you can add electric motors to today and apparently still call a bicycle. As biped means two feet for walking, bicycle just means a two wheeled vehicle, no matter how propelled. Now that the term is most frequently used to refer to  pedal cycle or 'pushbike' is really neither here nor there.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> the definition of bicycle
> bicycle | Definition of bicycle in English by Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> Dictionaries appear to define a bicycle as being peddle-powered.


Powered by selling things, a novel notion


----------



## George & Bill (Dec 17, 2017)

mauvais said:


> Motorbikes and mopeds (actual mopeds, not scooters) developed from the literal motorisation of a normal bicycle, which FWIW you can add electric motors to today and apparently still call a bicycle. As biped means two feet for walking, bicycle just means a two wheeled vehicle, no matter how propelled. Now that the term is most frequently used to refer to  pedal cycle or 'pushbike' is really neither here nor there.



I've got no problem with your history – it's just that meaning and etymology are not that fixedly correlated. 

'Homo' means 'the same' and 'phobia' means 'fear', but in English, 'homophobia' means 'a dislike or hatred of gay people', not 'fear of things that are the same'.

Likewise, in contemporary English, 'bicycle' means a two wheeled vehicle lacking an engine. 

Not a very important example, as you say, but quite important for you to understand how language works.


----------



## George & Bill (Dec 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Powered by selling things, a novel notion



I take it your decision to focus on the typo, rather than the fact that you're wrong, means you graciously admit to the latter?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> I take it your decision to focus on the typo, rather than the fact that you're wrong, means you graciously admit to the latter?


Wrong again, chuck. Typing a completely different word not really a typo anyway.


----------



## George & Bill (Dec 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Wrong again, chuck.



Well, that's up to you – but I trust you won't be doing yourself the indignity of holding a position without putting forward any reasoned argument for it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> Well, that's up to you – but I trust you won't be doing yourself the indignity of holding a position without putting forward any reasoned argument for it?


I don't know, do you?


----------



## George & Bill (Dec 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> I don't know, do you?



Well I must admit that judging from your record, you will probably go on holding the same viewpoint, despite not having any reasonable narrative to support it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> Well I must admit that judging from your record, you will probably go on holding the same viewpoint, despite not having any reasonable narrative to support it.


Why have you decided this is worth making such a fuss about?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> I've got no problem with your history – it's just that meaning and etymology are not that fixedly correlated.
> 
> 'Homo' means 'the same' and 'phobia' means 'fear', but in English, 'homophobia' means 'a dislike or hatred of gay people', not 'fear of things that are the same'.
> 
> ...


Homo also means man as in ecce homo, homo sapiens etc


----------



## George & Bill (Dec 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Homo also means man as in ecce homo, homo sapiens etc



From my cursory research, the order of the etymology isn't clear. But my point remains either way: 'homophobia' doesn't mean fear of men either. 

Why am I making such a fuss about it? Dunno. The specific example isn't important. But the wider point is fairly key to understanding how meaning works in language: there are a lot of background factors that lead to a word meaning a particular thing, but in the end, if it's not used that way, then it doesn't have that meaning, whatever the etymology.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> From my cursory research, the order of the etymology isn't clear. But my point remains either way: 'homophobia' doesn't mean fear of men either.
> 
> Why am I making such a fuss about it? Dunno. The specific example isn't important. But the wider point is fairly key to understanding how meaning works in language: there are a lot of background factors that lead to a word meaning a particular thing, but in the end, if it's not used that way, then it doesn't have that meaning, whatever the etymology.


Bicycle means two wheels. A motorbicycle is a subordinate type of the genus bicycle: a point the oed acknowledges when it says a bicycle is typically powered by pedals, not to mention the general use of push bike to mean a pedal cycle.


----------



## maomao (Dec 17, 2017)

mauvais said:


> A motorbike is a bicycle - the clue is in the name - but 'irregardless' is not a word.


You're wrong on both counts. Bicycles may feature in the etymology of motorbikes but motorcycles are in no way included in what is commonly meant by bicycles.

Additionally, irregardless is a commonly understood word that's in the dictionary. Again it's etymology is irrelevant to it's meaning and usage.


----------



## maomao (Dec 17, 2017)

mauvais said:


> Motorbikes and mopeds (actual mopeds, not scooters) developed from the literal motorisation of a normal bicycle, which FWIW you can add electric motors to today and apparently still call a bicycle. As biped means two feet for walking, bicycle just means a two wheeled vehicle, no matter how propelled. Now that the term is most frequently used to refer to  pedal cycle or 'pushbike' is really neither here nor there.



Nonsense. Electrically assisted bicycles have pedals. If they don't then people don't call them bicycles. Do a google image search for 'bicycle', do you see a single motorbike? Do a google image search for cyclist, do you see a single person riding a motorbike? Humans don't carry etymological dictionaries around with their mental lexicons, etymology is entirely irrelevant.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2017)

maomao said:


> Nonsense. Electrically assisted bicycles have pedals. If they don't then people don't call them bicycles. Do a google image search for 'bicycle', do you see a single motorbike? Do a google image search for cyclist, do you see a single person riding a motorbike? Humans don't carry etymological dictionaries around with their mental lexicons, etymology is entirely irrelevant.


Motorbikes are bicycles not because of the method of propulsion which has so obsessed you but because of the number of wheels, just as the police also use tricycles - in this case motorised vehicles with three wheels.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 17, 2017)

maomao said:


> ... irregardless ...


 I hate this. The superfluous "I" and "r" are clumsy and just seem wrong. Please stop it. Thanks.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> I hate this. The superfluous "I" and "r" are clumsy and just seem wrong. Please stop it. Thanks.


It is of american origin, pa


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> It is of american origin, pa


Gits


----------



## maomao (Dec 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Motorbikes are bicycles not because of the method of propulsion which has so obsessed you but because of the number of wheels, just as the police also use tricycles - in this case motorised vehicles with three wheels.


Nope, bicycles are bicycles because they are a type of object commonly recognised to be bicycles, not because of the literal meaning of the root components of the word. My 2 year old daughter knows what a bicycle is and she knows that a motorbike is not one. I assure you she has no knowledge of Latin whatsoever and does not understand either 'bi' or 'cycle' in isolation.


----------



## maomao (Dec 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> It is of american origin, pa


Is at least an honest reason for disliking it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2017)

maomao said:


> Nope, bicycles are bicycles because they are a type of object commonly recognised to be bicycles, not because of the literal meaning of the root components of the word. My 2 year old daughter knows what a bicycle is and she knows that a motorbike is not one. I assure you she has no knowledge of Latin whatsoever and does not understand either 'bi' or 'cycle' in isolation.


Right. I look forward to your 2 year auld daughter being produced as an arbiter in other threads. Perhaps her views could be sought on the terf/trans conflict not to mention the cheese and beans conundrum. 

I imagine she has internalised your notion of a bicycle rather than developing her idea independently.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2017)

maomao said:


> Is at least an honest reason for disliking it.


The ir- suffix is in any case superfluous as the word means regardless.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Right. I look forward to your 2 year auld daughter being produced as an arbiter in other threads.




I reckon she'd do better than some of the twats on here, tbf.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> I reckon she'd do better than some of the twats on here, tbf.


More entertaining certainly


----------



## maomao (Dec 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Right. I look forward to your 2 year auld daughter being produced as an arbiter in other threads. Perhaps her views could be sought on the terf/trans conflict not to mention the cheese and beans conundrum.



She doesn't really want to get involved in the former shitstorm but does feel strongly that cheese should be served (and eaten) entirely separately from the other components of the meal a matter on which I disagree.



> I imagine she has internalised your notion of a bicycle rather than developing her idea independently.



Yes, like language generally. Or are you claiming that all humans independently develop the concept of bicycles based on a prior knowledge of Latin roots?


----------



## George & Bill (Dec 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Motorbikes are bicycles not because of the method of propulsion which has so obsessed you but because of the number of wheels



Well this is excellent news! Apparently, my 92-year-old grandmother can still use a bicycle:


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2017)

maomao said:


> Yes, like language generally. Or are you claiming that all humans independently develop the concept of bicycles based on a prior knowledge of Latin roots?


I am saying that producing your daughter doesn't bolster your case


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> Well this is excellent news! Apparently, my 92-year-old grandmother can still use a bicycle:


To be a bicycle an object needs more than simply two wheels. As per the definition you posted they need to be one in front of the other. In addition I see no evidence that your 92 year auld gm able to use the frame in your illustration


----------



## maomao (Dec 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> I am saying that producing your daughter doesn't bolster your case


You're proper dense sometimes for a man with however many degrees. Once you get past the pointless pedantry and the creepy affectations there's really nothing there.


----------



## George & Bill (Dec 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> To be a bicycle an object needs more than simply two wheels. As per the definition you posted they need to be one in front of the other.



Aha! Well now we're getting somewhere. 

The etymology of 'bicycle' can't tell us where the wheels need to go in relation to each other – and yet, we do know that they may not be placed side-by-side. 

Could it just be that a given word, within the context of a living society of people, has a meaning at once more expansive and more specific than any appraisal of its lexical forebears can hint at?


----------



## George & Bill (Dec 17, 2017)

maomao said:


> You're proper dense sometimes for a man with however many degrees. Once you get past the pointless pedantry and the creepy affectations there's really nothing there.



The problem to now is that we've been arguing from two different logical frameworks. 

You and I say 'this is what the word is understood to mean, so, that's what it means'.

He says, 'the word is made up of x and y, so it means xy'.

The final problem for him comes when I produce another example of xy, but one which is even more obviously not represented by the word.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2017)

maomao said:


> You're proper dense sometimes for a man with however many degrees. Once you get past the pointless pedantry and the creepy affectations there's really nothing there.


Yeh. But no refutation, I see, of my case that motorbicycles are a class of bicycle beyond your ultimate support, that your daughter agrees with you. Who's stupider, me or you spending so much time on me? Especially when time and again you've thrown your toys out the pram and said you'd chuck me on ignore/never engage with me again. I wish I could trust you to tell the truth.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2017)

George & Bill said:


> The problem to now is that we've been arguing from two different logical frameworks.
> 
> You and I say 'this is what the word is understood to mean, so, that's what it means'.
> 
> ...


You could produce a two wheeled trolley as used to shift boxes. Not a vehicle .'. not a bicycle


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Dec 17, 2017)

Jeez, Welcome to Semantic Sunday


----------



## maomao (Dec 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. But no refutation, I see, of my case that motorbicycles are a class of bicycle beyond your ultimate support, that your daughter agrees with you. Who's stupider, me or you spending so much time on me? Especially when time and again you've thrown your toys out the pram and said you'd chuck me on ignore/never engage with me again. I wish I could trust you to tell the truth.



I suspect you're being obtuse rather than stupid but to clarify, I am not appealing to my daughter as an authority on two-wheeled vehicles but pointing out than any native-English speaking small child (above the age of 3 say) can correctly distinguish bicycles from motorcycles with no knowledge whatsoever of Latin roots. It's you that has failed to provide any example of the word bicycle being used ambiguously to refer to both 'push' bikes and motorbikes. All you've effectively done is poke your nose in the air and announce 'it's Latin don't you know'.

And while I reserve the right to join the now thirty-odd posters who have you on ignore  for the sake of my blood pressure when you're being particularly obnoxious, as a rule I don't because you have a record of slagging off people behind their backs if you think they have you on ignore, and because you're a bully who enjoys chasing posters from the boards and forcing people to put you on ignore and I'd rather not give you the satisfaction.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2017)

maomao said:


> I suspect you're being obtuse rather than stupid but to clarify, I am not appealing to my daughter as an authority on two-wheeled vehicles but pointing out than any native-English speaking small child (above the age of 3 say) can correctly distinguish bicycles from motorcycles with no knowledge whatsoever of Latin roots. It's you that has failed to provide any example of the word bicycle being used ambiguously to refer to both 'push' bikes and motorbikes. All you've effectively done is poke your nose in the air and announce 'it's Latin don't you know'.
> 
> And while I reserve the right to join the now thirty-odd posters who have you on ignore  for the sake of my blood pressure when you're being particularly obnoxious, as a rule I don't because you have a record of slagging off people behind their backs if you think they have you on ignore, and because you're a bully who enjoys chasing posters from the boards and forcing people to put you on ignore and I'd rather not give you the satisfaction.


Yeh. So what you'd rather do is to lie about my argument, which isn't that motorbikes are equivalent - equal to - synonymous with - your common or garden pushbike, that the names are interchangeable: it is that motorbikes are a subtype of the bicycle. But you're always much happier mischaracterising arguments and chucking round insults.

Anyway I don't know why my view on this is so important to you that I must be proved wrong and stupid and you must be proved superior and correct. But I'd be interested if you're up for sharing.


----------



## maomao (Dec 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> motorbikes are a subtype of the bicycle


What does this mean then?


----------



## maomao (Dec 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> mischaracterising arguments


You mean like when you suggested I was appealing to my daughter as some sort of authority?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2017)

maomao said:


> What does this mean then?


You can parse an English sentence, right?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2017)

maomao said:


> You mean like when you suggested I was appealing to my daughter as some sort of authority?


You were saying if even your daughter could tell the difference you were right and I was wrong.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2017)

So anyway something I have against so many cyclists is their entitled belief they are in the right and, as in the exchange above, other people are not only in the wrong but must have their noses rubbed in the shit, like happened to poor mauvais


----------



## maomao (Dec 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> You were saying if even your daughter could tell the difference you were right and I was wrong.


No. That's more than just an oversimplification of what I said, it's a complete misreading. I was using her as an example of someone who couldn't possibly have knowledge of Latin roots in order to demonstrate that etymology doesn't define usage.

The thing that both bicycles and motorbikes are subtypes of by the way is 'bikes'. Stick that in Google image search and you'll get pictures of both andit's easy to make ambiguous sentences with.


----------



## maomao (Dec 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> So anyway something I have against so many cyclists is their entitled belief they are in the right and, as in the exchange above, other people are not only in the wrong but must have their noses rubbed in the shit, like happened to poor mauvais



Who rubbed Mauvais' nose in the shit? Why was me saying he was wrong any different from him saying I was wrong? As far as I know Mauvais is a cyclist and I'm not anyway.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2017)

maomao said:


> No. That's more than just an oversimplification of what I said, it's a complete misreading. I was using her as an example of someone who couldn't possibly have knowledge of Latin roots in order to demonstrate that etymology doesn't define usage.
> 
> The thing that both bicycles and motorbikes are subtypes of by the way is 'bikes'. Stick that in Google image search and you'll get pictures of both andit's easy to make ambiguous sentences with.


And I look forward to your expanded explanation of the great difference between bicycle and bike


----------



## maomao (Dec 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> And I look forward to your expanded explanation of the great difference between bicycle and bike



You'll be rather disappointed then because you're not getting one. I'm sure you have a dictionary.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2017)

maomao said:


> Who rubbed Mauvais' nose in the shit? Why was me saying he was wrong any different from him saying I was wrong? As far as I know Mauvais is a cyclist and I'm not anyway.


Because whenever someone dares say you're wrong you go on and on and on about it. And then on some more. And you needn't be in the right for this to happen - I recall, as I'm sure you do too, how you went on about my stupidity some time ago, calling me all manner of nasty things, when you couldn't differentiate between an x and a %. As for your cycling, I've long noticed that often you can take the cyclist off the cycle but not the cyclist out of the person.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2017)

maomao said:


> You'll be rather disappointed then because you're not getting one.


Thank fuck for that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2017)

maomao said:


> I suspect you're being obtuse rather than stupid but to clarify, I am not appealing to my daughter as an authority on two-wheeled vehicles but pointing out than any native-English speaking small child (above the age of 3 say) can correctly distinguish bicycles from motorcycles with no knowledge whatsoever of Latin roots. It's you that has failed to provide any example of the word bicycle being used ambiguously to refer to both 'push' bikes and motorbikes. All you've effectively done is poke your nose in the air and announce 'it's Latin don't you know'.
> 
> And while I reserve the right to join the now thirty-odd posters who have you on ignore  for the sake of my blood pressure when you're being particularly obnoxious, as a rule I don't because you have a record of slagging off people behind their backs if you think they have you on ignore, and because you're a bully who enjoys chasing posters from the boards and forcing people to put you on ignore and I'd rather not give you the satisfaction.


Yeh. Who have I chased from the boards? Silas Loom? Treelover? Someone else? Name names


----------



## maomao (Dec 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. Who have I chased from the boards? Silas Loom? Treelover? Someone else? Name names


I wasn't aware of Treelover. I'll add him to the list.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Dec 17, 2017)

Oh, lists are being kept, come the revolution...


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2017)

maomao said:


> I wasn't aware of Treelover. I'll add him to the list.


Yeh. I haven't chased either Silas nor treelover from the boards; the former made liking a post of mine a referendum on his remaining here while the latter - as can easily be seen from the reaction to his post about Corbyn at Glasto - left, I believe, due to that reaction. So who have I chased from the boards? So far you've not named anyone.


----------



## maomao (Dec 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. I haven't chased either Silas nor treelover from the boards; the former made liking a post of mine a referendum on his remaining here while the latter - as can easily be seen from the reaction to his post about Corbyn at Glasto - left, I believe, due to that reaction. So who have I chased from the boards? So far you've not named anyone.


If you're so clear in your own mind that you've been in the right what difference would me naming anyone make? You harassed Treelover for years and Silas may have been half flounce but you were standing at the front with a pitchfork when he went. Just like you were for Bungle followed up with creepy googling of dating sites. Sick weirdo.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2017)

maomao said:


> If you're so clear in your own mind that you've been in the right what difference would me naming anyone make? You harassed Treelover for years and Silas may have been half flounce but you were standing at the front with a pitchfork when he went. Just like you were for Bungle followed up with creepy googling of dating sites. Sick weirdo.


Yeh? What difference do you ever make? You will have your little lies... I googled Bungle37 and posted up the results page. No googling dating sites involved, chuck.

Treelover made his own position untenable as did Silas. No one prompted him to post what he did, and after what he posted about butchersapron and the response to that more people wanted to see the back of him. Don't blame me for his unforced errors


----------



## maomao (Dec 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh? What difference do you ever make? You will have your little lie... I googled Bungle37 and posted up the results page. No googling dating sites involved, chuck.


So why did you delete your post?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2017)

maomao said:


> So why did you delete your post?


Because of what other people felt about it.


----------



## maomao (Dec 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Because of what other people felt about it.


So other people felt it was creepy and inappropriate but you didn't?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2017)

maomao said:


> So other people felt it was creepy and inappropriate but you didn't?


Yeh. "Other people" were in the main not fussed and having revisited the thread in question I regret taking the action I did. But there you go. Any other cross-thread beefs you want to drag up?


----------



## maomao (Dec 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. "Other people" were in the main not fussed and having revisited the thread in question I regret taking the action I did. But there you go. Any other cross-thread beefs you want to drag up?



People were in the main not fussed in the sense that people in the main don't read urban75 and most people who do didn't comment on that thread but everyone who commented on your post seemed to feel it was creepy and weird. 

How do you think people feel about your use of creepy epithets like 'sweetcheeks' and 'love'?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2017)

maomao said:


> People were in the main not fussed in the sense that people in the main don't read urban75 and most people who do didn't comment on that thread but everyone who commented on your post seemed to feel it was creepy and weird.
> 
> How do you think people feel about your use of creepy epithets like 'sweetcheeks' and 'love'?


Patronised, chuck, patronised. Not sure about love tho, loads of people use it in everyday situations - every time I get a lottery ticket the cashier calls me love, doesn't fuss me

Do you think your white knighting receives the recognition it merits?


----------



## maomao (Dec 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Patronised, chuck, patronised
> 
> Do you think your white knighting receives the recognition it merits?



They don't feel patronised. It just feels creepy and inappropriate. A bit like casual sexual harassment. We've already established that you're not a very good judge of what's creepy and inappropriate so perhaps you should think again.


----------



## maomao (Dec 17, 2017)

And I'm not white knighting I'm just annoyed at what you've done to these boards. In another five years it'll just be one long dull 'pa' joke that no-one thinks is funny.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2017)

maomao said:


> They don't feel patronised. It just feels creepy and inappropriate. A bit like casual sexual harassment. We've already established that you're not a very good judge of what's creepy and innapropriate so perhaps you should think again.


Ah, you're taking the royal we.


----------



## maomao (Dec 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Ah, you're taking the royal we.


No. We meaning you and I in this conversation post 4740 and 4741.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2017)

maomao said:


> And I'm not white knighting I'm just annoyed at what you've done to these boards. In another five years it'll just be one long dull 'pa' joke that no-one thinks is funny.


Yeh. Your opinion is valuable worthless to me. In five years time, well, I'll have fun getting there. And you? Not so sure.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2017)

maomao said:


> No. We meaning you and I in this conversation post 4740 and 4741.


I don't think we did agree, you know.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2017)

maomao said:


> People were in the main not fussed in the sense that people in the main don't read urban75 and most people who do didn't comment on that thread but everyone who commented on your post seemed to feel it was creepy and weird.
> 
> How do you think people feel about your use of creepy epithets like 'sweetcheeks' and 'love'?


Yeh. At best you can say opinion was mixed, don't think you can come down as you'd like and say everyone was of your view. Certainly the people who liked it might disagree.


----------



## maomao (Dec 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. At best you can say opinion was mixed, don't think you can come down as you'd like and say everyone was of your view. Certainly the people who liked it might disagree.


Who liked it? Name names.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2017)

maomao said:


> Who liked it? Name names.


Look at the post yourself you lazy twat.


----------



## maomao (Dec 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Look at the post yourself you lazy twat.


Oh you mean the two people that pressed the like button. Not that they actually expressed support for your creepy stalker like behaviour. I had actually assumed one of them had done it after the deletion.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 17, 2017)

souljacker said:


> Used to do that on our bmx's when we were kids.



Ha, used to do that on our racers, upturn the handlebars and the rubber stoppers in the end had holes in that would take a mini-rocket, fire off with a Zippo


----------



## mauvais (Dec 17, 2017)

maomao said:


> Who rubbed Mauvais' nose in the shit? Why was me saying he was wrong any different from him saying I was wrong? As far as I know Mauvais is a cyclist and I'm not anyway.


I'm a cyclist but not a biker. It's hard, this, isn't it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2017)

maomao said:


> Oh you mean the two people that pressed the like button. Not that they actually expressed support for your creepy stalker like behaviour. I had actually assumed one of them had done it after the deletion.


Yeh. You make out you're the smart one out of the two of us but fuck me your ability to understand a fucking sentence is lamentable.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Ha, used to do that on our racers, upturn the handlebars and the rubber stoppers in the end had holes in that would take a mini-rocket, fire off with a Zippo


A brave attempt, bs, but perhaps too late


----------



## maomao (Dec 17, 2017)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh. You make out you're the smart one out of the two of us but fuck me your ability to understand a fucking sentence is lamentable.


I'd assumed that when you said opinions were mixed I must have missed something and you had something a little more convincing than a couple of presses of the like button. I was wrong. To tell the truth though I'm not really giving this my full attention. I've had a lovely day off with my family and am satisfied in the knowledge that I've wound you up a bit and wasted your day you creepy weirdo.


----------



## mauvais (Dec 17, 2017)

Anyway you can always refer to the law if you want a little more confusion. The Road Traffic Act refers only to 'cycles', e.g. being drunk in charge of. The C&U regs refer to pedal cycles, and indeed 1983 gave us the "Pedal Cycle Construction and Use Regulations". The RVL Regulations do so too but also mention 'motor bicycles', specifically 'solo motor bicycle or motor bicycle combination'.

I think it's safe to assume that if you were up before the beak and used the word 'bicycle' without sufficient qualifiers you would probably go straight to prison.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 17, 2017)

maomao said:


> I'd assumed that when you said opinions were mixed I must have missed something and you had something a little more convincing than a couple of presses of the like button. I was wrong. To tell the truth though I'm not really giving this my full attention. I've had a lovely day off with my family and am satisfied in the knowledge that I've wound you up a bit and wasted your day you creepy weirdo.




Quite the opposite, you've livened up a dull day on the buses


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 17, 2017)

maomao said:


> Just like you were for Bungle followed up with creepy googling of dating sites. Sick weirdo.



You are aware that he found shit relating to bungle37 whereas our own twat was bungle73, and those piling in to have a pop at pickman’s found themselves in some weird Brasseye situation sticking the boot in about the evils of cake, elephants so depressed their trunks are stuck up their arses and so on, yeah?


----------



## maomao (Dec 17, 2017)

mauvais said:


> Anyway you can always refer to the law if you want a little more confusion. The Road Traffic Act refers only to 'cycles', e.g. being drunk in charge of. The C&U regs refer to pedal cycles, and indeed 1983 gave us the "Pedal Cycle Construction and Use Regulations". The RVL Regulations do so too but also mention 'motor bicycles', specifically 'solo motor bicycle or motor bicycle combination'.



Probably sounded quite old fashioned when it was written thirty years ago. I honestly reckon Google image search is as good an arbiter of current usage as any. It literally shows pictures of what people are talking about.


----------



## maomao (Dec 17, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You are aware that he found shit relating to bungle37 whereas our own twat was bungle73, and those piling in to have a pop at pickman’s found themselves in some weird Brasseye situation sticking the boot in about the evils of cake, elephants so depressed their trunks are stuck up their arses and so on, yeah?


Intent is nine tenths of the law.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 17, 2017)

maomao said:


> Intent is nine tenths of the law.



Afaik the intent was parody but the result was a pile on of bullying by people desperate to display their ignorance.


----------



## maomao (Dec 17, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Afaik the intent was parody but the result was a pile on of bullying by people desperate to display their ignorance.


You're saying Pickman's Model was bullied on that thread?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 17, 2017)

maomao said:


> You're saying Pickman's Model was bullied on that thread?



He deleted his post after a barrage of abuse from people who wrongly assumed he had stuck up shit from bungle73, so what would you call that? I reckon that neatly fits the definition of bullying.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 17, 2017)

Good evening bellends. 



Bahnhof Strasse said:


> He deleted his post after a barrage of abuse from people who wrongly assumed he had stuck up shit from bungle73, so what would you call that? I reckon that neatly fits the definition of bullying.



What thread are you lot on about?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 17, 2017)

Spymaster said:


> Good evening bellends.
> 
> 
> 
> What thread are you lot on about?



Dunno what’s going on but fancy a bit of a ding dong anyway.

Good evening spymaster


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 17, 2017)

Page 28 of bungle’s banning thread, ridiculous confrontation etc.


----------



## Spymaster (Dec 17, 2017)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Page 28 of bungle’s banning thread, ridiculous confrontation etc.


Ahhh. I stuck that on ignore.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 18, 2017)

Cba


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 18, 2017)

Cba


----------



## hash tag (Dec 20, 2017)

I was back at oncology last week. My oncologist tells me get on the bed and strip so as she could examine me. When I did, she has hysterics (I'm very small down there).

Don't laugh, I said, it's been swollen like that for at least two weeks now!


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 12, 2018)




----------



## gentlegreen (Feb 12, 2018)

I initially thought that was a "cut here" tat on his arm.
I can't wait until the current cycling fad is over and all these twats are driving Audis.


----------



## maomao (Feb 12, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


>




The guy with the cam is 100% right but he's wasting his breath.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Feb 12, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


>



Unfortunately the prick with the beard seems to be in the majority of cyclists, where riding skills and self-preservation are concerned.


----------



## DownwardDog (Feb 13, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


>




Camera guy is a poltroon. If he's that bothered about his safety he should concentrate on his riding not gobbing off like he's presenting a Radio 2 phone in from his bike. _I'll show it to the friends of families of people who've been killed..._


----------



## Almor (Feb 14, 2018)

DownwardDog said:


> Camera guy is a poltroon. If he's that bothered about his safety he should concentrate on his riding not gobbing off like he's presenting a Radio 2 phone in from his bike. _I'll show it to the friends of families of people who've been killed..._


 
I think he's mostly concerned with someone gobbing off at him for not cycling up the inside of a lorry tbf


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 14, 2018)

Can we change the title of this thread to "...London cyclists" please? You're clearly all mental down there.


----------



## maomao (Feb 14, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Can we change the title of this thread to "...London cyclists" please? You're clearly all mental down there.


I'm afraid we did this in some depth last year and apparently all cyclists everywhere are scum and if you suggest people in different places might behave differently on the road you're a big fat racist.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 14, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


>



A pair of wankers on bikes. Quelle surpise.


----------



## gentlegreen (Feb 14, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Can we change the title of this thread to "...London cyclists" please? You're clearly all mental down there.


Sadly there are a lot of nob-heads in Bristol too


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 14, 2018)

gentlegreen said:


> Sadly there are a lot of nob-heads in Bristol too


Maybe it's a southern thing then.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Feb 14, 2018)

maomao said:


> I'm afraid we did this in some depth last year and apparently all cyclists everywhere are scum and if you suggest people in different places might behave differently on the road you're a big fat racist.


----------



## sovereignb (Feb 14, 2018)

Drivers or pedestrians? As a driver I can understand why cyclists are "hated" is because of a lack of space/London infrastructure. If we were in a position to have the Netherlands system, I doubt there would be much of an issue.


----------



## George & Bill (Feb 14, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


>




Clearly, beard guy is a grade A twat, and camera guy doesn't exactly cover himself with glory in his inability to just let it go and stay focused on the road.

But:

- at no point was there any intimation of physical violence between the two
- some actual words were exchanged, as opposed to just gestures and horn-blasts  

Which means that if this is what cyclist-on-cyclist road rage looks like, it's still relatively benign compared to most other kinds.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 14, 2018)

George & Bill said:


> Clearly, beard guy is a grade A twat, and camera guy doesn't exactly cover himself with glory in his inability to just let it go and stay focused on the road.
> 
> But:
> 
> ...



So in conclusion; cyclists = massive bellends with no backbone.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 14, 2018)

Wouldn't ever see Ronnie Pickering on a bicycle.


----------



## George & Bill (Feb 14, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So in conclusion; cyclists = massive bellends with no backbone.



That's not how semicolons work son.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 14, 2018)

George & Bill said:


> That's not how semicolons work son.



They can if they want to; ill-informed, sanctimonious smug prick.


----------



## sealion (Feb 14, 2018)

I'm surprised that this thread is still going. Wasn't it decided and agreed many pages back that cyclists are smug, selfish, pumped up cunts.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Feb 14, 2018)




----------



## maomao (Feb 14, 2018)

What jolly japes. Is Spymaster going to do the one about nailing cyclists penises to their saddles again? Oh please do.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 14, 2018)

Shut up ya boring twat


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Feb 14, 2018)

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/videos/watch/watch-london-cabbie-tries-use-cycle-lane-get-around-traffic-cyclist-isnt


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 14, 2018)

What a twat of a taxi driver.


----------



## hash tag (Feb 20, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Can we change the title of this thread to "...London cyclists" please? You're clearly all mental down there.



or Dublin even. Don't go racing down the inside of a car that is indicating it is turning left! Cyclist flies through air after being hit by car turning into police station


----------



## BigTom (Feb 20, 2018)

hash tag said:


> or Dublin even. Don't go racing down the inside of a car that is indicating it is turning left! Cyclist flies through air after being hit by car turning into police station



Whilst that's true, it's also the driver's responsibility to ensure that any lane they are crossing over is clear, at least in the UK:




			
				Highway Code rule 183 said:
			
		

> *Rule 183*
> When turning
> 
> 
> ...


(my emphasis).
I think if this was the uk and that went to court, the driver would be found to be at fault, not the cyclist. Would be different if there wasn't a cycle lane there but as there is the driver has to ensure the lane is clear before crossing it. Still shouldn't use the lane to pass someone indicating left though, foolish if legal maneouvre.


----------



## George & Bill (Feb 20, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


>



For future reference: 

Free Photoshop course for Beginners | eLearning


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 20, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


>


That's actually quite funny


----------



## Saul Goodman (Feb 21, 2018)

George & Bill said:


> For future reference:
> 
> Free Photoshop course for Beginners | eLearning


For future reference: I didn't make it. I stole it from Google.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 17, 2018)

hurrah for the pedestrian





Spoiler



Knife-wielding man smashed off getaway bike during police pursuit


----------



## Teaboy (Apr 17, 2018)

The locals were not having any of that.


----------



## hash tag (Apr 17, 2018)

I saw a cyclist get hooted at today. Nothing odd about that, except he was stopped at a traffic light! He obviously didn't move when the light turned from red to green.
I must have missed something, like he was having a breather?


----------



## hippogriff (Apr 17, 2018)

hash tag said:


> I saw a cyclist get hooted at today. Nothing odd about that, except he was stopped at a traffic light! He obviously didn't move when the light turned from red to green.
> I must have missed something, like he was having a breather?


 You lost me at "stopped at a traffic light"


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 17, 2018)

hash tag said:


> I saw a cyclist get hooted at today. Nothing odd about that, except *he was stopped at a traffic light!*


Maybe the driver was congratulating him?


----------



## emanymton (Apr 17, 2018)

hash tag said:


> I saw a cyclist get hooted at today. Nothing odd about that, except he was stopped at a traffic light! He obviously didn't move when the light turned from red to green.
> I must have missed something, like he was having a breather?


Are you sure ot wasn't some kind of hallucination?


----------



## T & P (Apr 18, 2018)

He was probably just waiting for it to turn red before proceeding,


----------



## nuffsaid (May 11, 2018)

They're all paranoid:

They're out to get you: study finds cyclists face paranoia about drivers

'As a cyclist in a busy urban environment, it can seem that some drivers are out to get you. And now a new study has concluded that for many bike riders, this is only too true: a sense of paranoia is a clinical reality.'


----------



## hash tag (May 11, 2018)

It really doesn't help that cyclists put themselves at so much risk. Only yesterday I was behind a cyclist on a hire bike. They were on the phone, weaving all over the road. Just no awareness or road sense.


----------



## gentlegreen (May 11, 2018)

After 30 years' practice, I've pretty well covered my interactions with cars on the thankfully quiet roads I use, so I am never actually surprised by drivers' actions.

Sadly the crap that catches me out these days and invokes my ire is mostly other cyclists. I swear I'm going to swing for some selfish idiot.


----------



## cyril_smear (May 11, 2018)

Fucking cunts!! It really grinds my gears when they cycle 2,3 and even 4 deep down the B roads. Please just fall under my front wheel face first.... Cunts!!


----------



## Teaboy (May 11, 2018)

hash tag said:


> It really doesn't help that cyclists put themselves at so much risk. Only yesterday I was behind a cyclist on a hire bike. They were on the phone, weaving all over the road. Just no awareness or road sense.



I've developed a sixth sense for when a cyclist is about to do something really fucking stupid.

I was sat in a queue at traffic lights yesterday (two lanes), I was in the outside lane and a bus was next to me in the inside lane.  Because of the road lay out we both needed to change lanes, I'm indicating left and the bus indicating right, both waiting for traffic to start moving again.  I spot a cyclist in my rear view mirror, my mind quickly started working out what the stupidest and most dangerous thing the cyclist could do in this situation, it has to be get himself between me and the bus just as traffic started to move.  Sure enough that's exactly what he did, the bus didn't see him (blind spots etc) fortunately I did and didn't pull away allowing him to just about avoid the bus by escaping into where I would have been.

I saved his life and he'll never know.  Not all heroes wear capes etc...


----------



## klang (May 11, 2018)

cyril_smear said:


> Fucking cunts!! It really grinds my gears when they cycle 2,3 and even 4 deep down the B roads. Please just fall under my front wheel face first.... Cunts!!


maybe you shouldn't be driving a car.


----------



## cyril_smear (May 11, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> I've developed a sixth sense for when a cyclist is about to do something really fucking stupid.
> 
> I was sat in a queue at traffic lights yesterday (two lanes), I was in the outside lane and a bus was next to me in the inside lane.  Because of the road lay out we both needed to change lanes, I'm indicating left and the bus indicating right, both waiting for traffic to start moving again.  I spot a cyclist in my rear view mirror, my mind quickly started working out what the stupidest and most dangerous thing the cyclist could do in this situation, it has to be get himself between me and the bus just as traffic started to move.  Sure enough that's exactly what he did, the bus didn't see him (blind spots etc) fortunately I did and didn't pull away allowing him to just about avoid the bus by escaping into where I would have been.
> 
> I saved his life and he'll never know.  Not all heroes wear capes etc...



Absolute fucking morons. Why don't they just get on the train like normal people; of even slum it a bit and get the bus.


----------



## Crispy (May 11, 2018)

cyril_smear said:


> Absolute fucking morons. Why don't they just get on the train like normal people; of even slum it a bit and get the bus.


Cos it's quicker and cheaper


----------



## emanymton (May 11, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> I've developed a sixth sense for when a cyclist is about to do something really fucking stupid.


That's not hard. The first hint is that they are on a bike.



I was about to cross the road this morning, all the traffic had stoped at the red light, but there was a cyclist comming down the inside, so I didn't start to cross as I assumed she would go straight through the red light. But she actully stopped. 

I swear I almost thanked her as I crossed in front of her. That's the issue isn't it. That it is remarkable when a cyclist does what they should and what is best for their and other peoples safety.


----------



## a_chap (May 11, 2018)

Not that it will change the minds of the blinkered road warriors, but I'll quote facts anyway:

From 2007 to 2016:

Cycles were involved on average in about three pedestrian fatalities a year, and 82 serious injuries. This represents c.0.6% of pedestrian fatalities overall, and 1.5% of serious injuries.
Cars were involved on average in about 317 pedestrian fatalities a year, and 4,394 serious injuries. This represents around 67.5% of pedestrian fatalities, and over four fifths (81%) of pedestrian serious injuries.
Altogether, motor vehicles (i.e. cars, motorbikes, buses, vans, lorries etc.) were involved in 99.4% of collisions in which a pedestrian died.
But feel free to carry on foaming at the mouth about people riding bikes...


----------



## klang (May 11, 2018)

a_chap said:


> But feel free to carry on foaming at the mouth about people riding bikes...


...and fantasise about running them over when driving a dangerous vehicle on a B Road


----------



## emanymton (May 11, 2018)

a_chap said:


> Not that it will change the minds of the blinkered road warriors, but I'll quote facts anyway:
> 
> From 2007 to 2016:
> 
> ...


Those statistics are meaningless. For one thing cars are obviously more dangerous than bikes, they are bigger heaver and move faster. Being hit by a car is generally going to be a lot woese than being hit by a bike. Secondly there are a lot more cars on the road than bikes. It looks to me that cyclists might proportionally actually be more dangerous. But I don't have time to look for relevant numbers right now.


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 11, 2018)

emanymton said:


> Those statistics are meaningless. For one thing cars are obviously more dangerous than bikes, they are bigger heaver and move faster. Being hit by a car is generally going to be a lot woese than being hit by a bike. Secondly there are a lot more cars on the road than bikes. It looks to me that cyclists might proportionally actually be more dangerous. But I don't have time to look for relevant numbers right now.



Not only is there a lot more cars on the road, but the average mileage per year will be far higher than that of bikes.


----------



## emanymton (May 11, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> Not only is there a lot more cars on the road, but the average mileage per year will be far higher than that of bikes.


And it will be easier to get out of the way, giving a near miss rather than a collision.


----------



## dessiato (May 11, 2018)

littleseb said:


> maybe you shouldn't be driving a car.


I really get this. Why do they take up the whole road when they could more safely, and more considerately, ride single file? I always used to do this and it never inconvenienced me.

On my way home there's a long slow Hill.  Often there'll be groups of up to 15 cyclists riding up to four abreast. Trucks coming up the hill grind down their gears and can't get sufficient speed to pass. There's also a junction where the groups will sweep across the road without indicating and without checking traffic. Dickheads every last one of them.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 11, 2018)

emanymton said:


> And it will be easier to get out of the way, giving a near miss rather than a collision.



How wide is a car compared to a bike? 4 times as wide, maybe more? If we say 4 times as wide that means reduce the number used to calculate by 75%. Any right thinking person can see straight off the bat that bicycles are lethal weapons that need banishing from society as soon as possible.


----------



## klang (May 11, 2018)

dessiato said:


> I really get this. Why do they take up the whole road when they could more safely, and more considerately, ride single file? I always used to do this and it never inconvenienced me.
> 
> On my way home theirs a long slow Hill.  Often there'll be groups of up to 15 cyclists riding up to four abreast. Trucks coming up the hill grind down their gears and can't get sufficient speed to pass. There's also a junction where the groups will sweep across the road without indicating and without checking traffic. Dickheads every last one of them.


do you also hope for a cyclist to be killed under your front wheel?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 11, 2018)

dessiato said:


> I really get this. Why do they take up the whole road when they could more safely, and more considerately, ride single file? I always used to do this and it never inconvenienced me.
> 
> On my way home theirs a long slow Hill.  Often there'll be groups of up to 15 cyclists riding up to four abreast. Trucks coming up the hill grind down their gears and can't get sufficient speed to pass. There's also a junction where the groups will sweep across the road without indicating and without checking traffic. Dickheads every last one of them.


Because a long line in single file is often more dangerous for the cyclists than riding 2 or 3 abreast. If cars have to wait behind, tough shit. Their safety is more important than your (slight) delay.

For similar reasons I tend to ride towards the middle of the lane until it's safe for a car(s) to pass. I'll decide when it's safe for you to overtake me, not the other way round.


----------



## magneze (May 11, 2018)

emanymton said:


> It looks to me that cyclists might proportionally actually be more dangerous.


Only if you're blind.


----------



## dessiato (May 11, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Because a long line in single file is often more dangerous for the cyclists than riding 2 or 3 abreast. If cars have to wait behind, tough shit. Their safety is more important than your (slight) delay.
> 
> For similar reasons I tend to ride towards the middle of the lane until it's safe for a car(s) to pass. I'll decide when it's safe for you to overtake me, not the other way round.


I'm sorry. I didn't realise that you really do own the road and have this right. I always thought all of us users shared it.


----------



## dessiato (May 11, 2018)

littleseb said:


> do you also hope for a cyclist to be killed under your front wheel?


Of course not. What an absolutely ridiculous suggestion. What on earth would make you think such a thing?


----------



## klang (May 11, 2018)

dessiato said:


> I always thought all of us users shared it


yes, hence cyclists have the right not to be killed.


----------



## dessiato (May 11, 2018)

littleseb said:


> yes, hence cyclists have the right not to be killed.


But it doesn't give them the right to be stupid.


----------



## klang (May 11, 2018)

dessiato said:


> Of course not. What an absolutely ridiculous suggestion. What on earth would make you think such a thing?





cyril_smear said:


> It really grinds my gears when they cycle 2,3 and even 4 deep down the B roads. Please just fall under my front wheel face first.... Cunts!!





dessiato said:


> really get this


----------



## Orang Utan (May 11, 2018)

dessiato said:


> I'm sorry. I didn't realise that you really do own the road and have this right. I always thought all of us users shared it.


He's only doing what is in the Highway Code. Many lanes are too narrow for motorists to pass safely, both in the city and in rural areas. Many motorists have forgotten their training and think that they are passing safely when they aren't, so unfortunately cyclists have to take that choice away and ride in a way that prevents the motorist from overtaking in the same lane.
This is all just good common sense, and is officially sanctioned. It's not a case of cyclists who think they own the road, it's just a matter of wanting to stay alive and to feel safe while riding.
Indeed, it's motorists who more often give the impression that they own the road, thinking their right to overtake trumps cyclists' right to stay alive and feel safe.
So if you ever find yourself behind a cyclist in the middle of the lane, just slow down and wait til there's a straight with an empty opposite lane, like you would with a tractor or other slow moving vehicle.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 11, 2018)

dessiato said:


> I'm sorry. I didn't realise that you really do own the road and have this right.


My right to be safe trumps yours to get somewhere quicker. Don't like it? Tough, grow the fuck up.


----------



## Orang Utan (May 11, 2018)

I think dessiato has me on ignore so he won't have seen that. Someone _could_ c&p my post so he sees it


----------



## Pickman's model (May 11, 2018)

emanymton said:


> Those statistics are meaningless. For one thing cars are obviously more dangerous than bikes, they are bigger heaver and move faster. Being hit by a car is generally going to be a lot woese than being hit by a bike. Secondly there are a lot more cars on the road than bikes. It looks to me that cyclists might proportionally actually be more dangerous. But I don't have time to look for relevant numbers right now.


there are a lot more cyclists than drivers on the pavement, too. if cyclists kept to the road the number of people they threaten would be very much fewer


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 11, 2018)

Orang Utan said:


> just slow down and wait til there's a straight with an empty opposite lane, like you would with a tractor or other slow moving vehicle.



Tractors and other slow moving vehicles regularly pull to the side of the road to let cars pass, cos they know that holding up a queue of traffic is a cunt's game. How many times have I seen cyclists display the same courtesy to their fellow road users? None, none times. That's how many. Bunch o' cunts.


----------



## sim667 (May 11, 2018)

Well this thread is dishing out the pleasantries....

I mean, when your ire of being held up for a few seconds leads you to make comments about how its acceptable to kill people, you seriously need to have a look at your own character and privilege.


----------



## Spymaster (May 11, 2018)

a_chap said:


> Not that it will change the minds of the blinkered road warriors, but I'll quote facts anyway:
> 
> From 2007 to 2016:
> 
> ...


Wank statistics. 

"Cars kill more people than bikes".

No shit Sherlock! I wonder why that might be ... 

98.6% of cyclists are still totally incompetent, fuckwitted turds.


----------



## Spymaster (May 11, 2018)

littleseb said:


> yes, hence cyclists have the right not to be killed.


Where is this enshrined?


----------



## klang (May 11, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Wank statistics.
> 
> "Cars kill more people than bikes".
> 
> ...


I'm glad I made it into the 1.4% then.


----------



## dessiato (May 11, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> My right to be safe trumps yours to get somewhere quicker. Don't like it? Tough, grow the fuck up.



If you check the Highway Code you'll find it recommends slow moving vehicles should move over to let others through. Unless it's changed recently it also suggests cyclists should not ride in such a manner as to block the road. But of course the Highway Code doesn't apply when it inconveniences cyclists.


----------



## Spymaster (May 11, 2018)

littleseb said:


> I'm glad I made it into the 1.4% then.


The fact that you felt the need to post this suggests, very heavily, that it's not true.


----------



## dessiato (May 11, 2018)

Highway Code:
*Section 66*
This section explains what cyclists should and should not do when riding on the road.

*You should:*

Keep both hands on the handlebars except when signalling or changing gear.

Keep both feet on the pedals.

Be considerate of other road users, taking extra care around blind and partially sighted pedestrians. Use your bell when necessary to signal you are nearby.

Ride single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends

*You should not:*

Ride more than two abreast.

Ride close behind another vehicle.

Carry anything that will affect your balance or get tangled up in your wheels or chain
I think that's clear enough. 

Ss 67 to 70 also cover what cyclists should do, but in my experience, only obey when it suits them.


----------



## Spymaster (May 11, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> I've developed a sixth sense for when a cyclist is about to do something really fucking stupid.
> 
> I was sat in a queue at traffic lights yesterday (two lanes), I was in the outside lane and a bus was next to me in the inside lane.  Because of the road lay out we both needed to change lanes, I'm indicating left and the bus indicating right, both waiting for traffic to start moving again.  I spot a cyclist in my rear view mirror, my mind quickly started working out what the stupidest and most dangerous thing the cyclist could do in this situation, it has to be get himself between me and the bus just as traffic started to move.  Sure enough that's exactly what he did, the bus didn't see him (blind spots etc) fortunately I did and didn't pull away allowing him to just about avoid the bus by escaping into where I would have been.
> 
> I saved his life and he'll never know.  Not all heroes wear capes etc...


I've had loads of these. More often that not it's a dickhead turning without looking behind or indicating. I reckon there are at least half a dozen cyclists that are still alive and not taking their meals through a straw because I anticipated their moronicity. They will never know how close they came to death or serious injury. Totally oblivious. It's their nature.


----------



## Spymaster (May 11, 2018)

dessiato said:


> Highway Code:
> *Section 66*
> This section explains what cyclists should and should not do when riding on the road.
> 
> ...



Pointless quoting the HC to these monkeys. They've never heard of it.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 11, 2018)

dessiato said:


> Highway Code:
> *Section 66*
> This section explains what cyclists should and should not do when riding on the road.
> 
> ...


I'll go with what the traffic police say, thanks.



That covers riding in primary. There's another tweet of theirs that covers the riding two or three abreast thing, but I can't find it right now.


----------



## cyril_smear (May 11, 2018)

dessiato said:


> I really get this. Why do they take up the whole road when they could more safely, and more considerately, ride single file? I always used to do this and it never inconvenienced me.
> 
> On my way home there's a long slow Hill.  Often there'll be groups of up to 15 cyclists riding up to four abreast. Trucks coming up the hill grind down their gears and can't get sufficient speed to pass. There's also a junction where the groups will sweep across the road without indicating and without checking traffic. Dickheads every last one of them.



Im sure some cyclists do it simply to take the piss. They could probably be moving at 40mph but nstead they choose to dawdle along narrow country lanes like they are having a mother hens meeting.

Seriously dangerous given that many of these roads are 60/70mph limits. All it would take is someone in a car to come round a bend whilst sticking to the speed limit and mayhem ensues.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 11, 2018)

Ah, here we go.










So, in short, shut the fuck up, wait until it's safe to pass.


----------



## Sue (May 11, 2018)

emanymton said:


> Those statistics are meaningless. For one thing cars are obviously more dangerous than bikes, they are bigger heaver and move faster. Being hit by a car is generally going to be a lot woese than being hit by a bike. Secondly there are a lot more cars on the road than bikes. It looks to me that cyclists might proportionally actually be more dangerous. But I don't have time to look for relevant numbers right now.


Yep. I've twice been hit by bikes from behind while I've been walking on the pavement. Both times I ended up on the ground and the cyclist didn't stop. Those incidents weren't reported as I imagine is very common. Both incidents could potentially have been very serious if it was a child or older person who'd been hit, rather than me (I got away with bruises in both cases.)


----------



## Pickman's model (May 11, 2018)

dessiato said:


> Highway Code:
> *Section 66*
> This section explains what cyclists should and should not do when riding on the road.
> 
> ...


i see many cyclists following the alternative highway code, which states in a rather briefer section 66 that they should * keep both hands on the phone except when ringing the bell


----------



## Pickman's model (May 11, 2018)

dessiato said:


> Highway Code:
> *Section 66*
> This section explains what cyclists should and should not do when riding on the road.
> 
> ...


in the alternative highway code it advises cyclists that showing good manners and adhering to the law of the road is seen as weakness by other road users.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 11, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I'll go with what the traffic police say, thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> That covers riding in primary. There's another tweet of theirs that covers the riding two or three abreast thing, but I can't find it right now.





This is the mentality of these people; we have a long-established Highway Code, but they'll go twitter to learn their roadcraft.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 11, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I'll go with what the traffic police say, thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> That covers riding in primary. There's another tweet of theirs that covers the riding two or three abreast thing, but I can't find it right now.



yeh. although people expect the police to know something of the law, their knowledge of the law is not to be relied upon.


----------



## Sprocket. (May 11, 2018)

I have found it's not me on the bike that hurts pedestrians, it's the ladders I am carrying on my shoulder, whilst phoning a take-away in.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 11, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> This is the mentality of these people; we have a long-established Highway Code, but they'll go twitter to learn their roadcraft.


from people who aren't in any way legal experts.


----------



## Spymaster (May 11, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> i see many cyclists following the alternative highway code, which states in a rather briefer section 66 that they should * keep both hands on the phone except when ringing the bell ...


... or selecting music on their iPod.


----------



## Sprocket. (May 11, 2018)

If there is one thing the British are good at, it is the ability to have strong opinions on topics they know very little about.


----------



## Sprocket. (May 11, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> ... or selecting music on their iPod.



I used to cycle up behind pushbikers wearing earphones and scream at them as I hurtled past.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 11, 2018)

Orang Utan said:


> So if you ever find yourself behind a cyclist in the middle of the lane, just slow down and wait til there's a straight with an empty opposite lane, *like you would with a tractor or other slow moving vehicle.*



I live in rural Ireland, and I'm faced with tractors on narrow lanes every single day. But as soon as a tractor driver sees another vehicle approaching from behind, they pull in at the first opportunity and let that person pass. It's common decency and good manners. Unfortunately, most cyclists seem bereft of these qualities.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 11, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> I live in rural Ireland, and I'm faced with tractors on narrow lanes every single day. But as soon as a tractor driver sees another vehicle approaching behind them, they pull in at the first opportunity and let that person pass. It's common decency and good manners. Unfortunately, most cyclists seem bereft of these qualities.


just as an aside, are there still the great number of drivers in ireland without a licence that there used to be?


----------



## Spymaster (May 11, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> Unfortunately, most cyclists seem bereft of these qualities.


That's because they're cunts.


----------



## maomao (May 11, 2018)

dessiato said:


> Highway Code:
> *Section 66*
> This section explains what cyclists should and should not do when riding on the road.
> 
> ...


If you're following the Highway Code where you are you'll end up in a head on collision pretty quickly. What does the Código de Tráfico y Seguridad Vial say? Have you read it?


----------



## Spymaster (May 11, 2018)

maomao said:


> If you're following the Highway Code where you are you'll end up in a head on collision pretty quickly.


----------



## dessiato (May 11, 2018)

maomao said:


> If you're following the Highway Code where you are you'll end up in a head on collision pretty quickly. What does the Código de Tráfico y Seguridad Vial say? Have you read it?


I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing the behaviour of cyclists and other road users in the UK. And yes, I have read the British, Portuguese and Spanish codes.


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 11, 2018)

Interestingly, Ireland has MOT tests only every couple of years now- and if you live on an island that doesnt have a bridge to the mainland, then you don't need and MOT at all

The tractors driver likely pulled over knowing that someone would have rear ended him as they were visiting from Craggy island


----------



## 8ball (May 11, 2018)

Is MAMIL an offensive term, and is it ok to use to someone's face?


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 11, 2018)

Pickman's model said:


> just as an aside, are there still the great number of drivers in ireland without a licence that there used to be?


It's not so bad these days, since they started cracking down on learner drivers driving without a qualified driver as a passenger.
It used to be the case that you could turn up for your driving test, fail miserably, then jump straight back in your car and drive home, unaccompanied... Only in Ireland


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 11, 2018)

8ball said:


> Is MAMIL an offensive term, and is it ok to use to someone's face?



They won't hear you as they'll have their headphones on.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 11, 2018)

8ball said:


> Is MAMIL an offensive term, and is it ok to use to someone's face?


Not necessarily an offensive term but definitely an offensive sight.


----------



## Sprocket. (May 11, 2018)

Sprocket. said:


> I used to cycle up behind pushbikers wearing earphones and scream at them as I hurtled past.



It was I must add in the days of those new fangled Walkman thingys!


----------



## Sprocket. (May 11, 2018)

8ball said:


> Is MAMIL an offensive term, and is it ok to use to someone's face?



MAMIL isn’t as offensive as ‘get pedalling ya fat bastard’ as the local kids shout at me on occasion.


----------



## a_chap (May 11, 2018)

Dear "motorists",

I see that whilst I've been out all you spittle-flecked, swivel-eyed loons have surfaced. I understand that you can't help yourselves; someone blows the dog-whistle and quotes some facts and you all come barking.

You think you're being funny, edgy, clever, whatever. But you're not, of course.

I can't be arsed arguing with any of you; it's a waste of my time.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 11, 2018)

a_chap said:


> Dear "motorists",
> 
> I see that whilst I've been out all you spittle-flecked, swivel-eyed loons have surfaced. I understand that you can't help yourselves; someone blows the dog-whistle and quotes some facts and you all come barking.
> 
> ...




On yer bike!


----------



## Spymaster (May 11, 2018)

a_chap said:


> Dear "motorists",
> 
> I see that whilst I've been out all you spittle-flecked, swivel-eyed loons have surfaced. I understand that you can't help yourselves; someone blows the dog-whistle and quotes some facts and you all come barking.
> 
> ...



Yet here you are


----------



## dessiato (May 11, 2018)

Sue said:


> Yep. I've twice been hit by bikes from behind while I've been walking on the pavement. Both times I ended up on the ground and the cyclist didn't stop. Those incidents weren't reported as I imagine is very common. Both incidents could potentially have been very serious if it was a child or older person who'd been hit, rather than me (I got away with bruises in both cases.)


It must have been your fault for being there in the first place. Don't you know that cyclists are demi-gods and their right to be wherever they are, doing whatever they wish, trumps any of your rights?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 11, 2018)

dessiato said:


> It must have been your fault for being there in the first place. Don't you know that cyclists are demi-gods and their right to be wherever they are, doing whatever they wish, trumps any of your rights?


(Adult) cyclists shouldn’t be on the pavement. 

Next.


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 11, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> It's not so bad these days, since they started cracking down on learner drivers driving without a qualified driver as a passenger.
> It used to be the case that you could turn up for your driving test, fail miserably, then jump straight back in your car and drive home, unaccompanied... Only in Ireland



When I lived in Tramore, back in the early 80s, new cars were driven without number plates, because there was a 6-9 month backlog in registrations, I assume they have caught up now?

And, of course, there was no MOTs back then.


----------



## dessiato (May 11, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> (Adult) cyclists shouldn’t be on the pavement.
> 
> Next.


And yet they are.


----------



## dessiato (May 11, 2018)

(I'm invigilating an exam, this is making it a much less boring job. Thanks everyone!)


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 11, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> When I lived in Tramore, back in the early 80s, new cars were driven without number plates, because there was a 6-9 month backlog in registrations, I assume they have caught up now?
> 
> And, of course, there was no MOTs back then.


Things aren't so bad these days. We even have electricity! 



not-bono-ever said:


> Interestingly, Ireland has MOT tests only every couple of years now- and if you live on an island that doesnt have a bridge to the mainland, then you don't need and MOT at all



The MOT (NCT here) is every 2 years for cars up to 10 years old, then every year after that. But it's a joke. They have sparsely trained monkeys doing the job, not trained mechanics like in the UK.
And still no MOT for motorbikes.


----------



## Crispy (May 11, 2018)

dessiato said:


> And yet they are.


All of them


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 11, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> Things aren't so bad these days. We even have electricity!



 But, is it reliable in the winter? 

Out of season we used to 'look after' the generator used to power the dodgem cars in the summer, so when the ESB regularly let us down, we could keep the radio station on-air.


----------



## dessiato (May 11, 2018)

Crispy said:


> All of them


No, many yes, all no. In exactly the same generalisation that all car drivers are incompetent buffoons.


----------



## 8ball (May 11, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> 98.6% of cyclists are still totally incompetent, fuckwitted turds.



I very rarely have any issues with cyclists when driving.

Probably more often when I'm a pedestrian - there is plenty of anger to go round, it's not just drivers they are enraged at.
I'd sooner that perpetually angry twats were on bikes than driving cars though, and there are plenty of the latter too.


----------



## 8ball (May 11, 2018)

Crispy said:


> All of them



Always good to consider whether a response would be considered "special pleading" in just about every other context.


----------



## Spymaster (May 11, 2018)

Crispy said:


> All of them


98.4%


----------



## cyril_smear (May 11, 2018)

Sprocket. said:


> I used to cycle up behind pushbikers wearing earphones and scream at them as I hurtled past.


Bit dangerous don't you think?


----------



## Spymaster (May 11, 2018)

cyril_smear said:


> Bit dangerous don't you think?


Serves them right though.


----------



## Sprocket. (May 11, 2018)

cyril_smear said:


> Bit dangerous don't you think?



Not as dangerous as a lorry coming up behind them, that they couldn’t hear over Kid Creole and the Coconuts.


----------



## Sprocket. (May 11, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> (Adult) cyclists shouldn’t be on the pavement.
> 
> Next.



The problem is that some cyclists see the dual use paths and suddenly think they have the right of way on pavements, I have had this argument at work .


----------



## Teaboy (May 11, 2018)

a_chap said:


> Not that it will change the minds of the blinkered road warriors, but I'll quote facts anyway:
> 
> From 2007 to 2016:
> 
> ...



Not sure whether this was aimed at me but I'm actually all for cycling.  I just wish more cyclists would take responsibility for them staying alive rather than outsourcing the responsibility to other road users.

I think its a London thing in that there is a lot of people who don't have driving licenses and therefore don't realise just how dangerous (to themselves) their cycling is.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 11, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> I think its a London thing in that there is a lot of people who don't have driving licenses and therefore don't realise just how dangerous (to themselves) their cycling is.



Good point, well made.


----------



## Spymaster (May 11, 2018)

London cyclists are by far the biggest twats on the roads but they’re not that much better elsewhere in the UK. You need to go overseas to find competent cyclists. The ones in Germany even use decent lights after dark.


----------



## Teaboy (May 11, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> London cyclists are by far the biggest twats on the roads but they’re not that much better elsewhere in the UK. You need to go overseas to find competent cyclists. The ones in Germany even use decent lights after dark.


Weirdos.  Fancy wanting to stay alive.


----------



## BigTom (May 11, 2018)

emanymton said:


> Those statistics are meaningless. For one thing cars are obviously more dangerous than bikes, they are bigger heaver and move faster. Being hit by a car is generally going to be a lot woese than being hit by a bike. Secondly there are a lot more cars on the road than bikes. It looks to me that cyclists might proportionally actually be more dangerous. But I don't have time to look for relevant numbers right now.



Cycling is around 1-2% modal share across the UK and has been that way for decades. Much higher in London now but elsewhere still around 1-2%. Proportionally cyclists are a lot less dangerous than drivers. Yes some incidents will not be reported but any deaths and hospital visits will be so that should cover most if not all serious injuries.
last year, 2%: Cycling sticks at 2 percent modal share, reveals latest DfT stats


----------



## BigTom (May 11, 2018)

dessiato said:


> Highway Code:
> *Section 66*
> This section explains what cyclists should and should not do when riding on the road.
> 
> ...



Yep, HC is very clear that cyclists are allowed to be 2 abreast, they are allowed to be 3 or more abreast but are advised not to, and are advised (but not required) to be single file on narrow roads (single / 1.5 track width) or busy roads (not defined) or riding round bends (actually national standards for cycling advise primary position around bends sometimes for better vision/visibility so staying two abreast on country lanes is advised in the national standards for cycling). It's quicker and easier to pass a group of cyclists riding two or three abreast hence why cycle clubs do it.

beesonthewhatnow has already posted this image: 

also there is a video here with Chris Boardman explaining it
http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/l...s-ride-two-abreast-in-new-safety-video-187215

If you want it in text:

imagine 9 cyclists riding single file, 2 meters long each, that's 18 meters to overtake.
The cyclists will be riding with their wheels 50cm-1m from the kerb and then another 50cm for the rest of their handblebars. 1.5m gap to overtake. 1.6 (?) - 2.5m width of car/van/lorry (not sure how narrow cars are, lorries/vans/buses - the vehicles people I teach are driving - are 2.5m wide). That means that you need 2.5m minimum from the kerb for the left hand side of your vehicle. Let's say it is 1.6m for a car so that's 4.1m lane width you need if you are to overtake without going into the oncoming lane. Very few lanes in the UK are that wide, 3.5m is more normal maximum and many roads are narrower.
So if there is oncoming traffic, and the cyclists are single file, you cannot overtake. You need to wait for a gap in oncoming traffic that will allow you to overtake 18m+.

If they are two abreast, the group will be 5 cyclists or 10m long, they will be around 2m from the kerb, plus 1.5m gap = 3.5m = overtake in the oncoming traffic lane.
So if there is oncoming traffic, and the cyclists are riding two abreast, you cannot overtake. But now you only need to wait for a gap around 10m+ (not dissimilar to a lorry).

3 abreast = 3 long = 6m - not much longer than car to overtake. Issue here might be on narrower roads that you can't leave 1.5m gap but with 3.5m lane width, 7m total, you can (3.5m + 1.5m + 1.6m = 6.6m)

Shorter overtake distance = easier overtake.

Yes, cycling clubs should pull over when they have built up traffic behind them, and no they don't, but the issue would be bigger if they were riding single file.


----------



## a_chap (May 11, 2018)

"*you aren't allowed to be two-abreast*" is so often screamed by self-righteous, know-it-all drivers. These are also the people who are **convinced** their driving is perfect.

I wonder how many of the commenters in this thread even have a copy of the current Highway Code or have read the current HC on-line.


----------



## dessiato (May 11, 2018)

a_chap said:


> "*you aren't allowed to be two-abreast*" is so often screamed by self-righteous, know-it-all drivers. These are also the people who are **convinced** their driving is perfect.
> 
> I wonder how many of the commenters in this thread even have a copy of the current Highway Code or have read the current HC on-line.


I have. I've also done police driving, IAM, and done rally and saloon car racing. I don't consider myself to be a perfect driver.

I used to do triathlon and did training rides of about fifty miles on a variety of roads. I tried mountain biking too. I, therefore, consider myself a very experienced cyclist.

I do, however, consider the cyclists who ignore the rules, who ride inconsiderately, who ride on pavements, to be as big a bunch of dickheads as I do the drivers who drive equally inconsiderately.

What gets to me here is the self righteousness of the cyclists who think their opinions trump everyone else. There's wrong on both sides. Being open to discussion might improve things for all.


----------



## magneze (May 11, 2018)

Sprocket. said:


> The problem is that some cyclists see the dual use paths and suddenly think they have the right of way on pavements, I have had this argument at work .


Dual use paths are just a ridiculous cop out. Dangerous for all.


----------



## Spymaster (May 11, 2018)

a_chap said:


> "*you aren't allowed to be two-abreast*" is so often screamed by self-righteous, know-it-all drivers. These are also the people who are **convinced** their driving is perfect.
> 
> I wonder how many of the commenters in this thread even have a copy of the current Highway Code or have read the current HC on-line.


 Thought you had flounced.


----------



## Spymaster (May 11, 2018)

Look at this bellend



Is that you a_chap?


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 11, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> But, is it reliable in the winter?


It isn't reliable in any weather. I have a generator sat by the front door.


----------



## gentlegreen (May 11, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Look at this bellend
> 
> 
> Is that you a_chap?


No helmet !1!11!1!


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 11, 2018)

gentlegreen said:


> No helmet !1!11!1!


There was. He was the one riding the bike.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 11, 2018)

a_chap said:


> I wonder how many of the commenters in this thread even have a copy of the current Highway Code or have read the current HC on-line.



I can guarantee that the car drivers on this thread know and adhere to a lot more rules than the cyclists on the thread do.


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 11, 2018)

gentlegreen said:


> No helmet !1!11!1!



And, on a fucking motorway.


----------



## Spymaster (May 11, 2018)

BigTom said:


> Shorter overtake distance = easier overtake.


Overtaking distances are mostly academic when you've got 3 litres, twin turbos, and over 300bhp.

Vroom!


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 11, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> And, on a fucking motorway.


The thing is, the daft cunt knows full well he's not allowed on there, as there are signs at every entrance.
Another cyclist who doesn't think the rules apply to him.


----------



## a_chap (May 11, 2018)

Returns after dinner: ahh... the usual suspects are still trolling.

I'm still not impressed. Nor, I suspect, is anyone else. But do carry on if it makes you feel grown up or something.

[yawn]


----------



## Spymaster (May 11, 2018)

a_chap said:


> I'm still not impressed. Nor, I suspect, is anyone else. But do carry on if it makes you feel grown up or something.


You're not supposed to be impressed. Just educated.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 11, 2018)

a_chap said:


> Returns after dinner: ahh... the usual suspects are still trolling.
> 
> I'm still not impressed. Nor, I suspect, is anyone else. But do carry on if it makes you feel grown up or something.
> 
> [yawn]


Cyclist in "Not impressed with people pointing out cyclists' faults" shocker!


----------



## a_chap (May 11, 2018)

"Cyclist", Saul?


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 11, 2018)

a_chap said:


> "Cyclist", Saul?


I assumed you're a cyclist, based on your posts.


----------



## a_chap (May 11, 2018)

Never heard the expression "When you assume you make an ASS of U and ME", Saul ?


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 11, 2018)

a_chap said:


> Never heard the expression "When you assume you make an ASS of U and ME", Saul ?


If you don't want to be lumped in with cyclists, stop acting like one.


----------



## a_chap (May 11, 2018)

Oh, such an empty statement, Saul.

But, please do carry on ranting away. And Spymaster too, please.

Putting cyclists in their place; it's all very entertaining. No, really. And you do it so well, too. Everyone's terribly impressed you know.


----------



## Spymaster (May 11, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> You're not supposed to be impressed. Just educated.





a_chap said:


> Everyone's terribly impressed you know.



Pay attention!


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 11, 2018)

a_chap said:


> Oh, such an empty statement, Saul.
> 
> But, please do carry on ranting away. And Spymaster too, please.
> 
> Putting cyclists in their place; it's all very entertaining. No, really. And you do it so well, too. Everyone's terribly impressed you know.


I'm going to go out on a limb here and hazard a guess that you don't get invited to many parties


----------



## BigTom (May 11, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Overtaking distances are mostly academic when you've got 3 litres, twin turbos, and over 300bhp.
> 
> Vroom!



Sadly most drivers aren't considerate enough to get a proper motor, plus if they did they'd probably crash it like this twat



edit to change the video as the one I posted had people injured


----------



## a_chap (May 11, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> You're not supposed to be impressed. Just educated.





a_chap said:


> Everyone's terribly impressed you know.





Spymaster said:


> Pay attention!



And you're the very person to do the educating.

I'm all ears, Mr "300bhp, Vroom!". In fact, no, it was "*over* 300bhp" (I musn't get that wrong now) yours is the moral high-ground after all.


----------



## Spymaster (May 11, 2018)

a_chap said:


> ... yours is the moral high-ground after all.


_Now_ you're learning.


----------



## a_chap (May 11, 2018)

Whatever you say, boss.


----------



## Spymaster (May 11, 2018)

a_chap said:


> ... boss.


If other cyclists knew their place as well as you do we'd live in a better world.


----------



## a_chap (May 11, 2018)

Dream on, fellah


----------



## Shechemite (May 11, 2018)

This thread just goes round and round, always someone flying off the handles.


----------



## Shechemite (May 11, 2018)

Or perhaps I spoke to soon haha

Hahahaha 





I’m not sleeping a lot


----------



## Shechemite (May 11, 2018)

Might need a stabiliser


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 11, 2018)

a_chap said:


> And you're the very person to do the educating.
> 
> I'm all ears, Mr "300bhp, Vroom!". In fact, no, it was "*over* 300bhp" (I musn't get that wrong now) yours is the moral high-ground after all.



Spy has over 300bhp and a brace of turbos and even he knows the correct way to travel to Scotland is by plane. You go by Granville’s velocipede. Any argument you have is invalid.


----------



## dessiato (May 11, 2018)

I should give a mate of mine a bell. He's got a chain of shops. He'll handle, bar saddles, everything we've spoke(n) about. He's tyred of the arguments. He's geared for anything. But let's not derailleur thread.


----------



## a_chap (May 11, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Spy has over 300bhp and a brace of turbos and even he knows the correct way to travel to Scotland is by plane. You go by Granville’s velocipede. Any argument you have is invalid.



It's just occurred to me that I've been to Scotland (and back) on planes, trains and automobiles. And - yes - on a replica 1930s racing bike too. 

Are you _sure_ that invalidates my opinion?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 11, 2018)

a_chap said:


> It's just occurred to me that I've been to Scotland (and back) on planes, trains and automobiles. And - yes - on a replica 1930s racing bike too.
> 
> Are you _sure_ that invalidates my opinion?



You’ve been to Scotland four times? Of course that invalidates your opinion.


----------



## DownwardDog (May 11, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> When I lived in Tramore, back in the early 80s, new cars were driven without number plates, because there was a 6-9 month backlog in registrations, I assume they have caught up now?
> 
> And, of course, there was no MOTs back then.



We have no MoT of any form in Western Australia and somehow life goes on. It's just a massive money grab aimed at the less well off.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 11, 2018)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I’m not sleeping a lot


Go on a dinner date with a_chap. Urban's very own cure for insomnia


----------



## DownwardDog (May 11, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Spy has over 300bhp and a brace of turbos and even he knows the correct way to travel to Scotland is by plane. You go by Granville’s velocipede. Any argument you have is invalid.



Bragging about 300bhp is cringey. 300 is a school run number these days. All the real boiz are at 500+.


----------



## Spymaster (May 11, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You’ve been to Scotland four times? Of course that invalidates your opinion.


More to the point, his past modes of transport to and from Scotland have only* just occurred* _*to him*_.

This is the typical level of brain function of your average cyclist.


----------



## Spymaster (May 11, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> Go on a dinner date with a_chap. Urban's very own cure for insomnia


You cunt


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 12, 2018)




----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 12, 2018)

DownwardDog said:


> Bragging about 300bhp is cringey. 300 is a school run number these days. All the real boiz are at 500+.



Nah, 300 to 350 is gentlemen’s express territory, >500 is for small dicked yobbos.

Speaking of which, you got your license back yet?


----------



## gentlegreen (May 12, 2018)

*unsubscribes from thread again*


----------



## DownwardDog (May 12, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Nah, 300 to 350 is gentlemen’s express territory, >500 is for small dicked yobbos.
> 
> Speaking of which, you got your license back yet?



Yep, but it's hanging by a thread and I need to throttle back as I am now responsible for the morning school run. I'm currently using my Clio RS which is chipped to 210 but I'm thinking BRZ with a Greddy turbo for my next "Hogwarts Express".


----------



## mojo pixy (May 12, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Tractors and other slow moving vehicles regularly pull to the side of the road to let cars pass, cos they know that holding up a queue of traffic is a cunt's game.





Saul Goodman said:


> I live in rural Ireland, and I'm faced with tractors on narrow lanes every single day. But as soon as a tractor driver sees another vehicle approaching from behind, they pull in at the first opportunity and let that person pass.



I don't remember the last time I saw a tractor or slow-moving farm truck pull over to let traffic pass. I don't know where all these lovely considerate countryside folk live, who do that, but it aint the bits I drive through.

Now I rack my brain I might have seen this happen maybe 8 years ago or something.

No wait, that was me pulling over in my shitbox old van I used to live and tour in. Can't think of another time I've seen it tbh, not recently.


----------



## dessiato (May 12, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> I don't remember the last time I saw a tractor or slow-moving farm truck pull over to let traffic pass. I don't know where all these lovely considerate countryside folk live, who do that, but it aint the bits I drive through.
> 
> No, now I rack my brain I might have seen this happen maybe 8 years ago or something.
> 
> No wait, that was me pulling over in my shitbox old van I used to live and tour in. Can't think of another time I've seen it tbh, not recently.


I see it happen when I'm in Lincolnshire and in Scotland when I'm there. I've seen it in Surrey but I've not been there for a while so it might not happen so much now.

I will be back in the UK,  and on the back roads while I'm back so I'll need to take note.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 12, 2018)

mojo pixy said:


> I don't remember the last time I saw a tractor or slow-moving farm truck pull over to let traffic pass. I don't know where all these lovely considerate countryside folk live, who do that, but it aint the bits I drive through.
> 
> Now I rack my brain I might have seen this happen maybe 8 years ago or something.
> 
> No wait, that was me pulling over in my shitbox old van I used to live and tour in. Can't think of another time I've seen it tbh, not recently.



Happened to me this morning between Elstead and Thursley.


----------



## mojo pixy (May 12, 2018)

Next time I see it happen I'll be sure to report in


----------



## magneze (May 12, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Happened to me this morning between Elstead and Thursley.


Those aren't even real places.


----------



## hash tag (May 12, 2018)

Orang Utan said:


> He's only doing what is in the Highway Code. Many lanes are too narrow for motorists to pass safely, both in the city and in rural areas. Many motorists have forgotten their training and think that they are passing safely when they aren't, so unfortunately cyclists have to take that choice away and ride in a way that prevents the motorist from overtaking in the same lane.
> This is all just good common sense, and is officially sanctioned. It's not a case of cyclists who think they own the road, it's just a matter of wanting to stay alive and to feel safe while riding.
> Indeed, it's motorists who more often give the impression that they own the road, thinking their right to overtake trumps cyclists' right to stay alive and feel safe.
> So if you ever find yourself behind a cyclist in the middle of the lane, just slow down and wait til there's a straight with an empty opposite lane, like you would with a tractor or other slow moving vehicle.



I have just gone through 4 pages of this thread to catch up with this and here is a point.

Cyclists (more correctly people who use bikes) don't have to have training, to have seen a copy of the highway code or even passed any sort of test; admittedly some people who ride bikes have had some training, but not many.
There are many people who ride bikes that are clearly clueless and have no road sense at all and, I would guess have no idea as to what the laws of the road actually are or if they do know, probably don't think they apply to them. This makes them vunerable and dangerous. On the whole, drivers don't want to hurt them and would be very upset if they hurt them. People who ride bikes without any road sense are a lot more unpredictable and harder to avoid. This can really piss off motorists.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 12, 2018)

And my response to car drivers getting “pissed off” is to grow the fuck up.

So someone is vulnerable and potentially at risk. In any other area of life people would try to help. But stick them in a car and they turn into fucking wankers.


----------



## klang (May 12, 2018)

hash tag said:


> On the whole, drivers don't want to hurt them and would be very upset if they hurt them


doesn't look like this on this thread. looks more like cyclist are ganged on, ridiculed and wished seriously injured by car drivers. common belief seems to be that cyclist should be thankful to be allowed on some roads.
i know this is all a laugh and people are trolling, but the trolls have certainly succeeded in upsetting -people and making them even more uncomfortable when cycling in hazardous situations. 
well done


----------



## maomao (May 12, 2018)

hash tag said:


> I have just gone through 4 pages of this thread to catch up with this and here is a point.
> 
> Cyclists (more correctly people who use bikes) don't have to have training, to have seen a copy of the highway code or even passed any sort of test; admittedly some people who ride bikes have had some training, but not many.
> There are many people who ride bikes that are clearly clueless and have no road sense at all and, I would guess have no idea as to what the laws of the road actually are or if they do know, probably don't think they apply to them. This makes them vunerable and dangerous. On the whole, drivers don't want to hurt them and would be very upset if they hurt them. People who ride bikes without any road sense are a lot more unpredictable and harder to avoid. This can really piss off motorists.



This is just more made up rubbish. 80% of UK cyclists have a driving license (according to the DfT). Given that a proportion of the rest will have some training the proportion of cyclists with no training must be tiny.


----------



## mojo pixy (May 12, 2018)

I wonder if there's a correlation between shitty drivers and shitty cyclists? Just speculation but I'd be surprised if the shittest cyclists aren't also the shittest drivers. Impatience, entitlement, risk-taking and a flippant attitude to road safety are bound to be very transferable skills.


----------



## klang (May 12, 2018)

shit people are shit.


----------



## OzT (May 12, 2018)

DownwardDog said:


> We have no MoT of any form in Western Australia and somehow life goes on. It's just a massive money grab aimed at the less well off.


 
you have rego and pink slips no? Just rego then?

To be fair, niether does South Australia, and I'm sure NT don't do pink slips. Why we were always wary of buying out of state cars.

My lad just moved to Perth with his new wife, sent me a vid of their new place, lovely!!


----------



## Spymaster (May 12, 2018)

littleseb said:


> doesn't look like this on this thread. looks more like cyclist are ganged on, ridiculed and wished seriously injured by car drivers. common belief seems to be that cyclist should be thankful to be allowed on some roads.
> i know this is all a laugh and people are trolling, but the trolls have certainly succeeded in upsetting -people and making them even more uncomfortable when cycling in hazardous situations.
> well done


Lol! 

Stop reading this then. This isn’t the place for sensitive little flowers. The thread title kind of gives it away!


----------



## klang (May 12, 2018)

well done


----------



## hash tag (May 12, 2018)

maomao said:


> This is just more made up rubbish. 80% of UK cyclists have a driving license (according to the DfT). Given that a proportion of the rest will have some training the proportion of cyclists with no training must be tiny.



This may not be the case in town, but iIf thats the case, they should start behaving like they have some road sense.


----------



## Spymaster (May 12, 2018)

littleseb said:


> well done


See, you’re learning. It takes a while to get through to thick cyclists but if we bang the drum loud enough, eventually it gets through to you. Yesterday even a_chap made a couple of sensible posts and now you.

There’s hope yet!


----------



## Spymaster (May 12, 2018)

maomao said:


> 80% of UK cyclists have a driving license (according to the DfT).


Correct. And _they_ are the wanker drivers that you lot keep banging on about.


----------



## maomao (May 12, 2018)

hash tag said:


> This may not be the case in town, but iIf thats the case, they should start behaving like they have some road sense.


In what town?


----------



## hash tag (May 12, 2018)

What town? there is only one of significance; London.


----------



## maomao (May 12, 2018)

hash tag said:


> What town? there is only one of significance; London.


And why would the figure be significantly different for London?


----------



## hash tag (May 12, 2018)

Why drive in London unless you have to, besides everywhere is so accessable and there is a plethora of rental bike things which are predominately ridden by non-cyclists/people with no road sense.


----------



## emanymton (May 12, 2018)

littleseb said:


> doesn't look like this on this thread. looks more like cyclist are ganged on, ridiculed and wished seriously injured by car drivers. common belief seems to be that cyclist should be thankful to be allowed on some roads.
> i know this is all a laugh and people are trolling, but the trolls have certainly succeeded in upsetting -people and making them even more uncomfortable when cycling in hazardous situations.
> well done


I can't drive, and have never really felt inclined to learn. But I'm getting tempted to, just so I can mow down a few cyclists.


----------



## Spymaster (May 12, 2018)




----------



## a_chap (May 12, 2018)

Ah, I see the furious motorists are here again.

If there's anything I can post to hasten your early coronaries don't hesitate to let me know


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 12, 2018)

maomao said:


> This is just more made up rubbish. 80% of UK cyclists have a driving license (according to the DfT). Given that a proportion of the rest will have some training the proportion of cyclists with no training must be tiny.


I call bullshit on this. 
Maybe 80% of people who own bikes have a driving license but 80% of cyclists don't hold a driving license. If they did they wouldn't be cyclists, because no car driver with a modicum of self-respect would willingly be referred to as a cyclist.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 12, 2018)

littleseb said:


> doesn't look like this on this thread. looks more like cyclist are ganged on, ridiculed *and wished seriously injured by car drivers*. common belief seems to be that cyclist should be thankful to be allowed on some roads.
> i know this is all a laugh and people are trolling, but the trolls have certainly succeeded in upsetting -people and making them even more uncomfortable when cycling in hazardous situations.
> well done


That's a bit strong. I'm pretty sure nobody wishes that, but don't let facts stand in the way of hyperbole and self-righteous indignation.


----------



## a_chap (May 12, 2018)

Oh Saul, I'm very disappointed. You can troll better than that can't you?


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 12, 2018)

a_chap said:


> Oh Saul, I'm very disappointed. You can troll better than that can't you?


I can but I'm saving my best material for SpookyFrank


----------



## maomao (May 12, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> I call bullshit on this.
> Maybe 80% of people who own bikes have a driving license but 80% of cyclists don't hold a driving license. If they did they wouldn't be cyclists, because no car driver with a modicum of self-respect would willingly be referred to as a cyclist.


DfT figures. Feel free to counter their figures with some alternative figures. Keep your 'I reckon...' horseshit to yourself though.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 12, 2018)

maomao said:


> DfT figures. Feel free to counter their figures with some alternative figures. Keep your 'I reckon...' horseshit to yourself though.


OK, my figures are that just 2.8% of people who cycle on a regular basis hold a driving license.


----------



## maomao (May 12, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> OK, my figures are that just 2.8% of people who cycle on a regular basis hold a driving license.


The figure that you just made up. Hang around long enough and there'll be another couple of Richard Hammond wannabes along to give your hilarious post a like. Maybe one of them will crack a joke about nailing cyclists penises to their saddles. Epic bantz.


----------



## DotCommunist (May 12, 2018)

on another thread giving advise to a new driver some of the same names have been boasting, nay not even that, insisting that their behaviour is correct and expressing frustration that others just don't get it (y'know, like magistrates and that). The cause of this and the tone of the advise? speed limits are a guideline, it is your responsibility to assess the conditions and drive over the limit if you feel it is correct. Basically 'laws don't apply to me cos I ate a bowl of IAMs or some shit'

But here, on this thread the HC is inviolate, road laws and speed limits are written on giant stone tablets handed down by almighty god. Any breach of it by a cyclist is the foulest indignity against the body politic, punishable only by death

funny that


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 12, 2018)

maomao said:


> The figure that you just made up. Hang around long enough and there'll be another couple of Richard Hammond wannabes along to give your hilarious post a like. Maybe one of them will crack a joke about nailing cyclists penises to their saddles. Epic bantz.


So you pull a figure off some random website, and take it as gospel, but when an honest, upstanding member of the community gives you a real figure, you disbelieve them.
Typical cyclist. Refuses to face and accept facts.


----------



## a_chap (May 12, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> OK, my figures are that ...



And *MY* figures are that 76.83% of furious, self-righteous drivers who post comments here actually live quite sad and lonely lives.

Who's next with the made-up and pointless statistics? I'm sure Spymaster has some. And they'll be soooo cutting and clever from him. Unlike Saul's comments, obviously


----------



## maomao (May 12, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> on another thread giving advise to a new driver some of the same names have been boasting, nay not even that, insisting that their behaviour is correct and expressing frustration that others just don't get it (y'know, like magistrates and that). The cause of this and the tone of the advise? speed limits are a guideline, it is your responsibility to assess the conditions and drive over the limit if you feel it is correct. Basically 'laws don't apply to me cos I ate a bowl of IAMs or some shit'
> 
> But here, on this thread the HC is inviolate, road laws and speed limits are written on giant stone tablets handed down by almighty god. Any breach of it by a cyclist is the foulest indignity against the body politic, punishable only by death
> 
> funny that



But what about the bantz? Don't you have a sense of humour?


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 12, 2018)

DotCommunist said:


> on another thread giving advise to a new driver some of the same names have been boasting, nay not even that, insisting that their behaviour is correct and expressing frustration that others just don't get it (y'know, like magistrates and that). The cause of this and the tone of the advise? speed limits are a guideline, it is your responsibility to assess the conditions and drive over the limit if you feel it is correct. Basically 'laws don't apply to me cos I ate a bowl of IAMs or some shit'
> 
> But here, on this thread the HC is inviolate, road laws and speed limits are written on giant stone tablets handed down by almighty god. Any breach of it by a cyclist is the foulest indignity against the body politic, punishable only by death
> 
> funny that



I love driving at the speed limit, particularly in 20 zones. It pisses so many people off but of course all of them are the sort of tosspot who thinks they're entitled to disregard public safety in order to get somewere slightly faster.

I also like the bit about how if someone is taligating you, you should slow down.


----------



## Spymaster (May 12, 2018)

We’ve got some proper foaming cyclists on here today!


----------



## Spymaster (May 12, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> I also like the bit about how if someone is taligating you, you should slow down.




Not sure what thread you’re on about but that’s correct. You slow down and let them pass.

What would you do then, Spookers?


----------



## DotCommunist (May 12, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> We’ve got some proper foaming cyclists on here today!


I gave my bike to someone at church who needs it more (I'm sure all the drivers on this thread have been similarly big hearted and given away a car in the past). So I merely point out as an interested observer _shome dichotomies shir _between what is said here and what is said to a new driver on another thread.


----------



## Baronage-Phase (May 12, 2018)

Got stuck behind some cyclists today. 

One was an elderly man cycling an old fashioned bike. He kept to the side of the road and was cycling in a very steady manner....as in ..not wobbling or veering left / right. He was easy to pass and we waved ... lovely man. 

The others were two young people...dressed in cycling gear and they were cycling 2 abreast. Took up the road. Wobbled and veered. One kept moving to deliberately prevent drivers from overtaking. 
Crawled along behind 6..5..4..3..2..1...cars for ages as everyone took ages to overtake because of the completely and very deliberate poor cycling. 
I've no doubt it was deliberate and designed to give the message "we have a right to take over the road and there's nothing you can do about it".


----------



## a_chap (May 12, 2018)

PippinTook said:


> designed to give the message "we have a right to take over the road and there's nothing you can do about it".



In case you need reminding they had as much right to the road as you and I.

And there's nothing we can do about it.


----------



## Baronage-Phase (May 12, 2018)

a_chap said:


> In case you need reminding they had as much right to the road as you and I.
> 
> And there's nothing we can do about it.



I know they have rights to the road...but it would be great if they could ride in a somewhat predictable way. Not wobble and veer left to right to two abreast and then single file and suddenly two abreast again once a car moves up to overtake and then back to veering into the left side. 

They could have cycled with some modicum of consideration for others....but they didn't. They rode like they had the right to ride unpredictably.

It was pretty selfish.


----------



## a_chap (May 12, 2018)

You know, I can't even remember the last time the driver of a motor vehicle was selfish. They **always** move out of the way for me if they're holding me up.


----------



## dessiato (May 12, 2018)

a_chap said:


> In case you need reminding they had as much right to the road as you and I.
> 
> And there's nothing we can do about it.


Section 66 of the Highway Code.


----------



## Baronage-Phase (May 12, 2018)

a_chap said:


> You know, I can't even remember the last the driver of a motor vehicle was selfish. They **always** move out of the way for me if they're holding me up.




That's great....


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 12, 2018)

dessiato said:


> Section 66 of the Highway Code.


Do I have to quote traffic police again?


----------



## Spymaster (May 12, 2018)

PippinTook said:


> It was pretty selfish.


That because they’re bellends.

I’m wondering which of the cyclists posting on this thread is the worst on the road. Probably a_chap but maomao is pretty awful too. Honours shared i reckon.


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 12, 2018)

maomao said:


> The figure that you just made up. Hang around long enough and there'll be another couple of Richard Hammond wannabes along to give your hilarious post a like. Maybe one of them will crack a joke about nailing cyclists penises to their saddles. Epic bantz.



Better to cut them off, and hang them from your car exhaust IMO.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 12, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Do I have to quote traffic police again?



Some provincial dibble’s tweet does not supersede the Highway Code.


----------



## a_chap (May 12, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> That because they’re bellends.
> 
> I’m wondering which of the cyclists posting on this thread is the worst on the road. Probably a_chap but maomao is pretty awful too. Honours shared i reckon.



Probably me.

I only managed a Silver grade when I took my first RoSPA advanced driving test. Shameful, really...


----------



## Spymaster (May 12, 2018)

a_chap said:


> Probably me.


Probably but it’ll be close. maomao is really crap. He went to the SpookyFrank cycling school.


----------



## maomao (May 12, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Probably but it’ll be close. maomao is really crap. He went to the SpookyFrank cycling school.


Seeing as you've never seen me ride a bike and I think you're an arsehole you're unlikely to get a rise out of me with this particular tactic.


----------



## Spymaster (May 12, 2018)

maomao said:


> Seeing as you've never seen me ride a bike and I think you're an arsehole you're unlikely to get a rise out of me with this particular tactic.


Nonsense


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 12, 2018)

a_chap said:


> Probably me.
> 
> I only managed a Silver grade when I took my first RoSPA advanced driving test. Shameful, really...





Spymaster said:


> Probably but it’ll be close. maomao is really crap. He went to the SpookyFrank cycling school.



Don't put yourself down. a_chap. I have absolutely no doubt maomao is much worse. He used to be a courier, and everyone knows that courier riders are a bunch of cunts and flaunt every rule that ever was made.

Also, whilst we're on the subject of RoSPA. I got a gold, and went on to be a motorcycle riding instructor, and my worst students (also the ones with the highest failure rate) were cyclists who wished to leave behind the 'cyclist' hashtag, and progress to something with less of a stigma attached.


----------



## dessiato (May 12, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Do I have to quote traffic police again?


I think you'll find that, if you ever need to argue your case, the Highway Code will be taken as the rule, after all that's its purpose.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 12, 2018)

PippinTook said:


> Got stuck behind some cyclists today.
> 
> One was an elderly man cycling an old fashioned bike. He kept to the side of the road and was cycling in a very steady manner....as in ..not wobbling or veering left / right. He was easy to pass and we waved ... lovely man.
> 
> ...



They're not taking over the road, they're using it to go somewhere. And they do have a right to do that and there is nothing you can do about it.


----------



## BigTom (May 12, 2018)

dessiato said:


> Section 66 of the Highway Code.



Yep. Rule 66 of the HC is very clear cyclists are allowed to ride two or more abreast. Whilst it's not possible for us to know if they had a good reason for doing so (we would have to witness it ourselves, I won't disagree with PippinTook because I haven't seen it but I've seen many, many videos of people complaining about situations where there are clear reasons to be riding two abreast or in primary (e2a: primary = middle of the lane), but they don't understand).

It is clearly their right and if they choose to, there is nothing to be done about it. Suck it up, don't be annoyed because that gains you nothing except impatience which may lead to a dangerous situation. Relax and wait until it is safe to pass.


----------



## BigTom (May 12, 2018)

PippinTook said:


> Got stuck behind some cyclists today.
> 
> One was an elderly man cycling an old fashioned bike. *He kept to the side of the road* and was cycling in a very steady manner....as in ..not wobbling or veering left / right. He was easy to pass and we waved ... lovely man.
> 
> ...



I just want to say that I hope that by "the side of the road" he was not cycling in the gutter, but was around 50cm-1m from the kerb. Gutter is the most dangerous place to be and no cyclist should be there - loads of surface hazards, less visible, leaves space for drivers to pass in lane = more class passes.
Also in the post is an implication that good cycling = being by the side and bad cycling is in the middle or two abreast but there are many, many, many situations where cyclists should take the lane and control the traffic around them to make space and stay safe. The idea that cyclists should stay to the side is very dangerous and needs to be forgotten.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 12, 2018)

maomao said:


> This is just more made up rubbish. 80% of UK cyclists have a driving license (according to the DfT). Given that a proportion of the rest will have some training the proportion of cyclists with no training must be tiny.





maomao said:


> DfT figures. Feel free to counter their figures with some alternative figures. Keep your 'I reckon...' horseshit to yourself though.



The figure you posted comes from a 6 year old article, and is therefore worthless, but let's assume for a second that it isn't. Would you mind citing the actual source for that figure, and how that figure was arrived at, as there is no mention of this in the article you posted a link to, which makes that/your figure less than useless, in this situation.
So, if you don't mind, would you quantify that figure, using the original source as a reference, with actual figures (with links), and maybe a Venn diagram showing the crossover sections, if that's not too much to ask?


----------



## dessiato (May 12, 2018)

BigTom said:


> Yep. Rule 66 of the HC is very clear cyclists are allowed to ride two or more abreast. Whilst it's not possible for us to know if they had a good reason for doing so (we would have to witness it ourselves, I won't disagree with PippinTook because I haven't seen it but I've seen many, many videos of people complaining about situations where there are clear reasons to be riding two abreast or in primary (e2a: primary = middle of the lane), but they don't understand).
> 
> It is clearly their right and if they choose to, there is nothing to be done about it. Suck it up, don't be annoyed because that gains you nothing except impatience which may lead to a dangerous situation. Relax and wait until it is safe to pass.


You are wrong. Ill post it again.
*Rule 66*
You should


keep both hands on the handlebars except when signalling or changing gear
keep both feet on the pedals
*never ride more than two abreast, and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends*
not ride close behind another vehicle
not carry anything which will affect your balance or may get tangled up with your wheels or chain
be considerate of other road users, particularly blind and partially sighted pedestrians. Let them know you are there when necessary, for example, by ringing your bell if you have one. It is recommended that a bell be fitted.
My emphasis.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 12, 2018)

dessiato said:


> You are wrong. Ill post it again.
> *Rule 66*
> You should
> 
> ...


Cyclist in "wrong again" shocker!


----------



## maomao (May 12, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> The figure you posted comes from a 6 year old article, and is therefore worthless, but let's assume for a second that it isn't. Would you mind citing the actual source for that figure, and how that figure was arrived at, as there is no mention of this in the article you posted a link to, which makes that/your figure less than useless, in this situation.
> So, if you don't mind, would you quantify that figure, using the original source as a reference, with actual figures (with links), and maybe a Venn diagram showing the crossover sections, if that's not too much to ask?


Ask the DfT. They published it so they're presumably happy with the figure. Given you couldn't even understand the figures in a study you quoted yourself a few months ago I'm really not going to bother getting into a discussion about it with you.


----------



## Baronage-Phase (May 12, 2018)

BigTom said:


> Yep. Rule 66 of the HC is very clear cyclists are allowed to ride two or more abreast. Whilst it's not possible for us to know if they had a good reason for doing so (we would have to witness it ourselves, I won't disagree with PippinTook because I haven't seen it but I've seen many, many videos of people complaining about situations where there are clear reasons to be riding two abreast or in primary (e2a: primary = middle of the lane), but they don't understand).
> 
> It is clearly their right and if they choose to, there is nothing to be done about it. Suck it up, don't be annoyed because that gains you nothing except impatience which may lead to a dangerous situation. Relax and wait until it is safe to pass.



I do understand the 2 abreast thing. But this was a country road. And they were all over the place...unpredictably so and for no apparent reason. A driver doing similar wobbling would be considered quite dangerous. 



BigTom said:


> I just want to say that I hope that by "the side of the road" he was not cycling in the gutter, but was around 50cm-1m from the kerb. Gutter is the most dangerous place to be and no cyclist should be there - loads of surface hazards, less visible, leaves space for drivers to pass in lane = more class passes.
> Also in the post is an implication that good cycling = being by the side and bad cycling is in the middle or two abreast but there are many, many, many situations where cyclists should take the lane and control the traffic around them to make space and stay safe. The idea that cyclists should stay to the side is very dangerous and needs to be forgotten.



He was on the road...just not in the middle of the lane....like the other 2 muppets.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 12, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> They're not taking over the road, they're using it to go somewhere. And they do have a right to do that and there is nothing you can do about it.


Have a look at the highlighted and underlined part.



> never ride more than two abreast,* and ride in single file on narrow or busy roads *and when riding round bends



If there's a line of cars waiting to pass you, it's a busy road, and you should be riding in single-file!

And you teach people to ride bikes? It's no wonder cyclists are shit, when you're teaching them dangerous lies!


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 12, 2018)

maomao said:


> Ask the DfT. They published it so they're presumably happy with the figure. Given you couldn't even understand the figures in a study you quoted yourself a few months ago I'm really not going to bother getting into a discussion about it with you.


There's absolutely no breakdown of the figure you quoted, so it's useless. Like most/all of your replies on this thread.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 12, 2018)

PippinTook said:


> I do understand the 2 abreast thing. *But this was a country road*.


A country road is a narrow road, and they should have been single-file.
Wankers!


----------



## maomao (May 12, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> There's absolutely no breakdown of the figure you quoted, so it's useless. Like most/all of your replies on this thread.



There are breakdowns available I'm just not discussing them with you because you've repeatedly proved yourself too dim and dishonest to be worth talking about anything in depth to. Feel free to Google it yourself though whizzkid.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 12, 2018)

maomao said:


> There are breakdowns available I'm just not discussing them with you because you've repeatedly proved yourself too dim and dishonest to be worth talking about anything in depth to. Feel free to Google it yourself though whizzkid.


You don't seem very bright, so let me make it simple for you. The onus is on the person presenting the 'facts' to back those 'facts' up when asked to. You fail at this on every occasion, and I can only guess as to why.


----------



## maomao (May 12, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> You don't seem very bright, so let me make it simple for you. The onus is on the person presenting the 'facts' to back those 'facts' up when asked to. You fail at this on every occasion, and I can only guess as to why.



Seriously, have you read the thread? Any time a cyclist responds seriously they get savaged by a gang of giggling mini-Hammonds who decide that all cyclists are cunts cause they say they are. You didn't even understand the figures in the one proper source you managed to quote. Why would anyone bother? Go boil your fucking head.


----------



## BigTom (May 12, 2018)

dessiato said:


> You are wrong. Ill post it again.
> *Rule 66*
> You should
> 
> ...



cool. Lets have a look at this rule. My emphasis this time:

You *Should
*
never ride *more than *two abreast, and ride in single file on *narrow or busy roads and when riding round bends*.

So firstly

Should

means it's advice, not law. You are allowed to do this, but you are advised against it. There is no action that can be taken against a road user for not following the advice in the highway code (though this may be used as part of a general case). If the rule said "must" it would be law and you would be required to follow it.

secondly

more than

the rule is clear that two abreast is not advised against (except in the specific circumstances that follow). More than two abreast is advised against, but as the HC states, this is just advice and you are free to go against it if you choose.

Thirdly, fouthly and fifthly

Narrow
Busy
riding round bends.

Define narrow. Define busy. without definition both of these terms are (e2a legally) vague and pointless.
Bends is pretty clear but would a very slight bend really mean coming into single file? How bendy should a bend be? and why in single file round bends, and why not two abreast?
The problem here is that in each of these situations, the national standards for cycling will give you different advice, and it explains why as well - if a road is to narrow for a driver to safely overtake you want to be riding two abreast (or in primary) to prevent dangerous overtakes.
If the road is busy two abreast can make it easier to pass, as discussed in my previous post. So riding two abreast is considerate to other road users.
If you are riding round a bend, then being two abreast can give better vision and visibility (same with primary - the rider who is wider out is basically in primary position and able to see further round the bend).

So advice from the HC or advice from the national standards for cycling? Both have the same standing in law (neither are law) but one is far more in depth on rules and reasons for cyclists, and was created and updated more recently than that section of the HC afaik (it's also just being revised at the moment, so in a few months that statement will definitely be correct, unless the HC is undergoing a revision at the moment as well).
Personally I would quite happily argue in court that the national standards for cycling take precedence over the highway code where they disagree. (but not the Road Traffic Act or other legislation)


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 12, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> Have a look at the highlighted and underlined part.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


For the vast majority of roads out there, If you can’t overtake without entirely crossing the white line onto the other side, then you can’t overtake safely. So it matters not one jot if bikes are two, three, or four abreast. As traffic police have made clear.

So you can quite the Highway Code until you’re blue in the face. The _advice_ - and that’s exactly what section 66 is, nothing more, is outdated, and is best ignored for what is now viewed as a safer way of riding.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 12, 2018)

maomao said:


> Seriously, have you read the thread? Any time a cyclist responds seriously they get savaged by a gang of giggling mini-Hammonds who decide that all cyclists are cunts cause they say they are. You didn't even understand the figures in the one proper source you managed to quote. Why would anyone bother? Go boil your fucking head.


So, when asked to back up a figure, which you deemed important enough to post (a figure which was vague at best and quite possibly dishonest), with actual figures from whichever organisation conducted the survey, you do a bodyswerve, completely sidestepping the question, and blame everyone else for your debating inadequacies, whilst, at the same time, insulting the person who asked you to stand behind your assertion.
If I didn't know you were older, I'd swear I was having a conversation with a 6 year old.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 12, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> For the vast majority of roads out there, If you can’t overtake without entirely crossing the white line onto the other side, then you can’t overtake safely. So it matters not one jot if bikes are two, three, or four abreast. As traffic police have made clear.
> 
> So you can quite the Highway Code until you’re blue in the face. The _advice_ - and that’s exactly what section 66 is, nothing more, is outdated, and is best ignored for what is now viewed as a safer way of riding.


If you can't pass safely, then it's a narrow road and cyclists should be riding in single file.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 12, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> If you can't pass safely, then it's a narrow road and cyclists should be riding in single file.


Why should they? If you’re behind them in a car, it has no effect whatsoever on your passing them, other than making it more difficult as has already been explained, with pretty diagrams, on this thread.


----------



## maomao (May 12, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> So, when asked to back up a figure, which you deemed important enough to post (a figure which was vague at best and quite possibly dishonest), with actual figures from whichever organisation conducted the survey, you do a bodyswerve, completely sidestepping the question, and blame everyone else for your debating inadequacies, whilst, at the same time, insulting the person who asked you to stand behind your assertion.
> If I didn't know you were older, I'd swear I was having a conversation with a 6 year old.


If you think it's dishonest take it up with the DfT.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 12, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Why should they? If you’re behind them in a car, it has no effect whatsoever on your passing them, other than making it more difficult as has already been explained, with pretty diagrams, on this thread.


Most roads are plenty wide enough for a bike, a car [safely] passing the bike and a vehicle coming the other direction, and all three vehicles passing [safely] at the same spot. This isn't the case if cyclists are two abreast, which is why cyclists *'should' *ride in single file. (as stated in the highway code)


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 12, 2018)

maomao said:


> If you think it's dishonest take it up with the DfT.


I said it's 'possibly dishonest'. Your use of it is definitely dishonest.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 12, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> Most roads are plenty wide enough for a bike, a vehicle [safely] passing the bike and a vehicle coming the other direction, and all three vehicles passing [safely] at the same spot.


No, they’re not.

Bike should be 1m from the kerb. Bike width up to approx. 1m depending on rider size and type, passing distance 1.5m away.

Do the maths.

Unless you can cross over the white line - in other words, no car is coming the other way, you cannot pass safely.


----------



## maomao (May 12, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> I said it's 'possibly dishonest'. Your use of it is definitely dishonest.


So when you claimed 65% or whatever of cyclists jump red lights in Dublin were you being dishonest or just too thick to understand the paper you'd quoted?

I quoted the DfT's figure on the percentage of cyclists to illustrate that the majority of cyclists are road trained. Unless you actually have something to suggest otherwise I don't know what you're problem is.


----------



## dessiato (May 12, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> For the vast majority of roads out there, If you can’t overtake without entirely crossing the white line onto the other side, then you can’t overtake safely. So it matters not one jot if bikes are two, three, or four abreast. As traffic police have made clear.
> 
> So you can quite the Highway Code until you’re blue in the face. The _advice_ - and that’s exactly what section 66 is, nothing more, is outdated, and is best ignored for what is now viewed as a safer way of riding.


So, there's parts of the HC that, as a car driver, I don't like, and which inconvenience me, by your logic I can ignore those rules. I don't think the courts would accept that, do you? What makes you think that those same courts would ignore the HC if a cyclist chose to use your logic against the HC?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 12, 2018)

dessiato said:


> So, there's parts of the HC that, as a car driver, I don't like, and which inconvenience me, by your logic I can ignore those rules. I don't think the courts would accept that, do you? What makes you think that those same courts would ignore the HC if a cyclist chose to use your logic against the HC?


Well, come the day a group of cyclists gets prosecuted for “delaying a poor driver by 30 seconds” I guess we’ll find out.

Fairly sure we’ll see an impatient driver prosecuted for dangerous overtaking first though.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 12, 2018)

If cyclists are so vulnerable and cycling so dangerous, why not remove yourself from the danger and get a car, like a grown up?


----------



## BigTom (May 12, 2018)

dessiato said:


> So, there's parts of the HC that, as a car driver, I don't like, and which inconvenience me, by your logic I can ignore those rules. I don't think the courts would accept that, do you? What makes you think that those same courts would ignore the HC if a cyclist chose to use your logic against the HC?



Legally speaking, anywhere the highway code says "should" it is not law and you cannot be specifically prosecuted for going against it. If it says "must" then you can be prosecuted for disobeying it, as it is in the RTA.

Going against advice may be used as part of a general case for eg due care and attention, but it's not illegal and yes you can ignore those rules and no you can't be prosecuted for them.



> Many of the rules in The Highway Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence.
> 
> Although failure to comply with the other rules of The Highway Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.



For cars, pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders 2017 introduction

eg:



> *4. Before setting off (97)*
> 97
> *Before setting off. *You should ensure that
> 
> you have planned your route and allowed sufficient time


Rules for drivers and motorcyclists - Before setting off (97)

Do you always plan your route? If you just want to go for a drive and see where you end up should you be prosecuted for ignoring the HC?

I just picked one rule at random, yeah it's meaningless but the HC is really clear on what is and isn't law. If you have good reason to go against the advice parts of the HC then you are free to do so. No cyclist will be prosecuted for not wearing a helmet or not wearing hi-vis, but both of these are in the HC with the same emphasis as not riding two abreast / single file in particular circumstances.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 12, 2018)

maomao said:


> So when you claimed 65% or whatever of cyclists jump red lights in Dublin were you being dishonest or just too thick to understand the paper you'd quoted?
> 
> I quoted the DfT's figure on the percentage of cyclists to illustrate that the majority of cyclists are road trained. Unless you actually have something to suggest otherwise I don't know what you're problem is.


The figure you quoted isn't broken down into its constituent parts.
What that article does state is:


> 1 in 5 drivers cycling at least once a month


So, assuming we're using the term 'cyclist' for someone who gets on a bike once a month (or more), that's 20%, not 80%.
Now let's address the once a month 'cyclist'. Would you class someone who drinks a bottle of beer a month as an alcoholic? No, you wouldn't, just as someone who rides a bike once a month isn't a cyclist. They just happen to own a bike and use it very occasionally.
If you can't understand this, you're either being disingenuous or thick.


----------



## maomao (May 12, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> So, assuming we're using the term 'cyclist' for someone who gets on a bike once a month (or more), that's 20%, not 80%.


See. You're too thick. There's no point. Read the fucking numbers again or quietly drop it.


----------



## dessiato (May 12, 2018)

BigTom said:


> Legally speaking, anywhere the highway code says "should" it is not law and you cannot be specifically prosecuted for going against it. If it says "must" then you can be prosecuted for disobeying it, as it is in the RTA.
> 
> Going against advice may be used as part of a general case for eg due care and attention, but it's not illegal and yes you can ignore those rules and no you can't be prosecuted for them.
> 
> ...


I always plan my route, always check I've enough fuel, and check lights etc regularly. It's a safety thing for me. Even though I use the same motorway every time I go to work I have an alternative route should I need it. Not doing this planning doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 12, 2018)

maomao said:


> See. You're too thick. There's no point. Read the fucking numbers again or quietly drop it.


If I'd known you were unarmed, I would never have challenged you to a battle of wits.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 12, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> If cyclists are so vulnerable and cycling so dangerous, why not remove yourself from the danger and get a car, like a grown up?


I have both


----------



## maomao (May 12, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> If I'd known you were unarmed, I would never have challenged you to a battle of wits.


Have you realised your error yet or are you just chucking out stolen witticisms while you phone a friend with a maths GCSE?


----------



## maomao (May 12, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I have both


As do four out of five cyclists. And one out of five car drivers.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 12, 2018)

maomao said:


> Have you realised your error yet or are you just chucking out stolen witticisms while you phone a friend with a maths GCSE?


I'm too busy to even read what I post but please feel free to correct any errors I make.


----------



## maomao (May 12, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> I'm too busy to even read what I post but please feel free to correct any errors I make.


An inability to distinguish base and amount when looking at percentages seems to be the main one.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 12, 2018)

maomao said:


> An inability to distinguish base and amount when looking at percentages seems to be the main one.


Ah, right. I misread your post. I thought you said 80% of car drivers are cyclists. Thanks for correcting that for me. Appreciated


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 12, 2018)

maomao said:


> As do four out of five cyclists.


Four out of five 'cyclists' don't own a car. Maybe 4 out of 5 people who own a bike also own a car, but that's not even close to the same thing.
I own 3 push bikes but I'm not a cyclist, and I'd fight vehemently for my right not to be called a cyclist.


----------



## maomao (May 12, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> Four out of five 'cyclists' don't own a car. Maybe 4 out of 5 people who own a bike also own a car, but that's not even close to the same thing.



I know. Four out of five cyclists have driving licenses though. I just laid it out like that to show you where you were going wrong. They almost certainly 'have' access to borrowed or hired vehicles though so same thing really.


> I own 3 push bikes but I'm not a cyclist, and I'd fight vehemently for my right not to be called a cyclist.


Good luck with that. This thread is full of complaints against part time cyclists, often even specifying that it's a hire bike. Apparently if you're on a bike you're a cyclist.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 12, 2018)

maomao said:


> *I know. Four out of five cyclists have driving licenses though*. I just laid it out like that to show you where you were going wrong. They almost certainly 'have' access to borrowed or hired vehicles though so same thing really.


You keep making this same mistake. 4 out of 5 people who own a bike have a car license. Owning a bike does not make you a cyclist. Just as owning a knife does not make you a serial killer.



maomao said:


> Good luck with that. This thread is full of complaints against part time cyclists, often even specifying that it's a hire bike. Apparently if you're on a bike you're a cyclist.


I'm not a part-time cyclist, though. I'm not an anything cyclist. I would rather strip my bikes to their constituent parts and fuck them into a smelting furnace than be referred to as a cyclist.
Owning a bike does not a cyclist make. There are many other factors to the equation. Self-righteousness, bad manners and having no consideration for other road users are just a few of those factors.


----------



## maomao (May 12, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> You keep making this same mistake. 4 out of 5 people who own a bike have a car license.


Your mistake. Again. The figure given is four out of five _cyclists_. It's from the yougov National Travel Survey 2010: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/8932/nts2010-01.pdf

I haven't had a look yet but I'd be fucking flabbergasted if it defined 'cyclist' as 'owning a bicycle'.


----------



## BigTom (May 12, 2018)

dessiato said:


> I always plan my route, always check I've enough fuel, and check lights etc regularly. It's a safety thing for me. Even though I use the same motorway every time I go to work I have an alternative route should I need it. Not doing this planning doesn't make sense to me.



fair play, do you never just drive without a preplanned destination? Never take a diversion just because it looks interesting? Do you think people should be prosecuted for doing so, or is it ok for someone to ignore that rule in the highway code?


----------



## dessiato (May 12, 2018)

BigTom said:


> fair play, do you never just drive without a preplanned destination? Never take a diversion just because it looks interesting? Do you think people should be prosecuted for doing so, or is it ok for someone to ignore that rule in the highway code?


I used to but now I travel to get to places more than just for the pleasure of driving.


----------



## BigTom (May 12, 2018)

dessiato said:


> I used to but now I travel to get to places more than just for the pleasure of driving.



Do you think you should have been prosecuted or in some way reprimanded for ignoring that rule in the highway code, when you used to drive just for pleasure? Because it has the same legal strength as any other "should" rule, even if other "should" rules deal with more weighty situations. 
As a driver, if you have good reason, absolutely ignore the "should" sections of the highway code. As a cyclist you have more detailed guidance in the national standards for cycling, and some of these contradict the advice in the highway code. I will go with the national standards for cycling in those instances.


----------



## hash tag (May 12, 2018)

With regards to riding more than two abreast, I've been threatened with arrest for this several times, but, it was on early critical mass rides


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 12, 2018)

maomao said:


> Your mistake. Again. The figure given is four out of five _cyclists_. It's from the yougov National Travel Survey 2010: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/8932/nts2010-01.pdf
> 
> I haven't had a look yet but I'd be fucking flabbergasted if it defined 'cyclist' as 'owning a bicycle'.


I only skimmed the article you linked to but I couldn't find any mention of what you appear to be stating it mentions.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 12, 2018)

BigTom said:


> As a cyclist you have more detailed guidance in the national standards for cycling, and some of these contradict the advice in the highway code. I will go with the national standards for cycling in those instances.


Cyclist in "I'll do whatever suits me" shocker


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 12, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> Cyclist in "I'll do whatever suits me" shocker


Or, put another way, what they’re told to do. By, you know, the police and official guidelines.


----------



## maomao (May 12, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> I only skimmed the article you linked to but I couldn't find any mention of what you appear to be stating it mentions.


That's just the summary. What you are so fixated on will be somewhere in the fill results:
National Travel Survey: 2010

Given the fucking mess you made with the simple academic paper you quoted earlier in the thread I reckon you might need some help with that.


----------



## maomao (May 12, 2018)

Though I note that their definition of bicycle includes (pedal driven) tricycles which will upset someone I'm sure.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 12, 2018)

maomao said:


> That's just the summary. What you are so fixated on will be somewhere in the fill results:
> National Travel Survey: 2010
> 
> Given the fucking mess you made with the simple academic paper you quoted earlier in the thread I reckon you might need some help with that.


That's a list of 15 publications. Could you quote and link to the relevant article that supports your assertion?


----------



## maomao (May 12, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> That's a list of 15 publications. Could you quote and link to the relevant article that supports your assertion?


It's not fifteen publications.


----------



## maomao (May 12, 2018)

And I'm not the one that's unhappy with the sourced figure I gave so I thought you'd like to go through the freely available data and work out how they came to it. I don't give a fuck. I just want you to stop your ignorant whining.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 12, 2018)

maomao said:


> It's not fifteen publications.


OK, whatever... Then please quote the part that backs up your assertion.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 12, 2018)

maomao said:


> *And I'm not the one that's unhappy with the sourced figure I gave* so I thought you'd like to go through the freely available data and work out how they came to it. I don't give a fuck. I just want you to stop your ignorant whining.


What sourced figure? Either cite your sources (with valid data) or don't reference them.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 12, 2018)

This list says all that needs to be said about cyclists.
List of doping cases in cycling - Wikipedia
And these are just the ones who were caught cheating, and there are hundreds of the cheating fuckers!
They can't even compete in a silly race without cheating and lying. That says all that needs to be said about 'cyclists'


----------



## keybored (May 12, 2018)

The most unbelievable thing about these graphics is that they imply cyclists have friends.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 13, 2018)

hash tag said:


> Why drive in London unless you have to, besides everywhere is so accessable and there is a plethora of rental bike things which are predominately ridden by non-cyclists/people with no road sense.



Handily the most commonly used rental bikes have some fancy light thing that projects a green cycle onto the road ahead, warning more experienced cyclists and other road users to steer clear of their probable duncery.


----------



## BigTom (May 13, 2018)

dessiato since you liked saul's post, I've got to ask, do you know what the national standards for cycling are? I'd thought you would have asked if you didn't but it's I don't think you can know what they are and not understand saul is (as ever) trolling nonsense in his post. 

National Standard for cycle training outcomes

They are the DfT's offical standards for what is taught to cyclists in the UK. Although it's only set out as a teaching document for instructors, it is a detailed set of rules and guidelines for what cyclists in the UK are instructed to do whilst cycling on the road. This set of documents (level 1, 2 and 3 in the link) de facto forms the official UK government advice for cyclist behaviour on the road, technically it forms the advice for what cyclists are taught to do on the road but that's a crazy distinction to make at any practical level. I would like to see these reworked to replace the current cyclist section of the highway code and be set out as a detailed set of laws, guidance and advice like the hc is, since that is effectively what they are.

When you ride two abreast, you achieve the same effect as riding in the middle of the lane (primary), except that you take up less road space - the rider on the right will be roughly in primary position, with a rider to their left in a space that would be empty if riding single file - the rider would be behind instead, with more empty space on their left that a cyclist could be in. 

The three circumstances the highway code advises to ride single file are three circumstances in which the national standards for cycling may advise riding in primary. If you are in a pair or group of cyclists, what is the reasoning for riding single file primary rather than two abreast? All it does is take up more road space. 

Riding two abreast discourages/prevents dangerous overtakes on narrow roads - this includes roads which are temporarily narrowed by oncoming traffic or things like pedestrian refuges. There may be enough space to overtake in gaps in traffic or between refuges, and solo riders would move between primary (when narrowed) and secondary (when not) to signal (or perhaps better phrased as subtly indicate) to drivers to stay behind / now is the time to overtake. Riding in pair/group, moving between single file and two abreast you stretch the group out twice as long, increasing the length required to overtake and therefore reducing opportunities to do so (I don't ride in groups but I can imagine it takes practice and is awkward to do, you'd have to pre-prepare who will speed up/slow down to create gaps surely? In a pair you can communicate to each other easily enough not to need to do that) . The movement of a group from two abreast to single file doesn't give suggestions to drivers in the same way as a solo cyclist moving from the middle to left of the lane does, so it doesn't work to be used as a way of controlling traffic and making the decision as to when a driver overtakes you. Continually riding two abreast makes you (as a group) more predictable to drivers and therefore safer to overtake where opportunities prevent themselves. As a group shuffles from two abreast to single file, any decent driver is going to hold back until it is clear what is going on, by which time there is more oncoming traffic, or a pedestrian refuge preventing a safe overtake of a single file group.
Riding in a pair is more like riding solo than riding in a group in these circumstances, assuming one of you can accelerate and move into single file ahead of the other, rather than needing to slow to move in behind.

When it is really busy, riding two abreast in slow moving traffic ensures you remain in the flow of traffic and thus discourages/prevents dangerous overtakes, whilst taking up less road space at a congested time than riding single file one behind the other. 
Riding two abreast can (and usually will) make it easier to overtake when it is fairly busy but this actually doesn't achieve the same effect as primary does, the opposite really, but it's a valid criticism of the HC advice, whilst not being directly in the national standards for cycling as it doesn't set out specifically the times groups want to be in single file rather than two abreast.

Riding two abreast gives better vision and visibility around tighter left hand bends, on blind bends it discourages/prevents dangerous overtake (should be solid white lines anyway so makes no difference where cyclists are in the lane) and shallow bends, why does it matter if they are two abreast?

When the two contradict each other, which set of official DfT guidelines do I follow? And how is choosing to follow one set of guidelines over the other (where they contradict each other) "doing what I want"? I am following the detailed - and reasoned - guidance and advice in the national standards for cycling. The HC gives no reasoning for its advice. You have to make a choice between them, so which do you follow? The one that explains for reasons of safety and courtesy that you would want to be two abreast, or the one that just states you shouldn't be with no reasoning as to why.


----------



## maomao (May 13, 2018)

BigTom said:


> dessiato since you liked saul's post, I've got to ask, do you know what the national standards for cycling are? I'd thought you would have asked if you didn't but it's I don't think you can know what they are and not understand saul is (as ever) trolling nonsense in his post.
> 
> National Standard for cycle training outcomes
> 
> ...



So basically if you're complaining about cyclists being two or more abreast the only reason it would inconvenience you is if you were planning to overtake ignoring the advice of the highway code anyway.


----------



## bimble (May 13, 2018)

I def shouldn't be on this thread but.. as a new car person I much prefer it if the cyclist is in the middle of the lane so that i don't feel like i'm supposed to overtake them, overtaking cyclists (the pressure to do so) is probably my worst bit of the whole driving malarkey.


----------



## Spymaster (May 13, 2018)

Welcome to the angry cyclists thread bimble. It's one of the best threads on the boards because with a little encouragement we actually get the cyclists to troll themselves!!!

Rules are; only bother to read BigTom's posts properly. He's the only cyclist worth reading on here. Most of the fun is provided by maomao who is wrong about everything he posts; a_chap who's a not very bright froth monkey who tries to pretend he's not getting wound up but clearly is and keeps coming back for more, and SpookyFrank who unintentionally provides the humour by blowing his foot off every time he posts with gems about driving that are just flat out wrong. And he teaches kids to cycle!!!


----------



## a_chap (May 13, 2018)

...and not forgetting Spymaster, the big old blowhard who thinks he's funny. It's not hard to get him to fly off the handle, just a prod or two and woosh; there he goes again. He gets ever nearer a complete breakdown day by day


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 13, 2018)




----------



## DotCommunist (May 13, 2018)

you can tell the thread winners cos they constantly assert it to be so despite a paucity of evidence supporting these frequent bold claims. Trumpian rhetoric is a la mode in these less enlightened times alas. Last days of rome. winning bigly


----------



## Spymaster (May 13, 2018)

a_chap said:


> ...and not forgetting Spymaster, the big old blowhard who thinks he's funny. It's not hard to get him to fly off the handle, just a prod or two and woosh; there he goes again. He gets ever nearer a complete breakdown day by day


See, this kind of response simply doesn't work. You think it's a slick riposte but you're just making my point for me and face-planting yourself. The way to deal with wankers like me is to ignore me, but you can't do that can you? Neither can maomao who's reading this and foaming whilst trying _really hard_ not to post here any more but is going to fail.


----------



## maomao (May 13, 2018)

a_chap said:


> ...and not forgetting Spymaster, the big old blowhard who thinks he's funny. It's not hard to get him to fly off the handle, just a prod or two and woosh; there he goes again. He gets ever nearer a complete breakdown day by day


It's actually really difficult to wind him up but so much fun when it happens, abusive PMs, threats, the lot.


----------



## Spymaster (May 13, 2018)

maomao said:


> ... abusive PMs, threats, the lot.


Eh?  You're telling porkies again aren't you????

Anyway, nice to see you back.


----------



## maomao (May 13, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Eh?  You're telling porkies aren't you????
> 
> Anyway, nice to see you back.


You had steam coming out your ears Hammy. I'd quote you but someone would probably report me and I've got two points already.


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 13, 2018)

a_chap said:


> ...and not forgetting Spymaster, the big old blowhard who thinks he's funny. It's not hard to get him to fly off the handle, just a prod or two and woosh; there he goes again. He gets ever nearer a complete breakdown day by day



Having met spy on a good few occasions, the only breakdown he will be having is from pissing himself laughing, despite claims from maomao .


----------



## maomao (May 13, 2018)

I could do with a break anyway:



> I'm not interested in this PM conversation any more. I held out an olive branch and you slapped me with it. Well fuck you. As far as I'm concerned you're a cunt and I'm going to make that clear whenever we post on the same threads.
> 
> Now fuck off. If you want to speak to me again do it in public.



You can tell he's just lolling his head off and not wound up at all. :d


----------



## Spymaster (May 13, 2018)

maomao said:


> You had steam coming out your ears Hammy. I'd quote you but someone would probably report me and I've got two points already.


I doubt very much what you're saying is true because it's not my style but if I've ever threatened you I must have been pissed and apologise profusely. You're a bellend and I like using you for my enjoyment because you're so easy to troll but threats are out of order. Sorry if it happened.


----------



## a_chap (May 13, 2018)

maomao said:


> It's actually really difficult to wind him up but so much fun when it happens, abusive PMs, threats, the lot.



To be fair to the Cockney wanker I've never had threats or PMs from him, abusive or otherwise.


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 13, 2018)

The threat was to call him cunt - fucking massive LOL.


----------



## maomao (May 13, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> The threat was to call him cunt - fucking massive LOL.


No. The threat was to expose my racist posts.


----------



## Spymaster (May 13, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> The threat was to call him cunt - fucking massive LOL.


Innit? Another maomao fail


----------



## maomao (May 13, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Innit? Another maomao fail


You threatened to expose me as a racist lol


----------



## Spymaster (May 13, 2018)

maomao said:


> You threatened to expose me as a racist lol


Did I? 

I can't remember that but if you say so I was likely trolling you again. You're a peanut-sniffing jockstrap and a bit thick, but you're not a racist!


----------



## maomao (May 13, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Did I?
> 
> I can't remember that but if you say so I was likely trolling you again. You're a peanut-sniffing jockstrap and a bit thick, but you're not a racist!



Fake news.


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 13, 2018)

maomao said:


> No. The threat was to expose my racist posts.



Nothing in your post, that I replied to, suggested that, so you can shove your rolling eyes up your arse.


----------



## Spymaster (May 13, 2018)

maomao said:


> Fake news.


I thought so. Nice try though


----------



## maomao (May 13, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> Nothing in your post, that I replied to, suggested that, so you can shove your rolling eyes up your arse.


I was just pointing out that I hadn't actually copied the entire conversation though I can if anyone wants. You think you know everything don't you.


----------



## maomao (May 13, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> I thought so. Nice try though


You did repeatedly accuse me of racism.


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 13, 2018)

maomao said:


> I was just pointing out that I hadn't actually copied the entire conversation though I can if anyone wants. *You think you know everything don't you.*



Err, no, but don't let that fact get in the way of you frothing at mouth.


----------



## maomao (May 13, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> Err, no, but don't let that fact get in the way of you frothing at mouth.


Where's the frothing? I've been perfectly polite so far.


----------



## Spymaster (May 13, 2018)

maomao said:


> You did repeatedly accuse me of racism.


 Good.


----------



## Spymaster (May 13, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> Nothing in your post, that I replied to, suggested that, so you can shove your rolling eyes up your arse.


I've found the conversation he means. He's being very dishonest. It was about a row he was having with Bubbles on the boards where he seemed to suggest that Irish cyclists run red lights because "it's part of their culture". I pulled him on that and also something he said about Germans by the looks of it and the supposed threat that I made was the suggestion that I'd report his posts to the mods. 

Not even close to the way he's presented it here.


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 13, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> I've found the conversation he means. He's being very dishonest. .



Now why doesn't the surprise me?

Still, I am sure he'll be huffing & puffing some more, and claiming some sort of victory, very soon.


----------



## maomao (May 13, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> I've found the conversation he means. He's being very dishonest. It was about a row he was having with Bubbles on the boards where he seemed to suggest that Irish cyclists run red lights because 'it's part of their culture'. I pulled him on that and also something he said about Germans by the looks of it and the supposed threat that I made was the suggestion that I'd report his posts to the mods.





And yet you couldn't find this 'racist' post to quote in the end. Probably because I didn't say that at all. 

You having a lovely chilled Sunday digging through year old PMs to prove yourself right? At least I'm at work.


----------



## Spymaster (May 13, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> Now why doesn't the surprise me?
> 
> Still, I am sure he'll be huffing & puffing some more, and claiming some sort of victory, very soon.


I'll invite you to the conversation so you can see for yourself. He's bullshitting.


----------



## a_chap (May 13, 2018)

Now, now children. Behave, all of you.


Here's a video to calm you all down


----------



## maomao (May 13, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> Now why doesn't the surprise me?



Cause you've got Spymaster's cock up your decrepit old arsehole right now which gives the added benefit of being able to read what he's writing. 

Why don't you just fuck off and flounce again you creepy old tosspot?


----------



## Spymaster (May 13, 2018)

maomao said:


> Cause you've got Spymaster's cock up your decrepit old arsehole right now ...


That was last night. 

Good old maomao's reaching boiling point. I can feel it!


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 13, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> That was last night.
> 
> Good old maomao's reaching boiling point. I can feel it!


Reached and breached, I reckon. 
Countdown to meltdown


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 13, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> Still, I am sure he'll be huffing & puffing some more, and claiming some sort of victory, very soon.





maomao said:


> Cause you've got Spymaster's cock up your decrepit old arsehole right now which gives the added benefit of being able to read what he's writing.
> 
> Why don't you just fuck off and flounce again you creepy old tosspot?



Yep! 

So easy.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 15, 2018)

Funniest thread on Urban!


----------



## Spymaster (May 15, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Funniest thread on Urban!


It’s used to be a bit of light hearted ribbing in both directions until maomao came along, now it gets a bit nasty every now and then.

Still funny but in a different way!


----------



## hash tag (May 15, 2018)

You mean you don't really hate people who ride bikes?


----------



## Spymaster (May 15, 2018)

Some of my best friends are cyclists.


----------



## hash tag (May 15, 2018)

Oh dear me; that sounds like some of my best friends are....I just can't go there


----------



## Spymaster (May 15, 2018)

Really? I’ve no _idea_ what you mean.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 15, 2018)

Spymaster said:
			
		

> I'm not anti-cyclist, BUT...


----------



## Teaboy (May 15, 2018)

Its not cyclists just the way they cycle.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 15, 2018)

Teaboy said:


> Its not cyclists just the way they cycle.


No, it is cyclists.
That's like saying "It's not the priests, its the way they interfere with kiddies"


----------



## Spymaster (May 15, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> No, it is cyclists.
> That's like saying "It's not the priests, its the way they interfere with kiddies"


Most nonce priests are cyclists though, remember.


----------



## maomao (May 15, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> It’s used to be a bit of light hearted ribbing in both directions until maomao came along, now it gets a bit nasty every now and then.
> 
> Still funny but in a different way!


Thank you for recognising my contribution. When I joined this thread my aim was to turn your sad little Loaded reader back slapping thread into something truly unpleasant. I don't think we're quite there yet but maybe when I get some time off.


----------



## Spymaster (May 15, 2018)

maomao said:


> Thank you for recognising my contribution. When I joined this thread my aim was to turn your sad little Loaded reader back slapping thread into something truly unpleasant. I don't think we're quite there yet but maybe when I get some time off.


We’re nowhere near that and it’s only the passages of the thread that you’re in that become like that. I’ll give you some stuff to froth about a bit later but at the moment I’m chilling with a pint or three in a beer garden.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 15, 2018)

maomao said:


> Thank you for recognising my contribution. When I joined this thread my aim was to turn your sad little Loaded reader back slapping thread into something truly unpleasant. I don't think we're quite there yet but maybe when I get some time off.


Your frothing is the only reason I come to this thread. It's like watching a decapitation in slow motion. Everyone knows the exact point at which you're going to lose your head 

It is funny, though. Watching you trying to make out that your head loss is deliberate.


----------



## maomao (May 15, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> Your frothing is the only reason I come to this thread. It's like watching a decapitation in slow motion. Everyone knows the exact point at which you're going to lose your head
> 
> It is funny, though. Watching you trying to make out that your head loss is deliberate.


I never lost it with you. You're just a thick cunt.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 15, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Most nonce priests are cyclists though, remember.


I think most nonces are cyclists. It's their excuse for riding slowly past schools.


----------



## maomao (May 15, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> I think most nonces are cyclists. It's their excuse for riding slowly past schools.


What's their excuse for riding slowly past schools?


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 15, 2018)

maomao said:


> What's their excuse for riding slowly past schools?


Being a cyclist.


----------



## sealion (May 15, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> You're a peanut-sniffing jockstrap



That's a new one mate


----------



## maomao (May 15, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> Being a cyclist.


Oh. I thought there was part of the joke missing.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 15, 2018)

maomao said:


> I never lost it with you. You're just a thick cunt.


And you're a racist prick.


----------



## maomao (May 15, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> And you're a racist prick.


How? Go on.


----------



## maomao (May 15, 2018)

I accept that you're a thick cunt and you might _think_ I said something racist but you might want to read what I actually said AND look up the word 'culture' in a dictionary.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 15, 2018)

maomao said:


> How? Go on.


You know how. 
Type the word racist into Google. Find its definition, then look back through this thread until you find the part where you said it was Irish culture to run red lights.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 15, 2018)

maomao said:


> I accept that you're a thick cunt and you might _think_ I said something racist but you might want to read what I actually said AND look up the word 'culture' in a dictionary.


Just own your racism and we'll move on. I won't even ask for an apology.


----------



## maomao (May 15, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> You know how.
> Type the word racist into Google. Find its definition, then look back through this thread until you find the part where you said it was Irish culture to run red lights.


Can you find the bit where I said that then? I remember you saying that I said that but I'm pretty sure I said something else which was a bit of a circular statement but not remotely racist to anyone familiar with the English language.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 15, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> It’s used to be a bit of light hearted ribbing in both directions until maomao came along, now it gets a bit nasty every now and then.
> 
> Still funny but in a different way!


It did used to be a bit of light-hearted fun, but maomao is toxic. He's ruining the thread.


----------



## maomao (May 15, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> It did used to be a bit of light-hearted fun, but maomao is toxic. He's ruining the thread.


It's a toxic thread and my aim is to ruin your fun. I've been quite open about that.


----------



## dessiato (May 15, 2018)

Can't we just get back to insulting cyclists? Or keep it going till tonight. I'm invigilating again and will need the amusement.

Anyway, last week, on two occasions, there was a cyclist in full lycra kit, riding on the hard shoulder. He was going quite quickly, but not the 120/130 the rest of us were doing. I'm sure the trucks passing him presented a challenge.


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 15, 2018)

maomao said:


> It's a toxic thread and my aim is to ruin your fun. I've been quite open about that.



You're increasing the fun.


----------



## maomao (May 15, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> You're increasing the fun.



Saul Goodman needs to make his mind up. One minute he says  I'm ruining the thread the next he's liking this post.


----------



## Spymaster (May 15, 2018)

maomao said:


> It's a toxic thread and my aim is to ruin your fun. I've been quite open about that.


 You’re _contributing_ to the fun!

It’s not the kind of fun that it started with but now the fun is about winding you up or getting you to wind yourself up. Which happens every time you post despite your denials. Why else would I keep tagging you???? _You_ are here for _my_ amusement. Remember that.

You are reading this now and getting cross. G’wan and admit it, there’s no shame in that.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 15, 2018)

maomao said:


> Saul Goodman needs to make his mind up. One minute he says  I'm ruining the thread the next he's liking this post.


I don't need to do anything. I'm having too much fun watching you self-flagellate.


----------



## maomao (May 15, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> You’re contributing to the fun!
> 
> It’s not the kind of fun that it started with but now the fun is about winding you up or getting you to wind yourself up. Which happens every time you post despite your denials.
> 
> You are reading this now and getting cross. G’wan and admit it, there’s no shame in that.



I'm not currently cross. I'm a bit disappointed that the other cunt is entirely without shame but I'm not currently particularly arsed.


----------



## Spymaster (May 15, 2018)

maomao said:


> I'm not currently cross. I'm a bit disappointed that the other cunt is entirely without shame but I'm not currently particularly arsed.


I bet I could make you cross


----------



## maomao (May 15, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> I bet I could make you cross


I bet you could. I think that's a sign of my humanity personally.


----------



## Spymaster (May 15, 2018)

maomao said:


> I bet you could. I think that's a sign of my humanity personally.


Absolutely. It’s exactly that that gives me the unassailable advantage every time you come in here!


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 15, 2018)

New shorts for cyclists.


----------



## maomao (May 15, 2018)

I'll be reporting any further hilarious 'paedo' jokes.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 15, 2018)

maomao said:


> *hilarious 'paedo' jokes*.


I'm glad you're finally conceding


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 15, 2018)

maomao said:


> I'll be reporting any further hilarious 'paedo' jokes.



Diddums.


----------



## Spymaster (May 15, 2018)

maomao said:


> I'll be reporting any further hilarious 'paedo' jokes.


What’s the difference between a cyclist and acne?

Acne doesn’t come on a kids face until
He’s 12.

See ya guys.


----------



## maomao (May 15, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> What’s the difference between a cyclist and acne?
> 
> Acne doesn’t come on a kids face until
> He’s 12.
> ...


At least there was a fucking punchline but yeah I did.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 15, 2018)

maomao said:


> At least there was a fucking punchline but yeah I did.


I didn't realise it was a joke. I thought it was a statistic.


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 15, 2018)

maomao said:


> At least there was a fucking punchline but yeah I did.



You fucking tit.


----------



## maomao (May 15, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> You fucking tit.


This ain't 4chan.


----------



## George & Bill (May 15, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Most nonce priests are cyclists though, remember.



But all joking asside, you actually are in the same broad moral category as a nonce.


----------



## Spymaster (May 15, 2018)

George & Bill said:


> But all joking asside, you actually are in the same broad moral category as a nonce.


There's nothing _broad_ about it, Bungle.


----------



## Spymaster (May 15, 2018)

maomao said:


> At least there was a fucking punchline but yeah I did.


 Of course you did. I chucked it to you on a plate with garnish and a side salad! I'd have been highly disappointed if you hadn't.

Only a warning though, which I'm sure will disappoint you. I was expecting a month for that!


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 15, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Of course you did. I chucked it to you on a plate with garnish and a side salad!
> 
> Only a warning though, which I'm sure will disappoint you. I was expecting a month for that!



Told you, didn't I?

He fails again, he must be like a pressure cooker now, just waiting to explode again.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 15, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Of course you did. I chucked it to you on a plate with garnish and a side salad! I'd have been highly disappointed if you hadn't.
> 
> Only a warning though, which I'm sure will disappoint you. I was expecting a month for that!





cupid_stunt said:


> Told you, didn't I?
> 
> He fails again, he must be like a pressure cooker now, just waiting to explode again.



It's a sad state of affairs when someone fails so miserably on a thread that their last resort is to try to get the people they disagree with banned.
"I'm going to tell the teacher what you said!"... What a sad wanker.


----------



## Spymaster (May 15, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> It's a sad state of affairs when someone fails so miserably on a thread that their last resort is to try to get the people they disagree with banned.


He reported me whilst channelling Roy Cropper


----------



## maomao (May 15, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> It's a sad state of affairs when someone fails so miserably on a thread that their last resort is to try to get the people they disagree with banned.
> "I'm going to tell the teacher what you said!"... What a sad wanker.


Who's getting banned? And how have I failed? I've dragged you all down well below my own level and would happily bet money that I have lower blood pressure than any of you.


----------



## Spymaster (May 15, 2018)

maomao said:


> I've dragged you all down well below my own level and would happily bet money that I have lower blood pressure than any of you.


The fact that you feel the need to post this indicates very strongly that you _don't really_ believe it, Roy.

I don't blame you. Neither does anyone else!


----------



## maomao (May 15, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> The fact that you feel the need to post this indicates very strongly that you _don't really_ believe it, Roy.
> 
> I don't blame you. Neither does anyone else!


I'm going to let my daughter answer that one:

X

I might delete that in a few minutes.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 15, 2018)

maomao said:


> Who's getting banned? And how have I failed? I've dragged you all down well below my own level and would happily bet money that I have lower blood pressure than any of you.


You tried to get Spymaster banned, but you came a Cropper. And you quite obviously fail at life, as running to the teacher when the bigger boys laugh at you is pathetic.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 15, 2018)

maomao said:


> I'm going to let my daughter answer that one:
> 
> View attachment 135451
> 
> I might delete that in a few minutes.


Ask her if she'll lend you a few crayons to write your next post.


----------



## Spymaster (May 15, 2018)

maomao said:


> I'm going to let my daughter answer that one:
> 
> I might delete that in a few minutes.


(Photo deleted so Roy can remove it)

What kind of dickhead posts a picture of his kid on the web because he's getting his arse kicked on a forum? 

Get a grip man, ffs, and delete it now.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 15, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> (Photo deleted so Roy can remove it)
> 
> What kind of dickhead posts a picture of his kid because he's getting his arse kicked on the internet?
> 
> Get a grip man, ffs, and delete it now.


Nobody in their right mind would do that. He's obviously losing the plot.


----------



## maomao (May 15, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> (Photo deleted so Roy can remove it)
> 
> What kind of dickhead posts a picture of his kid because he's getting his arse kicked on the internet?
> 
> Get a grip man, ffs, and delete it now.


Plenty of photos of lots of people's kids including mine on this site.

And I still haven't worked out how I'm getting my arse kicked. You wanted to roll around in the shit. You can call me Roy and accuse me of exploding all you want. I'm not frothing half as much as your thicko mate.


----------



## Spymaster (May 15, 2018)

maomao said:


> Plenty of photos of lots of people's kids including mine on this site.
> 
> And I still haven't worked out how I'm getting my arse kicked. You wanted to roll around in the shit. You can call me Roy and accuse me of exploding all you want. I'm not frothing half as much as your thicko mate.


Just take the photo down you fucking idiot.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 15, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Just take the photo down you fucking idiot.



There's a nonce regularly posting threads about girls pissing in their knickers, and this shitforbrains posts a picture of his daughter.
I think that says all that needs to be said about him.


----------



## Spymaster (May 15, 2018)

Possibly the stupidest fucking thing I've ever seen done on the boards.


----------



## Sweet FA (May 15, 2018)

eta on second thoughts, I'm staying out of this shitfest


----------



## maomao (May 15, 2018)

Your fake shock only reveals your ridiculous sense of self importance.
Exactly how many paedophile do you think are reading this tedious thread? You do know there are lots and lots of photos of people's families on the Internet already. But let's all pretend it's literally the worst thing that ever happened because we want to get back to calling people who ride bicycles paedos. 

Whatever. I thought spy almost got it but you really are all tedious thick wankers.


----------



## maomao (May 15, 2018)

I've moved it to the correct forum. Maybe you should go and tell everyone on that thread how terrible and stupid  they are.


----------



## dessiato (May 15, 2018)

I think all cyclists are pedalphiles. And a few car drivers are pedalphobes.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 15, 2018)

maomao said:


> I've moved it to the correct forum. Maybe you should go and tell everyone on that thread how terrible and stupid  they are.


They had the sense to post their pictures in a thread that isn't accessible to the general public... You div.


----------



## Spymaster (May 15, 2018)

maomao said:


> ... you really are all tedious thick wankers.


Right after bizarrely posting a pic of your kid in this context?

Seriously? 

Go to bed and sober up, fella.


----------



## maomao (May 16, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Right after bizarrely posting a pic of your kid in this context?
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> Go to bed and sober up, fella.


I'm not sure what this means. Because I call you a wanker shortly after I've shown you a photo of one of my kids sticking her middle finger up I'm accusing you of something? What an odd and pretty horrible thing to say.

Dozens of people in real life and on the internet see my child every day. She's 3. She's rarely more than about 5 metres from a parent or childminder. Anyone can access a whole library of pictures of strangers' kids by making 50 posts over 3 weeks on a thread which predates those restrictions on viewing it by three years. I seriously see nothing but you getting in a froth about the froth you think I'm in.

And I don't drink.


----------



## krtek a houby (May 16, 2018)

I like cyclists who respect people but this thread is getting tyred


----------



## dessiato (May 16, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> I like cyclists who respect people but this thread is getting tyred


Oh, are we going to be saddled with more puns?


----------



## OzT (May 16, 2018)

Yip, we're gonna wheel out more of those for sure


----------



## Spymaster (May 16, 2018)

krtek a houby said:


> I like cyclists who respect people but this thread is getting tyred


Every time I post something Maimao quotes it, then I quote him etc ...

It’s a vicious cycle.


----------



## Spymaster (May 16, 2018)

maomao said:


> I'm not sure what this means. Because I call you a wanker shortly after I've shown you a photo of one of my kids sticking her middle finger up I'm accusing you of something? What an odd and pretty horrible thing to say.



But I didn't say that, you did. It hadn't crossed my mind and now you’re just being plain creepy and weird so I think you probably need another lie down. Anyway I’m afraid I’m traveling today, Roy. You’ll be howling alone for most of it. Don’t worry though, i’ll tag you if I get bored and you’re required.


----------



## krtek a houby (May 16, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> Every time I post something Maimao quotes it, then I quote him etc ...
> 
> It’s a vicious cycle.



You spoke, he spoke etc


----------



## mojo pixy (May 16, 2018)

Aww give it a brake


----------



## a_chap (May 16, 2018)

It always puzzles me why people have such strange names on here.

I'd say krtek a houby has the oddest handle, bar all the rest of course.

[waits...]


----------



## ElizabethofYork (May 16, 2018)

a_chap said:


> It always puzzles me why people have such strange names on here.
> 
> I'd say krtek a houby has the oddest handle, bar all the rest of course.



Shame to be saddled with an odd name.


----------



## mojo pixy (May 16, 2018)

a_chap said:


> It always puzzles me why people have such strange names on here.



Since your post was directly after mine i'll give a response  Mojo Pixy has been my stage name since the mid-90s, whenever I performed music by myself (music of a guitar and vocal variety, mainly protest songs of my own at countless squats and festivals and London street locations)

I don't perform solo at the moment but *ahem* I will always be Mojo Pixy, purveyor of 21st Century Hardcore Blues and general unpop music. One day the guitar will rise again and be heard!

So yeah, that's my name FWIW


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 16, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Shame to be saddled with an odd name.


No idea what you mean.


----------



## Spymaster (May 16, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> No idea what you mean.


What does beesonthewhatnow mean? I've googled it loads of times over the years but am still none the wiser.


----------



## a_chap (May 16, 2018)

Oh, _*purlease.*_

That "always puzzles me why people have such strange names on here" was just the set-up line.

About your names, really, I do not care.

I know, I know. If you have to explain a joke...


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 16, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> What does beesonthewhatnow mean? I've googled it loads of times over the years but am still none the wiser.


It should be (and once was) beesareonthewhatnow, but was diminished in the night of the great username length cull.


----------



## Spymaster (May 16, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> It should be (and once was) beesareonthewhatnow ...


That's the one I googled. What is it?


----------



## Enviro (May 16, 2018)

a_chap said:


> It always puzzles me why people have such strange names on here.
> 
> I'd say krtek a houby has the oddest handle, bar all the rest of course.
> 
> [waits...]



You never enjoyed mole and mushroom as a child?!


----------



## a_chap (May 16, 2018)

er... what?


----------



## krtek a houby (May 16, 2018)

a_chap said:


> It always puzzles me why people have such strange names on here.
> 
> I'd say krtek a houby has the oddest handle, bar all the rest of course.
> 
> [waits...]



No need to make a mountain (bike) out of a mole hill


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 16, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> It should be (and once was) beesareonthewhatnow, but was diminished in the night of the great username length cull.




Why have I always known this? need.time.off.puter.


----------



## Spymaster (May 16, 2018)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Shame to be saddled with an odd name.


It wouldn't happen to a woman of your caliper.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 16, 2018)

This thread is fun in places but in others it doesn't reflector that well on some people, but I think the pressure can be cranked up a bit further as drivers need to make a stand against these highway yobs to fixie their attitudes.


----------



## a_chap (May 16, 2018)

We all just need to look harder and see things from the other's perspective.

Kind of like those seaside telescopes. Once you'd put in a penny, far things would be visible.


----------



## a_chap (May 16, 2018)

So... I guess that one went right over your heads


----------



## dessiato (May 16, 2018)

a_chap said:


> So... I guess that one went right over your heads


I got it.


----------



## mojo pixy (May 17, 2018)

Two nuns cycling through a French town.
One says, ''I've never come this way before!''
The other replies, ''Yes, it's the cobbled str--
No wait


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 17, 2018)

This is typical:

Yellow cards for Woking cyclists described as 'utterly stupid'



> Plans for police officers to give out yellow cards to cyclists in Woking town centre have been described as "utterly stupid" by the chairman of a cycling group.
> 
> The warning will be issued to cyclists, skateboarders and scooter riders who are caught cycling through key town centre streets in a manner that "compromises the safety of pedestrians".
> 
> Norman Johns, from Woking Cycle Users' Group, said that the system would be a "disincentive" for people to get on their bikes.








			
				The Law said:
			
		

> cyclists are not allowed to ride down key pedestrian streets between 10am and 4pm






			
				Typical cyclist scumbag said:
			
		

> As a very senior cyclist, I will keep on cycling and just watch out for police, if I got a yellow card I would just say 'thank you very much, prosecute me if you like' - I'm sure the magistrates would not be interested






			
				Those affected by these terrorists on two wheels said:
			
		

> Vivien O'Reilly said: " About time!!! I was walking along a footpath on a one-way street when a cyclist came towards me on the footpath (there was no room for him to get past and he did not stop).
> 
> "I said to him that he should not be on the footpath and he said 'I know but this is a one way street and I can't ride down the road the wrong way'.




Clearly about time this relic of Victorian times was ended once and for all, we wouldn't put with Jack the Ripper, why should we have to put up with this?


----------



## Spymaster (May 17, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> This is typical:
> 
> Yellow cards for Woking cyclists described as 'utterly stupid'


It IS utterly stupid. They should get straight reds.


----------



## Shechemite (May 17, 2018)

Or just Nobby Stiles ‘em and save the formalities.


----------



## hash tag (May 17, 2018)

Give em the old tin tac....wait up, that's already been done around the surrey hills.


----------



## mojo pixy (May 17, 2018)

Fix unremovable stabilizers on their bikes.


----------



## T & P (May 18, 2018)

These two geniuses miss on winning the 2018 Darwin Award by a few seconds...


----------



## High Voltage (May 18, 2018)

Obviously that would have been the train and train drivers fault


----------



## Baronage-Phase (May 18, 2018)

T & P said:


> These two geniuses miss on winning the 2018 Darwin Award by a few seconds...




Fastest cycle ever probably...lol
And they go back in..


----------



## emanymton (May 18, 2018)

High Voltage said:


> Obviously that would have been the train and train drivers fault


He should have a expected a cyclist and being paying proper attention. Also 2 miles away a car was 2 miles over speed limit.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 18, 2018)

Twats, their GPS wouldn’t have worked in there.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 18, 2018)

T & P said:


> These two geniuses miss on winning the 2018 Darwin Award by a few seconds...



Cyclists in "Stupid cunts" shocker!


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 19, 2018)

Driving from Shoreham to Worthing this morning, there's a length of road were you can past a cyclist easily, leaving 1.5 m space, despite parked cars, and there was three fucking cyclists riding abreast. 

Then coming into Worthing a single cyclist on the road, holding up the traffic, despite there being a cycling path marked out on the very wide pavement. 

Cunts.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 19, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> Driving from Shoreham to Worthing this morning, there's a length of road were you can past a cyclist easily, leaving 1.5 m space, despite parked cars, and there was three fucking cyclists riding abreast.



See, I find that hard to believe. That would require the lane to be over 6m wide. 2m for the parked cars, 1m for the cyclist to be away from those cars, another metre for the bike itself, 1.5m passing space, then a final 2m for your car.

I’ll say it again - to pass a cyclist on most U.K. roads you have to cross the white line to do so safely. In other words, nothing can be coming the other way, so you may as well cross completely onto the other side of the road as if passing a car. So it matters not one bit how many abreast the cyclists are.



> Then coming into Worthing a single cyclist on the road, holding up the traffic, despite there being a cycling path marked out on the very wide pavement.
> 
> Cunts.


Shared use cycle paths are bullshit and best ignored. PVements are for pedestrians, not bicycles.


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 19, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> See, I find that hard to believe. That would require the lane to be over 6m wide. 2m for the parked cars, 1m for the cyclist to be away from those cars, another metre for the bike itself, 1.5m passing space, then a final 2m for your car.
> 
> I’ll say it again - to pass a cyclist on most U.K. roads you have to cross the white line to do so safely. In other words, nothing can be coming the other way, so you may as well cross completely onto the other side of the road as if passing a car. So it matters not one bit how many abreast the cyclists are.



It's a very wide section of road, with 2-3 feet of white lines in the middle & bollards every few yards to prevent you crossing onto the other side of the road.

It's a busy A road, the layout has been designed to ensure there's enough room for traffic* to safely pass cyclists, despite parked cars, I've done it loads of time, and I always leave around 1.5m when over taking cyclists, despite being a van driver. 

* Except busses, but they pull in every few yards anyway, and HGV's, but you rarely see one on that road, they use the top road, the A27.



> Shared use cycle paths are bullshit and best ignored. Pavements are for pedestrians, not bicycles.



But, it's not shared, it's clearly marked as separate widths of 2m+ each for cyclists & pedestrians, it runs along side the beach, and only becomes shared as it comes into the town centre, for a bit of the prom either side of the pier. Shedloads of cyclists use it everyday, this is the first time I've seen a cyclist on that section of road in bloody years.  So >   again!


----------



## dessiato (May 19, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> It's a very wide section of road, with 2-3 feet of white lines in the middle & bollards every few yards to prevent you crossing onto the other side of the road.
> 
> It's a busy A road, the layout has been designed to ensure there's enough room for traffic* to safely pass cyclists, despite parked cars, I've done it loads of time, and I always leave around 1.5m when over taking cyclists, despite being a van driver.
> 
> ...


Something you need to confess?


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 19, 2018)

dessiato said:


> Something you need to confess?





I must have been thinking about that sofa & dildo left on Brighton beach, and the suggestion a low-budget porn movie had been made, with sealion providing performing a small part.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 19, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> I’ll say it again - to pass a cyclist on most U.K. roads you have to cross the white line to do so safely. In other words, nothing can be coming the other way, so you may as well cross completely onto the other side of the road as if passing a car. So it matters not one bit how many abreast the cyclists are.


What if the road is 10 miles long, are drivers supposed to sit behind these inconsiderate cunts for 10 miles if there's traffic coming the other way?
They obviously shouldn't be on the road, as they're a fucking nuisance to other road users.


----------



## dessiato (May 19, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> What if the road is 10 miles long, are drivers supposed to sit behind these inconsiderate cunts for 10 miles if there's traffic coming the other way?
> They obviously shouldn't be on the road, as they're a fucking nuisance to other road users.


I have this issue on my way home from work. There's a long straight, about 5 miles long, a large part of it is  long slow uphill drag. There's often a bunch of cyclists up to five abreast. Trucks are forced to slow right down because they can't get past. About four hundred metres from the top of the hill there's a junction. Often the cyclists, without signalling, will turn left. Because the trucks can't overtake there'll often be a long line of traffic. If they road even two abreast it would make traffic flow smoother, and there'd be no problem for them or us. If they at least indicated when they're turning left it'd be safer for all.


----------



## Baronage-Phase (May 19, 2018)

I had this today...mind you I wasn't driving so I could have a snooze...
Got stuck behind 12 cyclists (2 abreast) on a narrow country road...for at least half an hour. They had plenty opportunities to pull in a bit and let the growing line of cars pass...but nope...they didn't budge. They pretended the cars didn't exist and detailed along happily heads down bums up.


----------



## a_chap (May 19, 2018)

PippinTook said:


> Got stuck behind 12 cyclists (2 abreast) on a narrow country road...for at least half an hour.



Half an hour? That's nothing!

I was once stuck behind 100 cyclists for a week. And they only moved three inches in all that time.

But you try and tell the young people today that... and they won't believe you.


----------



## Baronage-Phase (May 19, 2018)

a_chap said:


> Half an hour? That's nothing!
> 
> I was once stuck behind 100 cyclists for a week. And they only moved three inches in all that time.
> 
> But you try and tell the young people today that... and they won't believe you.


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 19, 2018)

Oh, I see the maomao twat liked bees post, totally ignoring the all facts of the situation, posted in response, what a complete plonker.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 19, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> What if the road is 10 miles long, are drivers supposed to sit behind these inconsiderate cunts for 10 miles if there's traffic coming the other way?


Yes 

The likelyhood of there being not one chance to pass in those 10 miles is pretty low though, isn’t it?


----------



## dessiato (May 19, 2018)

Just drive through them. Get your car properly cleaned and the paint sealed first. Human blood is really difficult to get off paintwork once it's dry. I had to use T-cut.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 19, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> It's a very wide section of road, with 2-3 feet of white lines in the middle & bollards every few yards to prevent you crossing onto the other side of the road.
> 
> It's a busy A road, the layout has been designed to ensure there's enough room for traffic* to safely pass cyclists, despite parked cars, I've done it loads of time, and I always leave around 1.5m when over taking cyclists, despite being a van driver.
> 
> ...


Let’s see a street view link to this road then


----------



## a_chap (May 19, 2018)




----------



## cupid_stunt (May 19, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Let’s see a street view link to this road then



Here you go...



As you can see, if the moving car moved right over to the white lines/bollards, you could fit another car between that & the parked car, so plenty of space for a cyclist. 

ETA: And, thinking about it, if I was a cyclist I would use that wide pavement, because I can't remember ever seeing anyone walking along there.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 19, 2018)

Looking at that, while it is wide it’s still pretty tight to pass if any cyclist is a safe distance away from the parked cars. 

If it was my club riding we’d probably be in single file there, but I can see why others would hold primary or ride 2/3 abreast.


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 19, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Looking at that, while it is wide it’s still pretty tight to pass if any cyclist is a safe distance away from the parked cars.



No it's not, you could park three cars across that, and the middle car could still open their doors each side.

I've seen buses pass cyclists along there, that to me is scary, but it's perfectly safe for for cars & small vans to do so, 3 cyclists riding abreast is totally out order, and frankly they deserve being taken out by a bus or HGV.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 19, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> No it's not, you could park three cars across that, and the middle car could still open their doors each side.
> 
> I've seen buses pass cyclists along there, that to me is scary, but it's perfectly safe for for cars & small vans to do so, 3 cyclists riding abreast is totally out order, and frankly they deserve being taken out by a bus or HGV.


It is though - an entire car width between the parked cars and you is basically the _minimum_ space needed to be safe.

This is the point - people massively underestimate the space needed.  As I’ve said before, if I have any doubt, I ride in primary to prevent cars from passing. As the person most likely to come off worse in any coming together it’s down to me to decide when it’s safe for a car to pass, not the driver.


----------



## weepiper (May 19, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> No it's not, you could park three cars across that, and the middle car could still open their doors each side.
> 
> I've seen buses pass cyclists along there, that to me is scary, but it's perfectly safe for for cars & small vans to do so, 3 cyclists riding abreast is totally out order, and frankly they deserve being taken out by a bus or HGV.


Parked cars are irrelevant. Half a ton of moving metal sandwiching a static metal object with a moving soft vulnerable breakable human inbetween. It needs more space than 3 parked cars need.


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 19, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> It is though - an entire car width between the parked cars and you is basically the _minimum_ space needed to be safe.
> 
> This is the point - people massively underestimate the space needed.  As I’ve said before, if I have any doubt, I ride in primary to prevent cars from passing. As the person most likely to come off worse in any coming together it’s down to me to decide when it’s safe for a car to pass, not the driver.



FFS, the gap is MORE THAN a car width. 

It's pointless arguing with me on this point, as I am a very reasonable driver, that always allows the right space when over taking cyclists.

My only objection is towards those few cyclists that act as cunts, and think they own the roads.


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 19, 2018)

weepiper said:


> Parked cars are irrelevant. Half a ton of moving metal sandwiching a static metal object with a moving soft vulnerable breakable human inbetween. It needs more space than 3 parked cars need.



Hello, have you read the posts? Clearly not. 

Space from parked car to bike - 1m, space between bike & overtaking car - 1.5m, total 2.5m - the very space allowed in that road design.


----------



## weepiper (May 19, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> Hello, have you read the posts? Clearly not.
> 
> Space from parked car to bike - 1m, space between bike & overtaking car - 1.5m, total 2.5m - the very space allowed in that road design.


I can see your picture with my eyes. There's not enough space to safely overtake a cyclist without forcing them into the door zone.


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 19, 2018)

weepiper said:


> I can see your picture with my eyes. There's not enough space to safely overtake a cyclist without forcing them into the door zone.



You should get your eyes tested.


----------



## BigTom (May 19, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> Hello, have you read the posts? Clearly not.
> 
> Space from parked car to bike - 1m, space between bike & overtaking car - 1.5m, total 2.5m - the very space allowed in that road design.



No space for the cyclist  

I hate roads like that. Horrible to cycle on. Maybe there's enough space between bollards for someone to overtake but you stay primary/two abreast between them because of the second or third driver who will try to squeeze through by the bollards as you look to move into primary to prevent the dangerous overtake.
Stay out, get abuse and punishment passes or move in and get crushed to the parked car or kerb.

Horrible, horrible design. Imo classic example of a road design fine by someone who doesn't cycle thinking is good for cyclists.

Imo needs to have central reservation removed and space used (at side of road) for segregated cycle lane, with lots of zebra crossings to replace the pedestrian refuges that are lost.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 19, 2018)

The elephant in the Lycra;

The vast majority of these animals are using the transport network for exercise, as if it is some kind of fucking gymnasium. Holding up the country so that they may exercise, yet unless their route includes plenty of hills the health benefits will be less than when they when their cardio workout was wanking off their neighbor’s dog.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 19, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Yes
> 
> The likelyhood of there being not one chance to pass in those 10 miles is pretty low though, isn’t it?


The likelihood of this happening is very low but it could happen, and even if it was only for a for a mile or two, it's being extremely inconsiderate to other road users.



weepiper said:


> I can see your picture with my eyes. There's not enough space to safely overtake a cyclist without forcing them into the door zone.


You're wrong... but you're a cyclist, so it's to be expected


----------



## BigTom (May 19, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The elephant in the Lycra;
> 
> The vast majority of these animals are using the transport network for exercise, as if it is some kind of fucking gymnasium. Holding up the country so that they may exercise, yet unless their route includes plenty of hills the health benefits will be less than when they when their cardio workout was wanking off their neighbor’s dog.



Nope. Commuter cycling is good, study of nearly 250,000 people last year

https://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j145



> *Conclusions* Cycle commuting was associated with a lower risk of CVD, cancer, and all cause mortality. Walking commuting was associated with a lower risk of CVD independent of major measured confounding factors. Initiatives to encourage and support active commuting could reduce risk of death and the burden of important chronic conditions.


----------



## a_chap (May 19, 2018)

For goodness sake, will you people stop upsetting the motorists on here!







They *know* absolutely and 100% perfectly well how to drive, ok?

AND THEY ARE ALWAYS RIGHT. Else they'll have a tantrum.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 19, 2018)

BigTom said:


> Nope. Commuter cycling is good, study of nearly 250,000 people last year
> 
> https://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j145



Yet so many of these people are not commuting, they turn 40, shave their legs and buy a £3000 bike and clogg up the roads as if they exist for their workouts. And when their hearts stop working or a truck squishes their heads the BMJ divs’ stats seem a tad trite.


----------



## BigTom (May 19, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yet so many of these people are not commuting, they turn 40, shave their legs and buy a £3000 bike and clogg up the roads as if they exist for their workouts. And when their hearts stop working or a truck squishes their heads the BMJ divs’ stats seem a tad trite.



Squash in the 80s, golf in the 90s, cycling in the 10s (not sure what happened in the 00s?).

Squash killed the most. Golf not so deadly but boring as fuck. Cycling will get a few corporate suits though i think squash is still probably the most effective city slicker killer.


----------



## dessiato (May 19, 2018)

a_chap said:


> For goodness sake, will you people stop upsetting the *cyclists *on here!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Corrected for you


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 19, 2018)

dessiato said:


> Corrected for you


Upset about being slightly delayed

Verses

Upset about a risk of being killed

Tricky one.


----------



## Baronage-Phase (May 19, 2018)

Just out of curiosity. 
If there's a single lane of traffic at a standstill....does anyone have the right to over take that line of traffic on the inside? I'm asking because I've noticed that cyclists do it all the time so I'm assuming they are the only ones with that right...
Am I wrong?


----------



## BigTom (May 19, 2018)

PippinTook said:


> Just out of curiosity.
> If there's a single lane of traffic at a standstill....does anyone have the right to over take that line of traffic on the inside? I'm asking because I've noticed that cyclists do it all the time so I'm assuming they are the only ones with that right...
> Am I wrong?



Motorcyclists are legally allowed to do so but are strongly trained/advised not to. (I'm not getting the source for that now, i'll find it tomorrow but was told this by a number of motorcyclist hgv drivers on courses and checked it out and they are allowed).

Iirc the only hc rule on undertaking is about multi lane roads (undertaking explicitly allowed past queuing traffic) and there's nothing said about single lane traffic jams.

(National standards for cycling makes it clear cyclists are allowed to pass queuing traffic on the left, and it's a choice between that and right hand side, not advised either way)


----------



## BigTom (May 19, 2018)

dessiato said:


> I have this issue on my way home from work. There's a long straight, about 5 miles long, a large part of it is  long slow uphill drag. There's often a bunch of cyclists up to five abreast. Trucks are forced to slow right down because they can't get past. About four hundred metres from the top of the hill there's a junction. Often the cyclists, without signalling, will turn left. Because the trucks can't overtake there'll often be a long line of traffic. If they road even two abreast it would make traffic flow smoother, and there'd be no problem for them or us. If they at least indicated when they're turning left it'd be safer for all.



Do you have a dashcam? I'd like to see footage of the cyclists riding five abreast. I think this would need at least 7m of lane width.

No requirement for uk cyclists to signal btw, if you need to keep both hands on the handlebars/brakes to safely turn. Much safer not to signal than to do so and crash, spilling the group into the road in front of traffic. Turning left you are moving out of the flow of traffic so it makes little difference to drivers behind.
Perhaps there is a reason you aren't aware of that they don't signal at that turn.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 19, 2018)

Quite, in hundreds of miles of group riding I’ve never been part of a group more than 3 wide, it would be suicidal on most of the roads round here.


----------



## dessiato (May 20, 2018)

BigTom said:


> Do you have a dashcam? I'd like to see footage of the cyclists riding five abreast. I think this would need at least 7m of lane width.
> 
> No requirement for uk cyclists to signal btw, if you need to keep both hands on the handlebars/brakes to safely turn. Much safer not to signal than to do so and crash, spilling the group into the road in front of traffic. Turning left you are moving out of the flow of traffic so it makes little difference to drivers behind.
> Perhaps there is a reason you aren't aware of that they don't signal at that turn.


I should have made it clear I'm in Spain so, in this case, they are turning across the flow of any oncoming traffic.


----------



## maomao (May 20, 2018)

dessiato said:


> I should have made it clear I'm in Spain so, in this case, they are turning across the flow of any oncoming traffic.


They were only up to four abreast when you first mentioned them last week.


----------



## maomao (May 20, 2018)

cupid_stunt said:


> Oh, I see the maomao twat liked bees post, totally ignoring the all facts of the situation, posted in response, what a complete plonker.


If I can wind you up just by liking posts now this is going to be even easier than I thought.


----------



## dessiato (May 20, 2018)

maomao said:


> They were only up to four abreast when you first mentioned them last week.


There's more and more out now. Bloody cycling clubs are invading the area. Hopefully it'll pass quickly. Which is more than the traffic can do. I don't know if its just the time of year but Posada really is attracting a lot of cyclists. There's a velodrome there, I suppose this is encouraging them.

 They're even around Almadova del Río. Maybe they're hoping to see the new Game of Thrones being filmed. Unfortunately the castle isn't being used so they're not going to see anyone/anything.

It wasn't this bad last year. But it was hotter then. Maybe that kept them indoors more.


----------



## BigTom (May 20, 2018)

PippinTook said:


> Just out of curiosity.
> If there's a single lane of traffic at a standstill....does anyone have the right to over take that line of traffic on the inside? I'm asking because I've noticed that cyclists do it all the time so I'm assuming they are the only ones with that right...
> Am I wrong?





BigTom said:


> Motorcyclists are legally allowed to do so but are strongly trained/advised not to. (I'm not getting the source for that now, i'll find it tomorrow but was told this by a number of motorcyclist hgv drivers on courses and checked it out and they are allowed).
> 
> Iirc the only hc rule on undertaking is about multi lane roads (undertaking explicitly allowed past queuing traffic) and there's nothing said about single lane traffic jams.
> 
> (National standards for cycling makes it clear cyclists are allowed to pass queuing traffic on the left, and it's a choice between that and right hand side, not advised either way)



Here is the source for this.
HC doesn't actually give rules for filtering I don't think (it's just a form of overtaking legally speaking I think) but rule 211 says this (my emphasis)



> *Rule 211*
> It is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists, especially when they are coming up from behind, coming out of junctions, at roundabouts, overtaking you or filtering through traffic. Always look out for them before you emerge from a junction; they could be approaching faster than you think. *When turning right across a line of slow-moving or stationary traffic, look out for cyclists or motorcyclists on the inside of the traffic you are crossing.* Be especially careful when turning, and when changing direction or lane. Be sure to check mirrors and blind spots carefully.



There's also this from the British Motorcycle Federation: 



> Filtering on the nearside or filtering between queues of moving traffic is not recommended. A nearside filter can be seen as an undertake. Traffic can also move from one lane to the other when gaps open up in an adjacent lane without checking their mirrors.



They will probably turn out to be some crank group but at a glance seem reasonably authoritative.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 20, 2018)

Filtering past stationary traffic is my most hated bit of cycling.


----------



## tommers (May 20, 2018)

Best not to do it on the left but sometimes the roads are so clogged with the metal death boxes all trying to get to the next traffic light slightly quicker that it's the only space available. Just be very careful if you're doing it cos people just assume that if a huge metal box can't get into the space nothing else can either.


----------



## a_chap (May 20, 2018)

I remember passing through Gloucester as I was riding down to Bristol one Saturday. The Saturday morning traffic on the A430 can be truly horrendous and this particular day it was near stationary all the way to the turn-off for the Quays - a bit more than half a mile. The oncoming lane was virtually empty so I sailed past probably _hundreds_ of cars with that sickeningly smug grin that only someone riding a bike (motor or pedal) can have 

Nothing of any significance happened until one utter numpty decides to turn his car right, into the oncoming lane, with the sole purpose of stopping me getting past. He blocked the oncoming lane but, even though I had to slow slightly, I still dodged past him. Shaking my head in bewilderment I saw his _*furious*_ face as he leaned on the car horn and yelled something incomprehensible. In my mirror I saw him filtering back into the left-hand lane as he dwindled in the distance.

Pointless, angry, angry motorist.

How I laughed.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 20, 2018)

I'm a motorbike rider. Motorbike riders are more vulnerable than cyclists, and we call cars 'cages', because... well it's quite apt.
You'd think that being on two wheels would mean we'd side with cyclists but there's only one thing motorcyclist hate more than 'cagers', and that's cyclists.
That says it all, really.


----------



## a_chap (May 20, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> I'm a motorbike rider. Motorbike riders are more vulnerable than cyclists



All the vulnerabilities of being on two wheels but with the added danger of increased speed.

I think I've witnessed far more KSI motorcylists than I've seen "caged" drivers and cyclists combined


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 20, 2018)

a_chap said:


> All the vulnerabilities of being on two wheels but with the added danger of increased speed.
> 
> I think I've witnessed far more KSI motorcylists than I've seen "caged" drivers and cyclists combined


We're by far the most vulnerable road users. At least if a cage pulls out in front of a cyclist, they're only going to hit the car at 5mph.


----------



## toblerone3 (May 20, 2018)

Seeing so many cyclists out in this lovely weather, the numpties on this thread must be fuming.


----------



## a_chap (May 20, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> We're by far the most vulnerable road users. At least if a cage pulls out in front of a cyclist, they're only going to hit the car at 5mph.



I completely agree.

I was driving to work one morning in Leicester. Heavy/slow traffic, empty on-coming lane - not dissimilar to my story about riding through Gloucester - and a motorbike comes haring past overtaking the column of vehicles. Unfortunately a transit (or similar) van a little way in front of me turns right into a side-road. No idea if the van was indicating to turn right, either way he turned right into the path of the motorbike which smacked into the side of the van and cannoned off straight into a wall still travelling fast. Pretty instant and fucking horrendous way to go


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 20, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> We're by far the most vulnerable road users.


You’re all wimps though 

When you slide sdown the road you’ve got all that leather. We’ve got extremely thin nylon


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (May 20, 2018)

toblerone3 said:


> Seeing so many cyclists out in this lovely weather, the numpties on this thread must be fuming.


Can’t wait for my club ride tomorrow, with this weather they’ll be 30 or so of us. Reckon we can block the roads for miles around


----------



## BigTom (May 20, 2018)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Can’t wait for my club ride tomorrow, with this weather they’ll be 30 or so of us. Reckon we can block the roads for miles around



Remember you are allowed to ride 30 abreast if you want.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 20, 2018)

toblerone3 said:


> Seeing so many cyclists out in this lovely weather, the numpties on this thread must be fuming.


Cyclists don't impede my progress but I can see why car drivers get pissed off with them.
Motorcyclists have to take in a lot more information than car drivers (or any other road users) do (assuming they want to stay alive). We have to watch what everyone else on the road is doing, and be ready to react in a split second. We have to not only watch what other road users are up to, we also have to watch the road itself for things like manhole covers, painted lines, gravel, and other things that could cause the bike to lose traction, and we have to assume that every other road user hasn't seen us. We have to look in the mirrors of cars, and we have to make eye contact to make sure the driver has seen us. We do this in order to stay alive, and failing to do this will drastically increase your chances of becoming a statistic. I know people are going to think this applies to all road users but it doesn't, not even close.
Anyway, I digress. What I want to say is that in my 30+ years of motorcycling, the one type of road user that never fails to create OMFG! moments, are cyclists. It's as if some of them actually want to die, or they're so fucking stupid that it's an inevitability.
Obviously, not all cyclists are bad, but the percentage is way, way higher than any other type of road user, which, considering there is no official mandatory training and testing, is really no surprise. I mean, some people fail their driving test so many times because they're so bad, that they give up and choose to cycle. How on earth does that make any sense, allowing total fucktards to mingle with the traffic on our roads. Is it any wonder so many of them end up under the wheels of HGVs.


----------



## nuffsaid (May 22, 2018)




----------



## tommers (May 22, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> allowing total fucktards to mingle with the traffic on our roads. Is it any wonder so many of them end up under the wheels of HGVs.



This thread really is a bit shit isn't it.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 22, 2018)

tommers said:


> This thread really is a bit shit isn't it.


Yeah, but it would be wrong not to allow maomao to post on it.


----------



## maomao (May 22, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> Yeah, but it would be wrong not to allow maomao to post on it.


I'm not the one who can't even work out which way round a percentage works.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 22, 2018)

maomao said:


> I'm not the one who can't even work out which way round a percentage works.


The last bastion of the defeated 
Whereas probably every one of your posts on this thread is wrong.


----------



## maomao (May 22, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> The last bastion of the defeated
> Whereas probably every one of your posts on this thread is wrong.


What's the last bastion? Pointing out that you're thick? You are thick.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 22, 2018)

maomao said:


> What's the last bastion? Pointing out that you're thick? You are thick.


You're not very good at this, are you.
Why don't you go and tell your missus what she can and can't do. And see if you can't find something racist to post while you're at it.


----------



## maomao (May 22, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> You're not very good at this, are you.
> Why don't you go and tell your missus what she can and can't do. And see if you can't find something racist to post while you're at it.


I tell you what. You find me something racist that I've posted and I'll post something else racist to go with it.


----------



## maomao (May 22, 2018)

And I'll report any more *unsupported* accusations of racism.

(ie. You're welcome to quote any post of mine you think is racist to discuss it but I'm not going to put up with your lies and smears any more)


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 22, 2018)

maomao said:


> And I'll report any more *unsupported* accusations of racism.
> 
> (ie. You're welcome to quote any post of mine you think is racist to discuss it but I'm not going to put up with your lies and smears any more)


They aren't lies. You made a racist post, or are you too thick to understand the definition of racism? (actually, that doesn't require an answer)


----------



## maomao (May 22, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> They aren't lies. You made a racist post, or are you too thick to understand the definition of racism? (actually, that doesn't require an answer)



You've again failed to provide anything racist that I've said so I've reported the post as promised. This isn't fourchan and I'm not a fucking racist.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 22, 2018)

maomao said:


> You've again failed to provide anything racist that I've said so I've reported the post as promised. This isn't fourchan and I'm not a fucking racist.


I didn't say you're a racist. I said you made a racist post, but it's no surprise to find you're too thick to know the difference.


----------



## maomao (May 22, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> I didn't say you're a racist. I said you made a racist post, but it's no surprise to find you're too thick to know the difference.





Saul Goodman said:


> And you're a racist prick.





Saul Goodman said:


> Just own your racism and we'll move on. I won't even ask for an apology.



So are you too stupid or were you too pissed to remember saying it?


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 22, 2018)

maomao said:


> So are you too stupid or were you too pissed to remember saying it?


I remember it very well, but I was referring to the post you reported.
Anyway, fuck off you boring twat. I've got beer to drink.


----------



## maomao (May 22, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> I remember it very well, but I was referring to the post you reported.
> Anyway, fuck off you boring twat. I've got beer to drink.


Alone right?


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 22, 2018)

maomao said:


> Alone right?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 22, 2018)

Wtf is up with this thread? Killing cyclists lol? Random accusations of racism (please don’t do that btw)?


----------



## a_chap (May 22, 2018)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Wtf is up with this thread? Killing cyclists lol?



Sadly some people do indeed LOL at the idea of killing people whose only "crime" is to legally ride a bicycle.


----------



## editor (May 22, 2018)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Wtf is up with this thread? Killing cyclists lol? Random accusations of racism (please don’t do that btw)?


It's ready, if needed.


----------



## joustmaster (May 22, 2018)

It was a bit funny at one point. Now it seems fucking shit.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 23, 2018)

joustmaster said:


> It was a bit funny at one point. Now it seems fucking shit.


It was a bit of fun until maomao came along and ruined it. Now he's just turned it into a personal vendetta against anyone who posts anything anti-cyclist.
He's a grade A cunt. Correction, he's a grade A grassing cunt. The lowest of the low. Feigning slight at any opportunity, and reporting posts that might show him for what he is, whilst he sits at home, telling his missus what she can and can't do. A wanker of the highest order!


----------



## maomao (May 23, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> It was a bit of fun until maomao came along and ruined it. Now he's just turned it into a personal vendetta against anyone who posts anything anti-cyclist.
> He's a grade A cunt. Correction, he's a grade A grassing cunt. The lowest of the low. Feigning slight at any opportunity, and reporting posts that might show him for what he is, whilst he sits at home, telling his missus what she can and can't do. A wanker of the highest order!


So that'll be why you repeatedly tag me into this thread  Objecting to being repeatedly called a racist with no grounds whatsoever is not 'feigning slight'. I have no idea what this weird stuff about my wife is but I'm not going to put up with lies and harassment and I don't know why I should. Just sod off back to 4chan or wherever you came from.


----------



## joustmaster (May 23, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> It was a bit of fun until maomao came along and ruined it. Now he's just turned it into a personal vendetta against anyone who posts anything anti-cyclist.
> He's a grade A cunt. Correction, he's a grade A grassing cunt. The lowest of the low. Feigning slight at any opportunity, and reporting posts that might show him for what he is, whilst he sits at home, telling his missus what she can and can't do. A wanker of the highest order!


No, both sides have said some fucked up stuff to each other.

Worst, most toxic thread on the site.


----------



## keybored (May 23, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The elephant in the Lycra;
> 
> The vast majority of these animals are using the transport network for exercise, as if it is some kind of fucking gymnasium. Holding up the country so that they may exercise, yet unless their route includes plenty of hills the health benefits will be less than when they when their cardio workout was wanking off their neighbor’s dog.



If it's supposed to be for exercise then why do these overgrown children spend a fortune on carbon fibre frames and components to make their bikes lighter and easier to ride? A heavier bike would surely provide more resistance and be more beneficial, they're clearly too stupid to do the maths.

Not to mention the damage all that carbon will be doing to the atmosphere. "Eco-friendly" transport my arse.


----------



## dessiato (May 23, 2018)

Someone earlier made a comment about cyclists and Spain. I can't remember who, nor what  the actual comment/question was. But I offer this for comments.

Red Light Jumping Cyclist has Bike Confiscated


----------



## Spymaster (May 23, 2018)

dessiato said:


> Someone earlier made a comment about cyclists and Spain. I can't remember who, nor what  the actual comment/question was. But I offer this for comments.
> 
> Red Light Jumping Cyclist has Bike Confiscated


He had his bike taken for being stoned rather than jumping the light but great news all the same. Most London cyclists are pissed-up or stoned 95% of the time so if we did the same we could drive a coach and horses through the scourge of London in a heartbeat.

More of this type of thing.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 23, 2018)

dessiato said:


> Someone earlier made a comment about cyclists and Spain. I can't remember who, nor what  the actual comment/question was. But I offer this for comments.
> 
> Red Light Jumping Cyclist has Bike Confiscated



From the same article:

 

Which validates Spy's claim that cyclists are a bunch of nonces.


----------



## BigTom (May 23, 2018)

Spymaster said:


> He had his bike taken for being stoned rather than jumping the light but great news all the same. Most London cyclists are pissed-up or stoned 95% of the time so if we did the same we could drive a coach and horses through the scourge of London in a heartbeat.
> 
> More of this type of thing.



The other 5% of the time is bicycle day when We're all on acid 
Tripping in LSD's Birthplace: A Story for "Bicycle Day"


----------



## Sweet FA (May 26, 2018)

Christ 

Cyclist tells how pedestrians "pushed" him into path of oncoming car

Forty-two-year-old Tavo Velez was cycling home from his job at Oxfam in Shirley, when he said two men confronted him on the shared cycle path on RownhamsLane, and refused to give him room.

Then, without warning, they threw him into the road and watched him get hit by a Jaguar, leaving Tavo in hospital with a broken foot.

While he was lying in the middle of the road, one of the men then went up to Tavo, and told him once more that he "should be using the road", the cyclist claims.

Now, police have launched a hunt for two men after the incident which happened just after 6pm on Tuesday. Tavo, who lives in Romsey, said that onlookers tried to chase down the men, but the pair got away.

Despite spending the evening in hospital, suffering bruising and a broken foot, the charity worker said he feels "really lucky".

He said: "I don't know why anyone would do this? All I remember afterwards is that the man came over to me as I was lying on the ground and said 'you should be cycling on the road'. How can somebody say that after what he has just done?


----------



## a_chap (May 26, 2018)

The acceptance of casual anti-cyclist comments in social media (and on here, sadly) contribute to such violence


----------



## Orang Utan (May 26, 2018)

a_chap said:


> The acceptance of casual anti-cyclist comments in social media (and on here, sadly) contribute to such violence


Indeed, I think this thread has run its due course and it's time for it to be put out of its misery


----------



## hash tag (May 28, 2018)

So here we are, in a nice country pub in the Surrey hills. Whilst waiting to order food, the bar gets swamped by a load of doddery,  elderly ramblers and some idiot with a bike. You, he brings it into the bar with him....is there really no escape from them


----------



## maomao (May 28, 2018)

hash tag said:


> So here we are, in a nice country pub in the Surrey hills. Whilst waiting to order food, the bar gets swamped by a load of doddery,  elderly ramblers and some idiot with a bike. You, he brings it into the bar with him....is there really no escape from them



Well you must be a right laugh to go for a pint with. Tapping out hate messages on your phone while everyone else is relaxing with a drink.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 28, 2018)

hash tag said:


> So here we are, in a nice country pub in the Surrey hills. Whilst waiting to order food, the bar gets swamped by a load of doddery,  elderly ramblers and some idiot with a bike. You, he brings it into the bar with him....is there really no escape from them



Which pub you in?


----------



## hash tag (May 28, 2018)

Stepping stones, box hill


----------



## hash tag (May 28, 2018)

maomao said:


> Well you must be a right laugh to go for a pint with. Tapping out hate messages on your phone while everyone else is relaxing with a drink.



They drove me to it.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 28, 2018)

hash tag said:


> Stepping stones, box hill



Ha! The landlord there goes bananas when people come in with muddy boots, hope the tyres have dogshit on them


----------



## maomao (May 28, 2018)

hash tag said:


> They drove me to it.


I had you down as the doddery elderly type anyway. Maybe put the phone down and enjoy yourself.


----------



## dessiato (May 28, 2018)

hash tag said:


> Stepping stones, box hill


Stepping Stones is in Westhumble, not on Box Hill.


----------



## hash tag (May 28, 2018)

The Stepping Stones are actually across the A24 from the pub, but hey ho. You can see Box Hill from the pub, I never said it was on Box Hill.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 28, 2018)

I had a pint in the Stepping Stones with Gary Fisher in 1988, he was on crutches. I can forgive myself for cycling then as I was 15 at the time.


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 28, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I had a pint in the Stepping Stones with Gary Fisher in 1988, he was on crutches. I can forgive myself for cycling then as I was 15 at the time.


I used to cycle everywhere when I was a child. I'd frequently cycle from Manchester to Blackpool. But then I grew up and bought a car.


----------



## mojo pixy (May 28, 2018)

I live in a city with horrible traffic congestion, so I keep a car and yet also use a bike. #nonbinary


----------



## Spymaster (May 28, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I can forgive myself for cycling then as I was 15 at the time.


It's ok if you give up cycling in your mid to late teens as the real deviancy doesn't take hold until the early 20s.


----------



## dessiato (May 28, 2018)

hash tag said:


> Stepping stones, box hill





hash tag said:


> The Stepping Stones are actually across the A24 from the pub, but hey ho. You can see Box Hill from the pub, I never said it was on Box Hill.


Technically The Stepping Stones pub is Westhumble, Dorking. Definitely not Box Hill, which was implied in you first quoted post. 

You can, just, see Brighton on a clear day from the top of Box Hill. It doesn't make Box Hill part of Brighton.

I shall now turn off my pedant mode.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 29, 2018)

The pub is named after the stepping stones across the road, which are part of the hill...


----------



## dessiato (May 29, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The pub is named after the stepping stones across the road, which are part of the hill...


But the White Horse is named after a white horse. Doesn't make the pub part of a white horse. The King's Head isn't part of the king just because of the name. I, as a former resident of the area, refuse to allow the Stepping Stones pub to become part of Box Hill. It should keep itself to where it belongs.


----------



## editor (May 29, 2018)

Saul Goodman said:


> I used to cycle everywhere when I was a child. I'd frequently cycle from Manchester to Blackpool. But then I grew up and bought a car.


Comments like that don't sound very grown up at all.


----------



## maomao (May 29, 2018)

dessiato said:


> But the White Horse is named after a white horse. Doesn't make the pub part of a white horse. The King's Head isn't part of the king just because of the name. I, as a former resident of the area, refuse to allow the Stepping Stones pub to become part of Box Hill. It should keep itself to where it belongs.



Round the corner from Boxhill and Westhumble train station. Box Hill is a hill and Westhumble is a town. Apples and oranges.


----------



## dessiato (May 29, 2018)

maomao said:


> Round the corner from Boxhill and Westhumble train station. Box Hill is a hill and Westhumble is a town. Apples and oranges.


No.

The red pointer is the location of the Stepping Stones, Westhumble, Dorking. As you can see it's not Box Hill.


----------



## maomao (May 29, 2018)

dessiato said:


> No.
> 
> The red pointer is the location of the Stepping Stones, Westhumble, Dorking. As you can see it's not Box Hill.
> 
> View attachment 136660


Means nothing without a full contour map. How big is Box Hill?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 29, 2018)

The actual stepping stones though are across the A24, at the base of Box Hill...


----------



## dessiato (May 29, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The actual stepping stones though are across the A24, at the base of Box Hill...


But the earlier post referred to the pub. In Westhumble.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 29, 2018)

dessiato said:


> But the earlier post referred to the pub. In Westhumble.



Hashie gave the name of the pub and the general area in which the pub lies, he then went on to state that the actual stones are across the road fro the pub. You're being very argumentative over this, have you recently taken up cycling or something?


----------



## dessiato (May 29, 2018)

maomao said:


> Means nothing without a full contour map. How big is Box Hill?


There's a steep escarpment on the A24 side. Box Hill is in the village of Tadworth. There's two reasonable pubs there. And there's some great foraging on the hill. There's a variety of wild mushrooms, and some large areas of wild garlic.

Best map I could find of the contours.


----------



## dessiato (May 29, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Hashie gave the name of the pub and the general area in which the pub lies, he then went on to state that the actual stones are across the road fro the pub. You're being very argumentative over this, have you recently taken up cycling or something?


Sir, whilst I might accept a range of defamatory comments, to be called a cyclist is beyond the pale. I am offering you a chance to atone for this by meeting me on the virtual dualling field for a virtual dual. You may choose the virtual weapons. Or I'll accept an apology.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 29, 2018)

dessiato said:


> Sir, whilst I might accept a range of defamatory comments, to be called a cyclist is beyond the pale. I am offering you a chance to atone for this by meeting me on the virtual dualling field for a virtual dual. You may choose the virtual weapons. Or I'll accept an apology.



I apologise. It was a low-blow.


----------



## maomao (May 29, 2018)

dessiato said:


> There's a steep escarpment on the A24 side. Box Hill is in the village of Tadworth. There's two reasonable pubs there. And there's some great foraging on the hill. There's a variety of wild mushrooms, and some large areas of wild garlic.
> 
> Best map I could find of the contours.
> View attachment 136661


Tadworth's miles away. It's the other side of the M25!


----------



## dessiato (May 29, 2018)

maomao said:


> Tadworth's miles away. It's the other side of the M25!


It's outside the M25. Nearest junction, which is approximately 8 km from Tadworth, is Leatherhead. Tadworth is the village on top of Box Hill.

Edited for clarity.


----------



## dessiato (May 29, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I apologise. It was a low-blow.


I accept your apology.


----------



## maomao (May 29, 2018)

dessiato said:


> It's outside the M25. Nearest junction, which is approximately 8 km from Tadworth, is Leatherhead. Tadworth is the village on top of Box Hill.
> 
> Edited for clarity.


So this isn't the Tadworth that's six miles from Box Hill (further by road) and part of the London Borough of Reigate and Banstead then?


----------



## hash tag (May 29, 2018)

hash tag said:


> Stepping stones, box hill



It does not say in Box Hill, on Box Hill, adjacent to Box Hill Etc.



dessiato said:


> Stepping Stones is in Westhumble, not on Box Hill.



I did not say otherwise as Bahnhof Strasse has already pointed out



dessiato said:


> Technically The Stepping Stones pub is Westhumble, Dorking. Definitely not Box Hill, which was implied in you first quoted post.
> 
> You can, just, see Brighton on a clear day from the top of Box Hill. It doesn't make Box Hill part of Brighton.
> 
> I shall now turn off my pedant mode.



Implied perhaps, stated as fact, NO.



Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Hashie gave the name of the pub and the general area in which the pub lies, he then went on to state that the actual stones are across the road fro the pub. You're being very argumentative over this, have you recently taken up cycling or something?



I think you may be right.

BTW. I was lead astray by a girl a while back. Cycling around the general area, she decided we would come down off Box Hill, off road, with no lights


----------



## dessiato (May 29, 2018)

maomao said:


> So this isn't the Tadworth that's six miles from Box Hill (further by road) and part of the London Borough of Reigate and Banstead then?


It wasn't when I lived there.


----------



## maomao (May 29, 2018)

dessiato said:


> It wasn't when I lived there.


Try looking at a map rather than relying on your ancient memory. There may have been some geological movement since you lived there.


----------



## dessiato (May 29, 2018)

maomao said:


> Try looking at a map rather than relying on your ancient memory. There may have been some geological movement since you lived there.


Are you implying that I'm old?


----------



## maomao (May 29, 2018)

dessiato said:


> Are you implying that I'm old?


I'd never imply anything of the sort. I thought I was being quite explicit.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 29, 2018)




----------



## maomao (May 29, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> View attachment 136680
> 
> View attachment 136681
> 
> View attachment 136682


It comes up on addresses generated from postcodes because KT20 is a very odd shape:



The red outlined area is KT20. The yellow arrow is pointing at the hill. Westhumble is the yellow blob to the left and Tadworth the larger town (though still officially a village) ringed in yellow to the top right.

Geologically Box Hill is part of the Surrey Hills and Tadworth part of the Epsom Downs.


----------



## dessiato (May 29, 2018)

Anyway, the Stepping Stones pub is not on or in Box Hill, it is, I think, proven quite clearly to be in Westhumble. Tadworth is the village on Box Hill. The village at the foot of the hill, on the A24 side, is Mickleham.

Dorking is nice for antiques.


----------



## magneze (May 29, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The actual stepping stones though are across the A24, at the base of Box Hill...


Where's the cycle path?!


----------



## Spymaster (May 29, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I apologise. It was a low-blow.


Too right. 

Calling someone a cyclist is ratcheting up the the stakes a few levels above "cunt".


----------



## OzT (May 30, 2018)

I'm liking this, think I will throw my 2c worth in here!! 

I think Box Hill is part of a joint civil parish with Headley, wheras Box Hill School's in Mickleham, itself a civil parish which Westhumble belongs to, but not the same as Headley, which has large parts owned by the National Trust, which includes Box Hill.

** sits back with a satisfied grin on face **


----------



## toblerone3 (May 30, 2018)

The Stepping Stones pub is in the Box Hill area.  If you took a train to Box Hill the nearest station would be Westhumble. If you took a short walk from Westhumble station you would pass the Stepping Stones pub and then (once you had crossed the main road) you would pass the stepping stones themselves which are at the bottom of the slope of Box Hill itself.


----------



## dessiato (May 30, 2018)

toblerone3 said:


> *The Stepping Stones pub is in the Box Hill area. * If you took a train to Box Hill the nearest station would be Westhumble. If you took a short walk from Westhumble station you would pass the Stepping Stones pub and then (once you had crossed the main road) you would pass the stepping stones themselves which are at the bottom of the slope of Box Hill itself.


This is an important statement. It's in the Box Hill area. It's also in the Dorking area, or the Leatherhead area. It is not on or in Box Hill.

Betchworth station is also nearby. It's a nice station. You can go up to the village and walk past a couple of nice pubs, and a shop that bakes bread. You can walk along the top of Box Hill pass the viewpoint and the castle/fort thing that's half hidden in the wood then down the other side of the hill to Burford bridge. Get an FEB at the cafe where the bikers hang out. Cross the stepping stones and finish the walk with a pint at the Stepping Stones.


----------



## toblerone3 (May 30, 2018)

hash tag said:


> Stepping stones, box hill



That comment is completely fine "Stepping stones, box hill" is a completely accurate statement it doesn't say "on", "in" or "at". In wayfinding terms it just makes use of the fact that The Stepping Stones pub is 300 metres from the lower slopes of Box Hill and Box Hill is much more well known place in most people's minds compared to Westhumble.  So many pedants on this thread.  They are the sort of people you don't want to ask directions from.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 30, 2018)

Regardless of all this bollocks, time to share this gem again...



Bahnhof Strasse said:


> My nan's uncle (my great, great uncle???) started to run down Box Hill and found it so steep he couldn't stop and ran in to the road at the bottom and was killed by a car. This was in something like 1910, how unlucky is that!


----------



## Sue (May 30, 2018)

Well this thread has certainly taken a very tedious turn...


----------



## Saul Goodman (May 30, 2018)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The actual stepping stones though are across the A24, at the base of Box Hill...


Do they drop back down to let the cars past?

And they really need to do something about the drainage on that A24!


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 1, 2018)

a_chap said:


> The acceptance of casual anti-cyclist comments in social media (and on here, sadly) contribute to such violence



Works both ways...



SpookyFrank said:


> Now I'm a famously even-tempered and reasonable sort of bloke but if some fucker tried to knock me off my bike with a stick I reckon I'd have to stop and find out what happens if I pick up my bike and repeatedly smash them in the face with it.



Cyclist attacks driver with massive 'zombie killer' knife in broad daylight in south London street


----------



## nick (Jun 1, 2018)

That''s no cyclist. Look at the damage he would have caused to his derailleur leaving it lying in the road like that. 
Obviously a motorist that is unable to drive whilst serving a ban for dangerous driving


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 1, 2018)

nick said:


> That''s no cyclist. Look at the damage he would have caused to his derailleur leaving it lying in the road like that.
> Obviously a motorist that is unable to drive whilst serving a ban for dangerous driving



Single speed hipster.


----------



## a_chap (Jun 1, 2018)

Oh, I agree.

The number of motorists killed and seriously injured by cyclists each year is just staggering.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 1, 2018)

It's been recently reported a few times that this thread is stupid macho bollocks and shows no sign of getting any better. After checking a few times I think those reports are reasonable, so it's closed.


----------

