That's it, I'm f**king done with cyclists...

[anonymous-user]

is it really that much of an issue to warrant deploying 2/3 of the MET?! once a month they meet, cause disruption for a few miles, inconvenience everyone for ten minutes then leave.If everyone in cars stopped matching the cyclists aggression with confrontation and sat waiting for a few minutes, they would soon stop. I'm not saying that's fair on the people in cars but it's the way to deal with attention seekers and doesn't require hundreds of police officers who we must all agree are better deployed elsewhere on a Friday night....

[anonymous-user]

Heaveho said:

Is it not a statement of fact that if another another road user can't make progress at the appropriate speed limit without impinging on others, then it is not fit for purpose?

Learners, milk floats, huge lorries with abnormal loads on motorways, vintage cars, traction engines... Have seen them all on the road in the last week, none are fit for purpose by your logic.

[Mave]

Strawman said:

Mave said:

Ah, the crime prevention policy that focusses on easiest to catch rather than most important to uphold.

You have finite resources how would you spend them?

Preventing the crimes that have most impact on people. Judging by the number of Londoners unaware of these events, I can't believe they are the most important use of police resources.

[Boshly]

pablo said:

Boshly said:

swerni said:

grumpy52 said:

Until cyclists ride in a safe and considerate manner on safe bikes why should I as a car and truck driver and sometimes motorcycle rider treat them with anything other than disdain ?

When you lot stop driving while on the phone, reading porn and murdering prostitutes, i as a rational road user will avoid you like the plague.

Your attempt at trolling earlier in the thread was (absolutely correctly) completely ignored by everyone.

This trolling attempt doesn't even make sense to me

And I'm a 'friend' of yours. ....

NB inverted commas on friend as I refuse to be your friend when you're wearing lycra, being ridiculous about cycling/people's cars/people's weight or generally trolling

fair comment imho. Basically boshly saw some cyclists being diicks and now treats all cyclists with this level of contempt. Some truck drivers are appalling, watch tv whilst driving etc etc, I treat them too with disdain....

....except I dont because I recognize each trucker as an individual and don't tarnish them all by the actions of one.

It's a simple concept yet I'm staggered by how many people can't grasp it. When I'm cycling my life depends on people like Boshly treating me on the basis of MY riding and no one else's....

Not sure what you're trying to implicate me in? A re-read for you I suggest.

Grumpy made a statement that was his opinion (that not everyone will agre with) and the lycra clad Swerni decided to say a few unsavoury Clarksonesque type comments in his inimitable trolling way

[mygoldfishbowl]

paranoid airbag said:

NoNeed said:

Why should you be forced to go on a different route by an illegal gathering that is obstructing the highway in contravention of several laws?


We are not talking one occasion it is already in the hundreds and serves absolutely no good purpose other than to annoy people if that is the aim.

Why should cyclists be forced to avoid roads used by dangerous drivers? It's not like they get sympathy on here, so I'm not sure why motorcyclists should be treated differently.

Either rights matter or they don't...

[Mave]

Heaveho said:

Is it not a statement of fact that if another another road user can't make progress at the appropriate speed limit without impinging on others, then it is not fit for purpose?

No. That's just your wishful interpretation of "fit for purpose" on the roads, but the highway code and road legislation says otherwise.

[Sump]

Mave said:

Heaveho said:

Is it not a statement of fact that if another another road user can't make progress at the appropriate speed limit without impinging on others, then it is not fit for purpose?

No. That's just your wishful interpretation of "fit for purpose" on the roads, but the highway code and road legislation says otherwise.

It doesn't take a genius to realise that an artic and a cyclist on the same roads just isn't ever going to make sense.

[anonymous-user]

Boshly said:

pablo said:

Boshly said:

swerni said:

grumpy52 said:

Until cyclists ride in a safe and considerate manner on safe bikes why should I as a car and truck driver and sometimes motorcycle rider treat them with anything other than disdain ?

When you lot stop driving while on the phone, reading porn and murdering prostitutes, i as a rational road user will avoid you like the plague.

Your attempt at trolling earlier in the thread was (absolutely correctly) completely ignored by everyone.

This trolling attempt doesn't even make sense to me

And I'm a 'friend' of yours. ....

NB inverted commas on friend as I refuse to be your friend when you're wearing lycra, being ridiculous about cycling/people's cars/people's weight or generally trolling

fair comment imho. Basically boshly saw some cyclists being diicks and now treats all cyclists with this level of contempt. Some truck drivers are appalling, watch tv whilst driving etc etc, I treat them too with disdain....

....except I dont because I recognize each trucker as an individual and don't tarnish them all by the actions of one.

It's a simple concept yet I'm staggered by how many people can't grasp it. When I'm cycling my life depends on people like Boshly treating me on the basis of MY riding and no one else's....

Not sure what you're trying to implicate me in? A re-read for you I suggest.

Grumpy made a statement that was his opinion (that not everyone will agre with) and the lycra clad Swerni decided to say a few unsavoury Clarksonesque type comments in his inimitable trolling way

Sorry you're right I meant grumpy52 not you. You're great!

[Boshly]

pablo said:

fair comment imho.

Nice to see you're defending your mate also as I can see his ugly mug on your profile photo - MAMIL's United .......

[TooMany2cvs]

Heaveho said:

Is it not a statement of fact that if another another road user can't make progress at the appropriate speed limit without impinging on others, then it is not fit for purpose?

No.

[Heaveho]

Mave said:

No. That's just your wishful interpretation of "fit for purpose" on the roads, but the highway code and road legislation says otherwise.

It doesn't mean I'm wrong, Tell me why I am. Because someone who makes law disagrees with me? Cyclists can't keep up with traffic complying with speed limits, therefore they hold it up. Why is it acceptable?

[wolves_wanderer]

Heaveho said:

Is it not a statement of fact that if another another road user can't make progress at the appropriate speed limit without impinging on others, then it is not fit for purpose?

No.

Limit not target etc

[TooMany2cvs]

Heaveho said:

It doesn't mean I'm wrong, Tell me why I am. Because someone who makes law disagrees with me? Cyclists can't keep up with traffic complying with speed limits, therefore they hold it up. Why is it acceptable?

Here's a clue for you.

50cc moped on NSL road.

[Negative Creep]

NoNeed said:

Negative Creep said:

NoNeed said:

Negative Creep said:

NoNeed said:

Mave said:

NoNeed said:

The roads are policed for dangerous drivers and policed rather well.

Bullocks they are. The large number of reported incidents on this forum, dashcammed or not, suggests quite the opposite.

If this forum has seem 100 incidents of bad driving against the proportion of journeys that is a minute amount a very very small number.


Yet every single one 100% of these gathering is illegal and has illegal and dangerous activity.

The roads aren't well policed because there aren't enough officers to police them

I disagree how many other countries roads are as safe to drive on?

The first chart I find using google from 2008 says it better.

Edited by NoNeed on Sunday 30th August 17:05

It's not just about fatalities but things like bald tyres, blown lights, mirrors folded in, jumping red lights, hogging the middle lane, tailgating, stupidly loud exhausts, incosiderate parking, illegal numberplates etc. No one around to police this, aside from the cameras and speed bumps of course

Thoriginal statement was that "the roads are well policed for dangerous drivers" Why you have found a need to throw a lot of of trivial offences and waffle in I have no idea but it di nothing to discount my original statement.

The road are well police for dangerous drivers we see very little of it ourselves even if the internet has a few clips added each day.

It isn't a lot in the grand scheme of things and compared to safe journeys made it is so tiny you would need a few decimal places to arrive at a percentage.

Not quite sure why you feel the need t be so prickly, but never mind. Do you not think the things I've listed contribute to dangerous driving and accidents, and as another poster has point out most people will self-police because they don't want to cause damage or harm to themselves and others?

[Mave]

Sump said:

Mave said:

Heaveho said:

Is it not a statement of fact that if another another road user can't make progress at the appropriate speed limit without impinging on others, then it is not fit for purpose?

No. That's just your wishful interpretation of "fit for purpose" on the roads, but the highway code and road legislation says otherwise.

It doesn't take a genius to realise that an artic and a cyclist on the same roads just isn't ever going to make sense.

My commute has cyclists and artics getting on just fine.

[mygoldfishbowl]

gizlaroc said:

Mr Gear said:

You're obviously easily wound up. I can see why the cyclists enjoyed messing with you.

I've certainly had a great time.

What a complete you seem to be.

[anonymous-user]

Boshly said:

pablo said:

fair comment imho.

Nice to see you're defending your mate also as I can see his ugly mug on your profile photo - MAMIL's United .......

Lolz, never had a stalker before. I'm not defending him, just emphasizing why he has a point. That you're more intetested in outing our lycra-clad relationship than discussing my argument I assume you've got nothing?

[Mave]

Heaveho said:

Mave said:

No. That's just your wishful interpretation of "fit for purpose" on the roads, but the highway code and road legislation says otherwise.

It doesn't mean I'm wrong, Tell me why I am. Because someone who makes law disagrees with me? Cyclists can't keep up with traffic complying with speed limits, therefore they hold it up. Why is it acceptable?

You're wrong because the intention of the road network, and the laws that go with them, recognise the different characteristics of different kinds of road users.

Its acceptable that cyclists sometimes hold other road users up because using a car on the roads is a priviledge, not a right, and when you decide you want to use a car on the roads you are agreeing to the laws and policies that comes with it. Like for example accomodating lots of different types of road users. If you want to be able to travel at a speed you think you are entitled to then fine, go and do it on a road where that is your right. But at the moment that isn't a public road.

[mygoldfishbowl]

Mave said:

Sump said:

Mave said:

Heaveho said:

Is it not a statement of fact that if another another road user can't make progress at the appropriate speed limit without impinging on others, then it is not fit for purpose?

No. That's just your wishful interpretation of "fit for purpose" on the roads, but the highway code and road legislation says otherwise.

It doesn't take a genius to realise that an artic and a cyclist on the same roads just isn't ever going to make sense.

My commute has cyclists and artics getting on just fine.

Until one of them gets mushed, & it wont be the driver.

[Mave]

mygoldfishbowl said:

Mave said:

Sump said:

Mave said:

Heaveho said:

Is it not a statement of fact that if another another road user can't make progress at the appropriate speed limit without impinging on others, then it is not fit for purpose?

No. That's just your wishful interpretation of "fit for purpose" on the roads, but the highway code and road legislation says otherwise.

It doesn't take a genius to realise that an artic and a cyclist on the same roads just isn't ever going to make sense.

My commute has cyclists and artics getting on just fine.

Until one of them gets mushed, & it wont be the driver.

What's that got to do with the point I was responding to? There's lots of examples of cyclists and arctics on just fine, so making blanket statements like "It doesn't take a genius to realise that an artic and a cyclist on the same roads just isn't ever going to make sense" totally ignores the fact that it can be made to work.

There's plenty of examples of car drivers getting mushed by other car drivers, so would you agree with a viewpoint that says "It doesn't take a genius to realise that a motorist and a motorist on the same roads just isn't ever going to make sense"?