Cycle races on dual carriageways !

[Tomalawk]

I avoid walking around Brixton at night, because I don't want to be stabbed or robbed.

If I see a potential accident happening after a poor overtake, I brake to let them past or to give them room to get back in.

If I'm approaching a Zebra crossing (on foot) and someone is speeding towards it, I don't step out to cross the road.

If I'm fishing and I spot there's a pylon near by, I move somewhere else to cast.

If I'm swimming in the sea and someone spots a shark, I get out of the sea.


Firstly I've got no problem with cyclists, each to their own. However all of the things above are things that I do even though I don't need to, but I do because I value my life. I really don't understand the "I've got the right to because the law says so" attitude because at the end of the day there is only one loser. Just use your common sense.

P.S Just because it's the Law doesn't make it right, it just means a toff that was voted in by another toff decided to make a rule to make another toff in the EU happy.

[irocfan]

Tomalawk said:

I avoid walking around Brixton at night, because I don't want to be stabbed or robbed.

If I see a potential accident happening after a poor overtake, I brake to let them past or to give them room to get back in.

If I'm approaching a Zebra crossing (on foot) and someone is speeding towards it, I don't step out to cross the road.

If I'm fishing and I spot there's a pylon near by, I move somewhere else to cast.

If I'm swimming in the sea and someone spots a shark, I get out of the sea.


Firstly I've got no problem with cyclists, each to their own. However all of the things above are things that I do even though I don't need to, but I do because I value my life. I really don't understand the "I've got the right to because the law says so" attitude because at the end of the day there is only one loser. Just use your common sense.

P.S Just because it's the Law doesn't make it right, it just means a toff that was voted in by another toff decided to make a rule to make another toff in the EU happy.

damn you and you common sense!! How dare you!!

[paranoid airbag]

Tomalawk said:

I avoid walking around Brixton at night, because I don't want to be stabbed or robbed.

If I see a potential accident happening after a poor overtake, I brake to let them past or to give them room to get back in.

If I'm approaching a Zebra crossing (on foot) and someone is speeding towards it, I don't step out to cross the road.

If I'm fishing and I spot there's a pylon near by, I move somewhere else to cast.

If I'm swimming in the sea and someone spots a shark, I get out of the sea.


Firstly I've got no problem with cyclists, each to their own. However all of the things above are things that I do even though I don't need to, but I do because I value my life. I really don't understand the "I've got the right to because the law says so" attitude because at the end of the day there is only one loser. Just use your common sense.

P.S Just because it's the Law doesn't make it right, it just means a toff that was voted in by another toff decided to make a rule to make another toff in the EU happy.

You don't have to understand it. If someone is doing something that should be safe, and isn't because of the actions of someone else, you go after the latter person. First-grader stuff.

[Tomalawk]

paranoid airbag said:

You don't have to understand it. If someone is doing something that should be safe, and isn't because of the actions of someone else, you go after the latter person. First-grader stuff.

If you think having a race on a push bike with nothing but lycra and helmet alongside a 10 ton HGV at potentially 60mph is meant to be safe, then well... I don't know really.

[will_]

Tomalawk said:

If you think having a race on a push bike with nothing but lycra and helmet alongside a 10 ton HGV at potentially 60mph is meant to be safe, then well... I don't know really.

The issue appears to be far more about inconvenience to motorists than the safety of the cyclists.

Perhaps they should close the whole dual carriageway if it's that dangerous?

Or, alternatively, exist in the real world where a compromise exists between being safe and actually leaving the house.

Just because something has an element of risk doesn't mean it shouldn't be undertaken. Measures can be taken to assist with safety but, short of banning cycles or HGVs (bearing in mind that only one of those parties provides a real risk to the other) you have to accept that nothing is 100% safe.

Should bikes really be forced off the road because drivers are not competent enough to deal with them? Or should we tackle the incompetent drivers?

[paranoid airbag]

Tomalawk said:

If you think having a race on a push bike with nothing but lycra and helmet alongside a 10 ton HGV at potentially 60mph is meant to be safe, then well... I don't know really.

If the driver is competent, yes. If not, then the only fair and civilised resolution is for said driver(s) to lose freedoms until it is safe. Expecting the group that is suffering to lose freedoms is what barbarians do
Is that you?

[walm]

Tomalawk - I really don't think you get it.
Here is the conclusion to your analogies if you believe banning TTs is what they support.

Tomalawk said:

I avoid walking around Brixton at night, because I don't want to be stabbed or robbed.

Ban walking around Brixton. Ignore stabby robbers.

Tomalawk said:

If I see a potential accident happening after a poor overtake, I brake to let them past or to give them room to get back in.

Force everyone to drive slower. Ignore poor overtaking.

Tomalawk said:

If I'm approaching a Zebra crossing (on foot) and someone is speeding towards it, I don't step out to cross the road.

Ban Zebra crossings. Ignore speeding in built up areas.

Tomalawk said:

If I'm fishing and I spot there's a pylon near by, I move somewhere else to cast.

Ban fishing.

Tomalawk said:

If I'm swimming in the sea and someone spots a shark, I get out of the sea.

Ban swimming.

Tomalawk said:

...each to their own...

Unless they are doing something YOU deem dangerous (even though it isn't).

The nanny state is nanny enough already.
Let's address poor driving rather than evolve into North Korea.

[paranoid airbag]

walm said:

Tomalawk - I really don't think you get it.
Here is the conclusion to your analogies if you believe banning TTs is what they support.

Tomalawk said:

I avoid walking around Brixton at night, because I don't want to be stabbed or robbed.

Ban walking around Brixton. Ignore stabby robbers.

Tomalawk said:

If I see a potential accident happening after a poor overtake, I brake to let them past or to give them room to get back in.

Force everyone to drive slower. Ignore poor overtaking.

Tomalawk said:

If I'm approaching a Zebra crossing (on foot) and someone is speeding towards it, I don't step out to cross the road.

Ban Zebra crossings. Ignore speeding in built up areas.

Tomalawk said:

If I'm fishing and I spot there's a pylon near by, I move somewhere else to cast.

Ban fishing.

Tomalawk said:

If I'm swimming in the sea and someone spots a shark, I get out of the sea.

Ban swimming.

Tomalawk said:

...each to their own...

Unless they are doing something YOU deem dangerous (even though it isn't).

The nanny state is nanny enough already.
Let's address poor driving rather than evolve into North Korea.

At the risk of a circle jerk, I don't know how you have the patience to deal with these morons.

There are things I don't do out of self-preservation, but if someone wanted to do them I'd either help them or at least let them alone rather than bhing about how I don't understand why they want to. It sort of reminds me of a conjecture as to why homophobes often end up closet homosexuals - they resent others being able to enjoy something they can't.

[Simond S]

Cycling is safe. The number of cyclists causing an accident and harming themselves or another through impact with a stationary object or a person are very low.

Drivers impacting them doesn't make cycling dangerous it makes some road users dangerous.

[heebeegeetee]

Can somebody explain to me how overtaking a cyclist on a dual carriageway can in any way be challenging? I realise that driving standards are possibly at an all time low, but surely we cannot now be thinking that overtaking a cyclist on a dual carriageway is difficult?

[Tomalawk]

walm said:

Unless they are doing something YOU deem dangerous (even though it isn't).

The nanny state is nanny enough already.
Let's address poor driving rather than evolve into North Korea.

I said nothing about banning them, you pretty much wasted your time with that response. I was just commenting on the fact it's pretty stupid to do it.

P.S By completely bypassing what I was saying about my opinions on risk management, you've also kind of gone and done of them really angry silly cyclist rants.

Edited by Tomalawk on Tuesday 15th April 19:20

[paranoid airbag]

Tomalawk said:

I said nothing about banning them, you pretty much wasted your time with that response. I was just commenting on the fact it's pretty stupid to do it.

You've already admitted you don't understand, and you show no inclination to try, and you've suggested nothing - constructive or otherwise - be done. What you've posted echoes earlier posts and makes no attempt to address the criticisms of said posts, or move the debate forward.

Bearing that in mind, what makes you think anyone cares whether you think it's stupid or not?

Edited by paranoid airbag on Tuesday 15th April 19:25

[Tomalawk]

paranoid airbag said:

You've already admitted you don't understand, and you show no inclination to try, and you've suggested nothing - constructive or otherwise - be done.

What makes you think anyone cares that you think it's stupid from your admitted position of ignorance?

I think you need to chill out, you've gone all angry cyclist on me. You guys are really making yourselves look like the stereotypical cyclist, which I know isn't everyone.

You strike me as the sort of guy who uploads videos on YouTube of you mouthing off a driver with their number plate in the title.

[paranoid airbag]

Tomalawk said:

I think you need to chill out, you've gone all angry cyclist on me. You guys are really making yourselves look like the stereotypical cyclist, which I know isn't everyone.

You strike me as the sort of guy who uploads videos on YouTube of you mouthing off a driver with their number plate in the title.

Sorry, wrong.

I get annoyed by egotistical tts like you. Add something to the debate - which you have not done so far - or shut the hell up and leave things to those who can.

[Tomalawk]

paranoid airbag said:

Sorry, wrong.

I get annoyed by egotistical tts like you. Add something to the debate or shut the hell up.

You've done it again, you're quite an abusive guy you know.

[paranoid airbag]

Tomalawk said:

You've done it again, you're quite an abusive guy you know.

You deserve it. See above for explanation why.

[Tomalawk]

paranoid airbag said:

You deserve it. See above for explanation why.

In your opinion, just like it's my opinion racing alongside a 10 ton HGV it's a dumb thing to do. I accept that you being a cyclist will make you bias in this debate, but it's still a dumb thing to do.

[yellowjack]

will_ said:

...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.

I have had this 'no insurance' argument leveled at me in the past. Actually, I have £10,000,000 worth of 3rd party liability insurance in place through a policy not specifically related to cycling. Basically, it means that if I cause injury to another person as a result of negligence, and my liability is established in a court, my insurer will pay out up to £10,000,000 to any 'victim' of said negligence.

Now someone please point out a good reason why I should spend my money on a less effective, more expensive additional 'cycle specific' 3rd party insurance policy?

[paranoid airbag]

Tomalawk said:

In your opinion, just like it's my opinion racing alongside a 10 ton HGV it's a dumb thing to do. I accept that you being a cyclist will make you bias in this debate, but it's still a dumb thing to do.

Obviously it's my opinion... but by being the first to explain why someone would hold that opinion, I was adding something, unlike you.

So are you going to answer the question? Why should anybody care about the opinion of someone with no interest in understanding the other side or adding anything to the debate - aka why I'm wrong to call you an egotistical tt?

Edited by paranoid airbag on Tuesday 15th April 19:47

[TankRizzo]

Devastator assembled successfully.