Cycle races on dual carriageways !

[jimbop1]

yellowjack said:

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

Well that just sums of cyclisties. dear oh dear!

[anonymous-user]

jimbop1 said:

Well that just sums of cyclisties. dear oh dear!

Posting random conversations to justify your own inadequacies. Congratuations. Next time try to be original.

[will_]

Tomalawk said:

At the same time Peter dodges a pot hole on his bike and gets run down but Dave.

Blaming the victim just for being there is backwards thinking. Of two parties, one the offender and one the victim, clearly one is guilty and one isn't. But you're suggesting curtailing the innocent party's freedoms - completely contrary to very basic principles of justic.

To draw an analogy, would you suggest that, rather than making rape a crime, we simpy don't allow women to leave their homes (where, of course, they cannot live with men)? That would reduce rape to zero - result?

Tomalawk said:

However Peter was only there for fun at his own risk.

If that's the measure we should use as to whether someone should be on the road we should all sell our fun cars. Indeed, a very large proportion of journeys are unnecessary or recreational.

Both these points are completely upside down thinking - remove the rights of the innocent and don't let people use facilities they've paid for other than for "business purposes".

[Clivey]

yellowjack said:

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.

That last comment is quite revealing. I think it is you that has the problem here.

Firstly; anyone using "the environment" as an excuse to demonise car drivers is clearly clutching at straws and it's clearly as ridiculous as the "road tax" tripe. For a start, cars and cycles are appropriate for different journeys and most people will have chosen not to cycle for a valid reason. Just because someone is driving a motor vehicle doesn't mean that they are responsible for more pollution in their daily lives than someone who only cycles. However, being a PH'er you'll know this, so why even bother with the nonsense?

Anyway, I would argue that a car driving down the A50 (the road originally under discussion) has much less impact on everybody else as unless the driver isn't up to par, generally it'll be keeping pace with the rest of the traffic. Even the fastest cyclist will still be going a considerable amount slower than 99% of other traffic and part of the "problem" is caused by this speed differential. The reason motor vehicles typically aren't allowed to do 56 or 70 mph through a town centre is because of the risks this will typically involve. - What's the point in building a road designed for fast traffic only to permit the same risks and rolling road blocks? Surely we're all adults here and can see that the A50 is basically a small Motorway in reality?

As I have said before, I am a cyclist, driver, pedestrian etc. and on balance consider cycling down the A50 an unreasonable thing to do. A cyclist will cause traffic problems, especially at busy times, because they essentially remove a lane and force the other traffic to bunch up and slow right down - bearing in mind this is a fast road, it's as inconsiderate as anyone that trundles along in slow moving building / farm equipment at 08:30 on a Monday morning. It's as if some relish "sticking it" to drivers, "making them avoid me" etc. - It's not a challenge to see how many obstacles you can throw in someone's way before they make a mistake and hit one. That's why you don't muck about with a dinghy in a busy shipping lane and why bored teenagers playing chicken in traffic is also unacceptable. What's next, a flock of sheep?

If there are enough cyclists that want to cycle the route, ask the authorities to build a cycle path separate from the main carriageway and protected by a crash barrier - they have this in some places and it's a much, much better solution for everybody - otherwise, use a more appropriate route. I don't cycle on certain roads because of both consideration for others and safety concerns. The road is not a race course you'll likely get more exercise taking a more sensible route anyway.

[will_]

jimbop1 said:

Well that just sums of cyclisties. dear oh dear!

What?

I wasn't expecting anything remotely structured or rational, but basic English would be a start.

Obviously the connection between the bicycle and the motorbicycle (the clue is there if you look really hard enough) is well over your head.

Edited by will_ on Wednesday 16th April 09:17

[will_]

Tomalawk said:

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.

And people like judges, juries, the police and CPS.

Of course people are judged on their mistakes and their consequences.

[will_]

Clivey said:

That last comment is quite revealing. I think it is you that has the problem here.

Whilst you make some fair points, I think that the point being made was that (a) the overall externalities of car use are much greater than those of using bicycles and (b) the cars are likely, at some stage, to be sitting in a jam and it's unlikely to be a jam made up of thousands of bicycles each taking up 4 square metres of tarmac.

The daft thing about these "cycling debates" is that if people could be encouraged out of their cars and onto bikes for short, urban journeys there would be less traffic, less polution and "safety in numbers" for cyclists. It's only lazyness and fear (ironically, of cars) that stops people doing so.

[Johnnytheboy]

paranoid airbag said:

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.

There you go again, hurling insults round at the first opportunity, and extra points for the old trick of accusing someone of saying something they didn't (riding two abreast is illegal) then feigning outrage.

When will the PH cyclist minority learn to debate like grown-ups rather than just chucking condescension and abuse at anyone that dares to disagree with them? Actually, no, keep it up, because I don't think it does your views any favours.

[will_]

Johnnytheboy said:

When will the PH cyclist minority learn to debate like grown-ups rather than just chucking condescension and abuse at anyone that dares to disagree with them?

Yeah, because the internet car drivers are so well balanced and polite....

[walm]

Tomalawk said:

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...

I was going to apologise for mis-interpreting the implications of your previous analogies but it turns out I was more on the money than you were happy to admit.

You clearly DO want it banned!

[walm]

Clivey said:

A cyclist will cause traffic problems, especially at busy times, because they essentially remove a lane and force the other traffic to bunch up and slow right down - bearing in mind this is a fast road, it's as inconsiderate as anyone that trundles along in slow moving building / farm equipment at 08:30 on a Monday morning.

As already pointed out, the TTs are held at QUIET times (hint: not Monday 830am!) - apparently they even do some sort of formal analysis on traffic density before permitting them.

Secondly it is better than tractors because a short thin obstacle is easier to overtake owing to both visibility and, well, shorter = less time in lane 2.

So unless the laws of physics have changed you are completely wrong.

[xRIEx]

will_ said:

Johnnytheboy said:

When will the PH cyclist minority learn to debate like grown-ups rather than just chucking condescension and abuse at anyone that dares to disagree with them?

Yeah, because the internet car drivers are so well balanced and polite....

To be fair, that response isn't an example of taking the maturity high ground.

[walm]

xRIEx said:

will_ said:

Johnnytheboy said:

When will the PH cyclist minority learn to debate like grown-ups rather than just chucking condescension and abuse at anyone that dares to disagree with them?

Yeah, because the internet car drivers are so well balanced and polite....

To be fair, that response isn't an example of taking the maturity high ground.

He started it.

[Snowboy]

quote=walm]

As already pointed out, the TTs are held at QUIET times (hint: not Monday 830am!) - apparently they even do some sort of formal analysis on traffic density before permitting them.

Secondly it is better than tractors because a short thin obstacle is easier to overtake owing to both visibility and, well, shorter = less time in lane 2.

So unless the laws of physics have changed you are completely wrong.
[/quote]

Point 1.
I don't know how TT's differ from club meets or other events, but I can promise you the cycle events held in Warwickshire are not held at quiet times.

Point 2.
Overtaking a cycle is easier than overtaking a tractor.
Overtaking multiple bikes with oncoming traffic which is also overtaking bikes isn't.

I think we have a situation where reasonable cyclists are trying to defend unreasonable ones.
It would be like a well mannered car enthusiast trying to defend the dangerous boy racers by refusing to accept that some drivers do drive dangerously for fun, do disrupt traffic, and do make things difficult and dangerous for other road users.

[walm]

I think we have a situation where one anecdote (Snowboy's anti-social club meets) is trotted out as a counterexample to a reasonable request (don't ban TTs on DCs).

Every other argument appears based on what people personally find dangerous and/or poor driving skills combined with impatience.

And while we are on the finer points of debate; nice strawman!

Clivey said one bike is worse than one piece of farm equipment. That's what I objected to.

You are claiming that overtaking with multiple bikes in both directions is worse than overtaking one tractor.
Fair enough! Not sure that it is relevant other than in your particularly rare and unfortunate example!
(And I don't mean that flippantly - it does sound pretty annoying!)

[yellowjack]

Clivey said:

yellowjack said:

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.

That last comment is quite revealing. I think it is you that has the problem here.

Firstly; anyone using "the environment" as an excuse to demonise car drivers is clearly clutching at straws and it's clearly as ridiculous as the "road tax" tripe. For a start, cars and cycles are appropriate for different journeys and most people will have chosen not to cycle for a valid reason. Just because someone is driving a motor vehicle doesn't mean that they are responsible for more pollution in their daily lives than someone who only cycles. However, being a PH'er you'll know this, so why even bother with the nonsense?

Anyway, I would argue that a car driving down the A50 (the road originally under discussion) has much less impact on everybody else as unless the driver isn't up to par, generally it'll be keeping pace with the rest of the traffic. Even the fastest cyclist will still be going a considerable amount slower than 99% of other traffic and part of the "problem" is caused by this speed differential. The reason motor vehicles typically aren't allowed to do 56 or 70 mph through a town centre is because of the risks this will typically involve. - What's the point in building a road designed for fast traffic only to permit the same risks and rolling road blocks? Surely we're all adults here and can see that the A50 is basically a small Motorway in reality?

As I have said before, I am a cyclist, driver, pedestrian etc. and on balance consider cycling down the A50 an unreasonable thing to do. A cyclist will cause traffic problems, especially at busy times, because they essentially remove a lane and force the other traffic to bunch up and slow right down - bearing in mind this is a fast road, it's as inconsiderate as anyone that trundles along in slow moving building / farm equipment at 08:30 on a Monday morning. It's as if some relish "sticking it" to drivers, "making them avoid me" etc. - It's not a challenge to see how many obstacles you can throw in someone's way before they make a mistake and hit one. That's why you don't muck about with a dinghy in a busy shipping lane and why bored teenagers playing chicken in traffic is also unacceptable. What's next, a flock of sheep?

If there are enough cyclists that want to cycle the route, ask the authorities to build a cycle path separate from the main carriageway and protected by a crash barrier - they have this in some places and it's a much, much better solution for everybody - otherwise, use a more appropriate route. I don't cycle on certain roads because of both consideration for others and safety concerns. The road is not a race course you'll likely get more exercise taking a more sensible route anyway.

My last comment is just as revealing if i state that I've never cycled down Matchams before. I do, however, choose to drive down Matchams when I wish to get to Bournemouth without having to sit in a two-lane queue for several hours on a hot sunny day. I pass plenty of cyclists, too, on both sides of the road, and pass them all without any significant delay or hint of drama Oh, and I do glimpse the queues of drivers on the adjacent A338, and yes, childishly, I do laugh my tits off at them, all slavishly following the 'All knowing SatNav' into the back of the queue, while I get to cruise calmly down the back roads, stop at the shop for a drink or an ice cream, and navigate my way to a free parking spot on the clifftop near the beach. I just like laughing at people less intelligent than myself

To address the 'environment' point. You've heard of the phrase "tongue in cheek" I presume? If not, it's "a figure of speech used to imply that a statement or other production is humorously or otherwise not seriously intended, and it should not be taken at face value". Again

The next point? Regardless of speed differential, a cyclist really is only a problem for a substandard driver. If you cannot pass a slow moving cyclist with a very narrow cross-section, how the feck do you manage when faced with a slow moving crane, a caravan stopped with a shredded tyre, or debris in the carriageway?

Ah! The "I am a cyclist too" defence? Well, if you really do cycle, and I mean proper cycling, not nodding down to the shops for the Mail on Sunday once a week, then you will have come across situations where you are faced with having to either a) continue your journey on a road with a poor safety rep which is chock full of impatient idiots in motor vehicles, and you'd much rather use an alternative route if one existed or b) abandon your journey and go back the way you came. Neither solution is ideal, but sometimes I've had to use roads that are less than suitable for cycling simply because they are the only link between two parts of a route that are suitable, indeed possibly ideal for cycling. I never rode the A505, or the A10 for sts and giggles. They were simply an obstacle in the way of my journey, to be ridden as quickly, and for as short a distance as possible.

As far as YOUR last point is concerned, it's very naïve, almost laughably so, to suggest that it's a realistic fix in either purely engineering terms, or financially, to simply build separate protected lanes for bikes. Cycling infrastructure is more often than not an afterthought in this country, and most of our existing network is in no way suitable for any new capacity due to boundary issues and topography. Even if a route were suitable for conversion, how long do you think large scale infrastructure renewal projects take to get through the planning and financing stages? and what the juddering fk do you expect cyclists to do in the meantime? Levitate?

[irocfan]

will_ said:

Tomalawk said:

At the same time Peter dodges a pot hole on his bike and gets run down but Dave.

Blaming the victim just for being there is backwards thinking. Of two parties, one the offender and one the victim, clearly one is guilty and one isn't. But you're suggesting curtailing the innocent party's freedoms - completely contrary to very basic principles of justic.

To draw an analogy, would you suggest that, rather than making rape a crime, we simpy don't allow women to leave their homes (where, of course, they cannot live with men)? That would reduce rape to zero - result?

Tomalawk said:

However Peter was only there for fun at his own risk.

If that's the measure we should use as to whether someone should be on the road we should all sell our fun cars. Indeed, a very large proportion of journeys are unnecessary or recreational.

Both these points are completely upside down thinking - remove the rights of the innocent and don't let people use facilities they've paid for other than for "business purposes".

tbh if you take the rape comparison (always, and quite rightly, an emotive subject) the rapist is a vile animal who is intent on doing wrong. Make it something less emotive - go into a downtown Detroit (or a poor inner-city area in the UK) in the early hours wearing a Boss suit, a rolex and carrying a clear bag stuffed with 50s and see how you get on. Again you have every right to do so - however most casual observers might think that you were not helping yourself. Now turn this around to a cyclist and motorist, the difference here is that, in the main, the motorist isn't actually looking to harm the cyclist and a momentary lapse of concentration (or indeed a.n.other reason) could see a tragedy. In the non-lawbreaking example both parties are innocent yet the cyclist can act like a prick and be defended to the hilt on here and the driver be demonised for a lapse.

Johnnytheboy said:

There you go again, hurling insults round at the first opportunity, and extra points for the old trick of accusing someone of saying something they didn't (riding two abreast is illegal) then feigning outrage.

When will the PH cyclist minority learn to debate like grown-ups rather than just chucking condescension and abuse at anyone that dares to disagree with them? Actually, no, keep it up, because I don't think it does your views any favours.

This is a valid point, this seems to be one of the few threads where cyclists have admitted that there are 'rogue' cyclists and that some of the lycra warrior types are total tts - contrast this with the derision heaped on people who:
park poorly
drive poorly
drink/drug drive
don't pay attention to the road
don't ma... actually you get the idea.

I did point out earlier that in my mind a a good proportion of cyclists seem to have a lot in common with the militant vegans of which not many on here are enamored and while it was said in (semi)jest seeing some of the shrill replies ("laughing our tits off at the idiots stuck in their cars") make me think that maybe it's not that far shy of the mark

walm said:

As already pointed out, the TTs are held at QUIET times (hint: not Monday 830am!) - apparently they even do some sort of formal analysis on traffic density before permitting them.

Secondly it is better than tractors because a short thin obstacle is easier to overtake owing to both visibility and, well, shorter = less time in lane 2.

So unless the laws of physics have changed you are completely wrong.

well a single solitary thin object yes - no problem. Thin objects every 200 metres is a little more problematical (as has been mentioned the speed differential can be an issue)

[anonymous-user]

Clivey said:

yellowjack said:

laughing their tits off every time they glimpse the thousands of stranded halfwits on the A338.

That last comment is quite revealing.

It's actually quite ironic as the vast majority of cyclists you see out and about on weekends actually do have tits due to them being overweight and middle aged

[will_]

irocfan said:

tbh if you take the rape comparison (always, and quite rightly, an emotive subject) the rapist is a vile animal who is intent on doing wrong. Make it something less emotive - go into a downtown Detroit (or a poor inner-city area in the UK) in the early hours wearing a Boss suit, a rolex and carrying a clear bag stuffed with 50s and see how you get on. Again you have every right to do so - however most casual observers might think that you were not helping yourself. Now turn this around to a cyclist and motorist, the difference here is that, in the main, the motorist isn't actually looking to harm the cyclist and a momentary lapse of concentration (or indeed a.n.other reason) could see a tragedy. In the non-lawbreaking example both parties are innocent yet the cyclist can act like a prick and be defended to the hilt on here and the driver be demonised for a lapse.

I doesn't actually matter what example you use - it is clearly contrary to basic justice to seek to reduce the impact of an offender by restricting the freedoms of the victim (rather than dealing with the offending behaviour). It is a complete cop out and grossly unjust.

irocfan said:

This is a valid point, this seems to be one of the few threads where cyclists have admitted that there are 'rogue' cyclists and that some of the lycra warrior types are total tts [/img]

That happens in almost every thread about cyclists on here! It is usually an "internet cyclist" who is the first to say that a prat is a prat regardless of their mode of transport.

I don't recall ever seeing anyone suggesting that there aren't rogue cyclists. There most certainly are. What is objectionable is when that is used to tar "all" cyclists or cyclists in general. That is just stupid, lazy, prejudiced, irrational, bigoted thinking - and those who do that (and there are plenty on here, sadly) probably hate anything that they don't have the capacity to understand or is "different" to them.

I met a prat last night. He was riding dangerously and when pulled up on it was agressive. He happened to be riding a bike. But he's a prat who happened to be riding a bike, he's most likely a prat when driving, when at work or when with his non-existant friends.

[yellowjack]

St John Smythe said:

Clivey said:

yellowjack said:

laughing their tits off every time they glimpse the thousands of stranded halfwits on the A338.

That last comment is quite revealing.

It's actually quite ironic as the vast majority of cyclists you see out and about on weekends actually do have tits due to them being overweight and middle aged

I say Sinjun, go get 'em, old chap!

yellowjack also said:

I just like laughing at people less intelligent than myself

...so...


"Here's laughin' at you, kid"