Cycle races on dual carriageways !

[Tomalawk]

paranoid airbag said:

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?

Edited by paranoid airbag on Tuesday 15th April 19:42

Because we live in a modern society where we try to live alongside each other for the progression of humanity and we can only achieve this by working together and listening to each other, not by replying with abuse and profanity. On the flip side, why should I care about cyclists racing down a DC because for no other reason than they want to?

[paranoid airbag]

Tomalawk said:

Because we live in a modern society where we try to live alongside each other for the progression of humanity and we can only achieve this by working together and listening to each other, not by replying with abuse and profanity. On the flip side, why should I care about cyclists racing down a DC because for no other reason than they want to?

Nope, sorry. You already admitted you had no interest in understanding why it could be anything other than stupid, and if you'd had listened to the debate earlier you've have responded to the criticisms levelled at posts identical to yours, which you didn't. Nor did you answer my question first time. You've thrown an accusation of bias without even asking if I do have a bike, or participate in time trials. Entirely reasonable of me to conclude you're not listening, which makes asking me to listen to you entirely unreasonable, and abuse entirely justified.

I tolerate living alongside you. That's it, until you start listening you don't deserve better.

Edited by paranoid airbag on Tuesday 15th April 20:00

Edited by paranoid airbag on Tuesday 15th April 20:03

[Tomalawk]

paranoid airbag said:

Nope, sorry. You already admitted you had no interest in understanding why it could be anything other than stupid, and if you'd had listened to the debate earlier you've have something to add more useful than what you added. Nor did you answer my question first time. Entirely reasonable of me to conclude you're not listening, which makes me listening to you instead of hurling abuse wasted effort.

I tolerate living alongside you. That's it, until you start listening you don't deserve better.

Edited by paranoid airbag on Tuesday 15th April 19:57

I thought you didn't want a North Korean state? You certainly have a North Korean Statesmen tone about you. "My way or the highway (Which I happen to be racing on as well so make sure you dodge me)"

[MH]

M

Pkh72 said:

MH said:

Pkh72 said:

JDMDrifter said:

Caused abit of a stir here

I appreciate it's their sport and they have the right, but IMO it seems very dangerous. Bare in mind this stretch of road has a very busy lane 2 90% of the time and pulling across to overtake isn't that easy, this combined with poor drivers can only end in tears. I believe it should be banned on this particular stretch of road due to the volume of traffic and the disruption it causes.

Edited by JDMDrifter on Sunday 13th April 19:16

No st Sherlock.

Edited by Pkh72 on Sunday 13th April 20:57

Anyone cycling on the A50 round there is just nuts when there's an airfield just up the road that's used for cycle racing (time trial is still racing).

Oh i agree, i live next to the A50 and cycle a couple of times a week around the country lanes between there and Ashbourne area, i am fully aware of the time trials on the A50 and am in full agreement of the craziness of it.
Whilst it may be legal there is no way you'd catch me cycling down that road, the only time i've done it is when they were building the road and it wasn't open to traffic.


My no st sherlock statement was in general reference to the usual cycling st storm you get on here.

Which airfield are you refering to? Darley Moor?

Yep.
Mainly seems to be motorbikes at the mo but they do or did have plenty of cycle racing there.
I agree about the st storm - quite funny really what goes on

[yellowjack]

From... http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/motorists-...

REG: Cyclists have bled us white, the bds. They don’t pay road tax, they run red lights. And what have they ever given us in return?
XERXES: Pneumatic tyres.
REG: What?
XERXES: Pneumatic tyres.
REG: Oh. Yeah, yeah. They did give us that. Uh, that’s true. Yeah.
COMMANDO #3: And ball bearings.
REG: Yeah. All right. I’ll grant you pneumatic tyres and ball bearings are two things that the cyclists have done.
MATTHIAS: And the roads.
REG: Well, yeah. Obviously the roads. I mean, the roads go without saying, don’t they? But apart from pneumatic tyres, ball bearings, and the roads…
COMMANDO: Lightweight steel tubing.
XERXES: Chain driven differential gears.
COMMANDOS: Huh? Heh? Huh…
COMMANDO #2: Dust-free highways. Tractors. Automobile advertising.
COMMANDOS: Ohh…
REG: Yeah, yeah. All right. Fair enough.
COMMANDO #1: And central Government administration of roads.
COMMANDOS: Oh, yes. Yeah…
FRANCIS: Cars and planes.
REG: Cars and planes?
FRANCIS: Yeah, America’s first car was built by the Duryea brothers: they were bicycle builders first. And powered flight, Reg, that was developed by the Wright Brothers: they owned a bike shop and built bikes.
REG: All right, but apart from the pneumatic tyre, ball bearings, differential gears, roads, motoring, car ads, and aviation, what have cyclists ever done for us?

and from... http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/hitler/#co...


"Yup, Adolf Hitler was a cyclist. In the First World War he was a bicycle messenger, as shown by his military records. This document says he was a “radfahrer”, a cyclist, not a motorcyclist, that would have been written “Kradfahrer” in military jargon.

The 25-year old Hitler was a bicycle messenger for a Bavarian regiment, taking messages to the fighting units from the command staff. He was always keen to volunteer for dangerous assignments and had a largely charmed life, avoiding death on a number of occasions.

Hitler’s time as an Austrian fixie hipster didn’t leave a good impression (he enjoyed war, but hated cycling): when in power Hitler’s Nazi party enacted a number of anti-cycling laws, aiming to get cyclists off roads, leaving more space for the “peoples’ cars”."

FACT: Anyone who supports anti-cycling legislation is a NAZI

[paranoid airbag]

Tomalawk said:

I thought you didn't want a North Korean state? You certainly have a North Korean Statesmen tone about you. "My way or the highway (Which I happen to be racing on as well so make sure you dodge me)"

Sorry, I never said that - you must have listened poorly (yet you still think others should listen to you?). Also, see this if you're confused about the difference between freedom of speech and freedom from criticism. I never said you shouldn't be allowed to say something and it's outright malicious of you to imply otherwise.

Edited by paranoid airbag on Tuesday 15th April 20:16

[Tomalawk]

paranoid airbag said:

Sorry, I never said that - you must have listened poorly. Also, see if you're confused about the difference between freedom of speech and freedom from criticism. I never said you shouldn't be allowed to say something and it's outright malicious of you to imply otherwise.

I'm pleased you spent a good amount of time googling freedom of speech and how to spell malicious because it means I'm getting you to put some effort into proving why racing on a road with fast moving objects is a good idea. I don't think you appreciate how arrogant you are. Take this story about Dave, he's 40 years old. Dave is a lorry driver, he's been one all his life and supports his family on it. Dave prides on himself on his trucking abilities, however whilst Dave is on a new route he just wants to check where he's coming off at so he glances at his sat nav. At the same time Peter dodges a pot hole on his bike and gets run down but Dave. Dave is now in prison. I'm not defending Dave but people make mistakes, we're human. However Peter was only there for fun at his own risk.

I've been in an accident with a fatality and a it's one of the most disturbing things I've seen, I had to watch a woman testify in court that her husband was a bad driver and raced around for fun as he couldn't as he was dead. Once you've seen st like that it's apparent that solution is to remove recreational activity from busy and dangerous areas and put it somewhere else, and it's down to the people who want to partake in this hobby to facilitate it. Not the Tax Payer, Not the state and most of all at the expense of others.

Edited by Tomalawk on Tuesday 15th April 20:28

Edited by Tomalawk on Tuesday 15th April 20:28

[heebeegeetee]

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.

Oh yes - that cry from a nation of 62 million people - no-one must ever die.

Johnnytheboy said:

I don't really object to cycle races closing the road, if the same applied to car races on the road.

Or time rials, if you like.

Time trials for cars, called road rallies, are a very popular and legal sport. Bloody good fun too.

I guess if time trials fell victim to the ban everything brigade, road rallies would be stopped too.

It would be a tremendous shame if such activities fell victim to the numpty, can't-cope-with-anything car driver.

[paranoid airbag]

Tomalawk said:

I'm pleased you spent a good amount of time googling freedom of speech and how to spell malicious because it means I'm getting you to put some effort into proving why racing on a road with fast moving objects is a good idea. I don't think you appreciate how arrogant you are. Take this story about Dave, he's 40 years old. Dave is a lorry driver, he's been one all his life and supports his family on it. Dave prides on himself on his trucking abilities, however whilst Dave is on a new route he just wants to check where he's coming off at so he glances at his sat nav. At the same time Peter dodges a pot hole on his bike and gets run down but Dave. Dave is now in prison.

I've been in an accident with a fatality and a it's one of the most disturbing things I've seen, I had to watch a woman testify in court that her husband was a bad driver and raced around for fun as he couldn't as he was dead. Once you've seen st like that it's apparent that solution is to remove recreational activity from busy and dangerous areas and put it somewhere else, and it's down to the people who want to partake in this hobby to facilitate it. Not the Tax Payer, Not the state and most of all at the expense of others.

Oh, so now you want to contribute?

Too late. And ftw, Dave was deluding himself if he thought he was taking pride in his driving abilities if he got himself in that situation, so it's entirely fair that Dave and people like him are deemed responsible for preventing that happening again, by curtailing their freedoms if necessary. Personally, I'd prefer that only Dave suffers, preferably before he kills someone.

There are plenty of flaws with the second part, but we've already established you don't bother listening so I don't see the point in bothering to explain.

Edited by paranoid airbag on Tuesday 15th April 20:51

[Tomalawk]

paranoid airbag said:

Oh, so now you want to contribute?

Too late. And ftw, Dave was deluding himself if he thought he was taking pride in his driving abilities if he got himself in that situation, so it's entirely fair that Dave and people like him are deemed responsible for preventing that happening again, by curtailing their freedoms if necessary. There are plenty of flaws with the second part, but we've already established you don't bother listening so I don't see the point in bothering to explain.

You still don't get it do you. Pick apart my hypothetical scenario all you want, people like you will always judge people on the consequence of the mistake rather than the mistake itself. I can guarantee at some point during your driving career you've been in a compromised scenario because of your own short comings but only got out of it because no one else was there to be involved or their reactions got you out of it, we all have been at some point. We're human beings at the end of the day, we're never going to be able to create a world with perfect drivers with 0.00000000001ms reaction times and impeccable highway code knowledge. We can only adjust and minimise the risks involved such as removing recreational activity from the roads and improving driver ability, but the former is instant and will reduce the risk sooner, especially since it's unnecessary.

[heebeegeetee]

Tomalawk said:

We can only adjust and minimise the risks involved such as removing recreational activity from the roads and improving driver ability, but the former is instant and will reduce the risk sooner, especially since it's unnecessary.

Bloody hell, can you imagine how quiet the roads would be if we were prevented from using our cars for non-essential journeys?... the tourism and leisure industries would be dead... and it doesn't matter how quiet the roads would be, if we were only allowed to use them for work. All that empty road space and we couldn't use it.

[Tomalawk]

heebeegeetee said:

Bloody hell, can you imagine how quiet the roads would be if we were prevented from using our cars for non-essential journeys?... the tourism and leisure industries would be dead... and it doesn't matter how quiet the roads would be, if we were only allowed to use them for work. All that empty road space and we couldn't use it.

You're taking me too literally, a ford focus trundling along the A34 going to Bournemouth for the day isn't the same as time trailing down it on my push bike and you know it. I remember as a kid being stopped from skateboarding at night at car parks because "I was a danger to others", same logic applies.

[paranoid airbag]

Tomalawk said:

You still don't get it do you. Pick apart my hypothetical scenario all you want, people like you will always judge people on the consequence of the mistake rather than the mistake itself. I can guarantee at some point during your driving career you've been in a compromised scenario because of your own short comings but only got out of it because no one else was there to be involved or their reactions got you out of it, we all have been at some point. We're human beings at the end of the day, we're never going to be able to create a world with perfect drivers with 0.00000000001ms reaction times and impeccable highway code knowledge. We can only adjust and minimise the risks involved such as removing recreational activity from the roads and improving driver ability, but the former is instant and will reduce the risk sooner, especially since it's unnecessary.

Oh I certainly do get it. I still don't agree with you that banning recreational activity on the roads is a good option, but you're at least trying to say something constructive - something that makes some attempt to understand and acknowledge the other point of view before arguing that it is wrong, by invoking more complex and refined arguments.

I respect that. Had you entered with something like that I would have argued with you in a much more agreeable manner, because I would have given you the benefit of the doubt that you genuinely did have other's safety in mind rather than pointless ranting.

But that's taken you far, far too long. The time when it was reasonable of me to give you that benefit has long since passed.

[yellowjack]

Tomalawk said:

heebeegeetee said:

Bloody hell, can you imagine how quiet the roads would be if we were prevented from using our cars for non-essential journeys?... the tourism and leisure industries would be dead... and it doesn't matter how quiet the roads would be, if we were only allowed to use them for work. All that empty road space and we couldn't use it.

You're taking me too literally, a ford focus trundling along the A34 going to Bournemouth for the day isn't the same as time trailing down it on my push bike and you know it. I remember as a kid being stopped from skateboarding at night at car parks because "I was a danger to others", same logic applies.

Nope, you're so right. A Focus trundling off to Bournemouth for the day is nothing like time trialing down the same road. It has a much greater impact on other road users, and on the environment, plus a Time Trialist generally has less than 30,000 other cyclists with him, who've all had the same daft idea, and so sit in multi-mile queues of stationary traffic, boiling their piss over the fact that it's taken half the day to get to Bournemouth, and when they finally get there, all the car parking spaces will be full. Meanwhile, all the cyclists have ridden down Matchams and are laughing their tits off every time they glimpse the thousands of stranded halfwits on the A338.

As for "being stopped from skateboarding at night at car parks"? It's not "because I was a danger to others", it's because you were being damned annoying, and having no consideration for anyone other than yourself. Nothing's changed there, eh?

[Tomalawk]

paranoid airbag said:

Oh I certainly do get it. I still don't agree with you that banning recreational activity on the roads is a good option, but you're at least trying to say something constructive - something that makes some attempt to understand and acknowledge the other point of view before arguing that it is wrong, by invoking more complex and refined arguments.

I respect that. Had you entered with something like that I would have argued with you in a much more agreeable manner, because I would have given you the benefit of the doubt that you genuinely did have other's safety in mind rather than pointless ranting.

But that's taken you far, far too long. The time when it was reasonable of me to give you that benefit has long since passed.

We will agree to disagree then, although I think I've partially convinced you but you can't publicly show defeat on a dick swinging forum such as PH.

[Tomalawk]

yellowjack said:

it's because you were being damned annoying, and having no consideration for anyone other than yourself. Nothing's changed there, eh?

Sounds like what most people would say about a time trailist as well. The only difference between the two being the demographic partaking in the activity which is a pretty poor attitude to take as it's judgemental. (We didn't shave our legs either).

[paranoid airbag]

Tomalawk said:

I remember as a kid being stopped from skateboarding at night at car parks because "I was a danger to others", same logic applies.

At the risk of being a humungous tt... that does explain a lot.

You weren't being a danger to others (a child on a skateboard in a car park, dangerous to others? Really?)... it was just someone trying to get you to go away, and reaching for the excuse absolutely freaking everyone uses when they want to get their way without a debate. That must've sucked, but maybe it's time to be better than that person and let live .

[xRIEx]

paranoid airbag said:

but maybe it's time to be better than that person and let live .

But if this ever changing world in which we're living makes you give in and cry...

[Tomalawk]

paranoid airbag said:

At the risk of being a humungous tt... that does explain a lot.

You weren't being a danger to others (a child on a skateboard in a car park, dangerous to others? Really?)... it was just someone trying to get you to go away, and reaching for the excuse absolutely freaking everyone uses when they want to get their way without a debate. That must've sucked, but maybe it's time to be better than that person and let live .

I was just a rad kid, what can I say.

Maybe, who can say?

[wolves_wanderer]

Tomalawk said:

yellowjack said:

it's because you were being damned annoying, and having no consideration for anyone other than yourself. Nothing's changed there, eh?

Sounds like what most people would say about a time trailist as well. The only difference between the two being the demographic partaking in the activity which is a pretty poor attitude to take as it's judgemental. (We didn't shave our legs either).

nope. A car on a "leisure activity" is more impactful in every way than a bike. What justification is there for banning leisure rides on a road using a bike that couldn't sensibly be applied to non essential journeys in a car?