Cycle races on dual carriageways !
Discussion
MarkK said:
deltashad said:
Roads can be shared by everyone, but ultimately motorists pay for the privilege. Motorists have priority.
No they do not have priority and no they do not pay for the privilege. A motorist is licensed to use the road. If you don't like having to share it with other road users maybe you should hand yours in and find another mode of transport?
ks they call it this year as that is nothing to do with the roads... what about the revenue raised from petrol? A direct tax raised on usage.... That aside as I see it everyone has a right to use the roads. I have wondered why the "irrational hatred of cyclists" and the only thing I can come up with (weak as it is) is that they [u]seem[/u] to cross over into the ecomentalist/vegan camp - that is to say all preachy and holier than thou. For my sins I live in the S/E and work in London so I do see a LOT of t
tish cycling - to be fair I also see a LOT of ttish driving (by private cars, taxis, lorries and fking buses). It seems that, in common with most walks of life, everyone seems to know their 'rights' but not have a clue as to their responsibilities 
irocfan said:
MarkK said:
deltashad said:
Roads can be shared by everyone, but ultimately motorists pay for the privilege. Motorists have priority.
No they do not have priority and no they do not pay for the privilege. A motorist is licensed to use the road. If you don't like having to share it with other road users maybe you should hand yours in and find another mode of transport?ks they call it this year as that is nothing to do with the roads... what about the revenue raised from petrol? A direct tax raised on usage.... That aside as I see it everyone has a right to use the roads. I have wondered why the "irrational hatred of cyclists" and the only thing I can come up with (weak as it is) is that they [u]seem[/u] to cross over into the ecomentalist/vegan camp - that is to say all preachy and holier than thou. For my sins I live in the S/E and work in London so I do see a LOT of t
tish cycling - to be fair I also see a LOT of ttish driving (by private cars, taxis, lorries and fking buses). It seems that, in common with most walks of life, everyone seems to know their 'rights' but not have a clue as to their responsibilities irocfan said:
MarkK said:
deltashad said:
Roads can be shared by everyone, but ultimately motorists pay for the privilege. Motorists have priority.
No they do not have priority and no they do not pay for the privilege. A motorist is licensed to use the road. If you don't like having to share it with other road users maybe you should hand yours in and find another mode of transport?ks they call it this year as that is nothing to do with the roads... what about the revenue raised from petrol? A direct tax raised on usage.... That aside as I see it everyone has a right to use the roads. I have wondered why the "irrational hatred of cyclists" and the only thing I can come up with (weak as it is) is that they [u]seem[/u] to cross over into the ecomentalist/vegan camp - that is to say all preachy and holier than thou. For my sins I live in the S/E and work in London so I do see a LOT of t
tish cycling - to be fair I also see a LOT of ttish driving (by private cars, taxis, lorries and fking buses). It seems that, in common with most walks of life, everyone seems to know their 'rights' but not have a clue as to their responsibilities king hate the Greens with a passion.How's that sweeping generalisation going
boyse7en said:
a) Hey everybody! I've invented a new thing called the bike. It can be dangerous if you fall off, requires balance, will get you wet when it rains, smelly when it's warm, dirty when it's raining (or just stopped raining). You'll be cold, uncomfortable and unable to carry (except in rare cases) more that one person.
b) Hey everybody! I've invented a new thing called the car. It will transport you AND your family/friends in comfort and whatever temperature you feel comfortable at. You can listen to music (or stay in silence) and travel many hundreds of miles in one day. You'll be able to visit places with your family broaden their horizons with different cultures and/or visit places of historical interest. You'll be able to go shopping in it and actually carry things home in it - bought the weeks shopping? A stereo? A televisual device? Not a problem the car will be able to transport all of them.
c) Hey everybody! I've invented a new thing called a horse. It's expensive to feed and keep, needs loads of space, is nervous and unpredictable to ride and can only carry one person at a time. It is uncomfortable in the middle, and dangerous at both ends. On the plus side, its pollutants are good for the roses, and it makes a nice lasagne.
Which do you think would get the most investment in a Kickstarter project?
corrected that for you b) Hey everybody! I've invented a new thing called the car. It will transport you AND your family/friends in comfort and whatever temperature you feel comfortable at. You can listen to music (or stay in silence) and travel many hundreds of miles in one day. You'll be able to visit places with your family broaden their horizons with different cultures and/or visit places of historical interest. You'll be able to go shopping in it and actually carry things home in it - bought the weeks shopping? A stereo? A televisual device? Not a problem the car will be able to transport all of them.
c) Hey everybody! I've invented a new thing called a horse. It's expensive to feed and keep, needs loads of space, is nervous and unpredictable to ride and can only carry one person at a time. It is uncomfortable in the middle, and dangerous at both ends. On the plus side, its pollutants are good for the roses, and it makes a nice lasagne.
Which do you think would get the most investment in a Kickstarter project?
(we seem to agree on horses though!! lol). Seriously there are good and bad to every mode of transport - as someone has previously mentioned it's the fkwits who ruin it for everyone WinstonWolf said:
irocfan said:
MarkK said:
deltashad said:
Roads can be shared by everyone, but ultimately motorists pay for the privilege. Motorists have priority.
No they do not have priority and no they do not pay for the privilege. A motorist is licensed to use the road. If you don't like having to share it with other road users maybe you should hand yours in and find another mode of transport?ks they call it this year as that is nothing to do with the roads... what about the revenue raised from petrol? A direct tax raised on usage.... That aside as I see it everyone has a right to use the roads. I have wondered why the "irrational hatred of cyclists" and the only thing I can come up with (weak as it is) is that they [u]seem[/u] to cross over into the ecomentalist/vegan camp - that is to say all preachy and holier than thou. For my sins I live in the S/E and work in London so I do see a LOT of t
tish cycling - to be fair I also see a LOT of ttish driving (by private cars, taxis, lorries and fking buses). It seems that, in common with most walks of life, everyone seems to know their 'rights' but not have a clue as to their responsibilities king hate the Greens with a passion.How's that sweeping generalisation going
k so I beat you there too Note thought that I said "SEEM" 
irocfan said:
WinstonWolf said:
irocfan said:
MarkK said:
deltashad said:
Roads can be shared by everyone, but ultimately motorists pay for the privilege. Motorists have priority.
No they do not have priority and no they do not pay for the privilege. A motorist is licensed to use the road. If you don't like having to share it with other road users maybe you should hand yours in and find another mode of transport?ks they call it this year as that is nothing to do with the roads... what about the revenue raised from petrol? A direct tax raised on usage.... That aside as I see it everyone has a right to use the roads. I have wondered why the "irrational hatred of cyclists" and the only thing I can come up with (weak as it is) is that they [u]seem[/u] to cross over into the ecomentalist/vegan camp - that is to say all preachy and holier than thou. For my sins I live in the S/E and work in London so I do see a LOT of t
tish cycling - to be fair I also see a LOT of ttish driving (by private cars, taxis, lorries and fking buses). It seems that, in common with most walks of life, everyone seems to know their 'rights' but not have a clue as to their responsibilities king hate the Greens with a passion.How's that sweeping generalisation going
k so I beat you there too Note thought that I said "SEEM" ked on the sweeping generalisations front goldblum said:
There should be no racing allowed on public roads unless the roads are shut. In ten years time there will be more car drivers and more cyclists sharing the same space so something will need to be done before someone - more likely than not a cyclist - gets seriously injured or worse.
Have a guess what will happen?Think about it. Do you think lawmakers and authorities (local, national and EU) will side with cyclists or cars?
Johnnytheboy said:
My issue with the stance taken by self-proclaimed cyclists on PH (trying not to gain any more infamy there, you see?) is that they will trot out some mantra on something (let's say riding two abreast as an example), then label anyone that disagrees as a cretinous moron. Just because you think something is in your best interest doesn't mean everyone else has to meekly accept it without argument.
Tbh that is your issue. If someone thinks riding two abreast is illegal when it isn't (for example), then labelling them a cretin is entirely fair. There are plenty of things that, outside of very small and specialist arenas, only an egotistical cretin would consider a matter of debate. You don't have to accept it, but nor does anyone else have to treat you like an adult if you don't.
oyster said:
goldblum said:
There should be no racing allowed on public roads unless the roads are shut. In ten years time there will be more car drivers and more cyclists sharing the same space so something will need to be done before someone - more likely than not a cyclist - gets seriously injured or worse.
Have a guess what will happen?Think about it. Do you think lawmakers and authorities (local, national and EU) will side with cyclists or cars?
a - the most money
or
b - the most aggravation
or
c - who they can control more
The main point is that these races actually cause very little issue to anyone, they have been going for years and years, and nothing will change.
The courses are based on a traffic count on the course, so they only take part at certain times of day on certain courses, and some courses as they exceed the traffic count can no longer be used.
Only a few people have died taking part from memory, usually through not looking where they're going and hitting a stationary car, they're statistically quite safe as a form of cycle racing.
Our club hold them on a fortnightly basis at around 7.30pm and they're great fun and cause little issue to anyone.
The courses are based on a traffic count on the course, so they only take part at certain times of day on certain courses, and some courses as they exceed the traffic count can no longer be used.
Only a few people have died taking part from memory, usually through not looking where they're going and hitting a stationary car, they're statistically quite safe as a form of cycle racing.
Our club hold them on a fortnightly basis at around 7.30pm and they're great fun and cause little issue to anyone.
irocfan said:
oyster said:
goldblum said:
There should be no racing allowed on public roads unless the roads are shut. In ten years time there will be more car drivers and more cyclists sharing the same space so something will need to be done before someone - more likely than not a cyclist - gets seriously injured or worse.
Have a guess what will happen?Think about it. Do you think lawmakers and authorities (local, national and EU) will side with cyclists or cars?
a - the most money
or
b - the most aggravation
or
c - who they can control more
Johnnytheboy said:
So basically you want people that disagree with you to stop doing so, and then you'll stop treating them as morons. I'm struggling to think of the word for that: anti-democratic probably covers it.
My issue with the stance taken by self-proclaimed cyclists on PH (trying not to gain any more infamy there, you see?) is that they will trot out some mantra on something (let's say riding two abreast as an example), then label anyone that disagrees as a cretinous moron. Just because you think something is in your best interest doesn't mean everyone else has to meekly accept it without argument.
I really don't have any beef with cyclists as a group, whatever you may think. It's this staggeringly pompous self-belief of a vocal few that I find so nauseating, but at least it's easy to wind you all up!
No. People are welcome to disagree but they ought to do so with some basic facts, logical arguments or rationality brought to the table. That's a proper debate, isn't it? Failing to do that is the mark of a cretinous moron - shouting ignorant "opinions" and ignoring any counter-arguments.My issue with the stance taken by self-proclaimed cyclists on PH (trying not to gain any more infamy there, you see?) is that they will trot out some mantra on something (let's say riding two abreast as an example), then label anyone that disagrees as a cretinous moron. Just because you think something is in your best interest doesn't mean everyone else has to meekly accept it without argument.
I really don't have any beef with cyclists as a group, whatever you may think. It's this staggeringly pompous self-belief of a vocal few that I find so nauseating, but at least it's easy to wind you all up!
I want people to stop trotting out the same old garbage which inevitably clogs up any thread about cycling.
Out of interest, what of my list of tired old debates do you disagree with?
And why is it that you don't seem to take exception to the "internet motorists" who usually start such topics?
It's not difficult to have self-belief when you've actually bothered to understand an issue (and educate yourself on it). If it's pompous to suggest that those who've done neither, and post based purely on hatred or bigotry, are cretins, then so be it. But that says more about you than the "internet cyclists" you so like raising in every such topic on PH - (to be honest that's as boring as all the tabloid-esque ranting from the morons).
Garvin said:
Almost agree . . . . . . except for b). I have wondered on the occasions of nearly being mowed down by a cyclist riding down a footpath at speed (and it happens more and more frequently these days) what financial compensation would be forthcoming to rectify any losses if, one day, the nearly becomes a reality?
You sue the cyclist for their negligence. Just as I would have to do if a pedestrian knocked me off my bike and seriously injured me.Having or not having insurance makes no odds to liability. It may affect whether you'll get any money or not. That's the same for everyone who isn't insured.
It's worth noting that many cyclists are insured if they are members of cycling groups (I am one). Also house-hold insurance often covers third party liability.
walm said:
Carlton Reid is a well known cycling apologist and runs ipayroadtax.com.
He has clearly hacked that motoring website in order to spread his own brand of fact based sensible advice and has no place here.
Nah there's definitely 4 dots missing on that grid IMHO:He has clearly hacked that motoring website in order to spread his own brand of fact based sensible advice and has no place here.
Idiots that walk slowly or stop for no reason
b
ds that overtake me on a mountain bike when I'm sweating gallons on a road bikeVirtually everyone else in a car. Ever.
Elephant racing truckies sitting next to eachother for 10's of miles when I'm towing
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff