Militant runners on country lanes

[nickfrog]

QuickQuack said:

Antony Moxey said:

theplayingmantis said:

No Andy it's deadly serious.

I appreciate sarcasm and subtlety are harder to pick up in the written word but folk really are not this dim are there?

Well perhaps this thread suggests they are. Op clearly did some bad driving to trigger mad runner then furiously backtracked about the nature of his stop when called out on it.

Would be a case of when 2 idiots meet, but one who could easily have killed the other due to inattentiveness so maybe runner had a point.

That's some talent to apparently be able to write a post with virtually every word wrong. Hats off.

Thanks AM, that's indeed some talent.
.

[braddo]

QuickQuack said:

The runner was an absolute loon and 100% in the wrong with what he did.

Maybe he didn't realise there was oncoming traffic blocking your options. When did the cyclist and queue of cars come past the runner?

If it was after he had banged on your car then he might be realising afterwards why you stopped and didn't move out of your lane (and regretting getting so angry).

Just assuming you're 100% right and the runner is 100% wrong doesn't help.

[KTMsm]

Lots of people seem to have forgotten that roads are primarily for transport, not leisure

I live in the countryside as do my parents and on the 5 mile drive between our houses on a sunny weekend I might encounter maybe five joggers, five sets of cyclists and two horses

Patience starts to wane after a while, particularly if any of them are arsey

I wonder why we bother with parks, footpaths and cycle ways

[POIDH]

KTMsm said:

Lots of people seem to have forgotten that roads are primarily for transport, not leisure

I live in the countryside as do my parents and on the 5 mile drive between our houses on a sunny weekend I might encounter maybe five joggers, five sets of cyclists and two horses

Go and live in a city then? Problem Solved.
What next, complain that your houses are too far apart and there is not a motorway?

[_Neal_]

coppice said:

What is most noticeable about this issue is the lazy stereotyping, the polarisation of different groups, the astonishing levels of arrogance and selfishness , and the sheer intolerance. It's a small country, and folk with different priorities and modes of transport share the roads. Some folk need to grow up and stop acting like children.

Good post, and a lot of the points above are applicable to so many topics on here.

[smn159]

KTMsm said:

Lots of people seem to have forgotten that roads are primarily for transport, not leisure

I live in the countryside as do my parents and on the 5 mile drive between our houses on a sunny weekend I might encounter maybe five joggers, five sets of cyclists and two horses

Patience starts to wane after a while, particularly if any of them are arsey

I wonder why we bother with parks, footpaths and cycle ways

Can't imaging why any of them would get arsey when they encounter someone with your level of apparent entitlement

[heebeegeetee]

KTMsm said:

Lots of people seem to have forgotten that roads are primarily for transport, not leisure

I live in the countryside as do my parents and on the 5 mile drive between our houses on a sunny weekend I might encounter maybe five joggers, five sets of cyclists and two horses

Patience starts to wane after a while, particularly if any of them are arsey

I wonder why we bother with parks, footpaths and cycle ways

Sigh.

In other words, another "I am more important than you, get out of my way."

KTM, who said, or where is it written, that roads are primarily for anything, particularly roads that are neither motorways nor trunk routes?

Where are the parks, footpaths and cycle ways in the countryside?

[G321]

KTMsm said:

Lots of people seem to have forgotten that roads are primarily for transport, not leisure

I live in the countryside as do my parents and on the 5 mile drive between our houses on a sunny weekend I might encounter maybe five joggers, five sets of cyclists and two horses

Patience starts to wane after a while, particularly if any of them are arsey

I wonder why we bother with parks, footpaths and cycle ways

I assume you use all the bikes listed in your bio for transport only and never leisure?

[KTMsm]

heebeegeetee said:

Where are the parks, footpaths and cycle ways in the countryside?

EVERYWHERE !

There are multiple parks and hundreds of miles of footpaths within 5 miles !

[Castrol for a knave]

A bit contradictory, claiming roads are for transport only, on a forum where driving for leisure is the core theme.

[QuickQuack]

braddo said:

QuickQuack said:

The runner was an absolute loon and 100% in the wrong with what he did.

Maybe he didn't realise there was oncoming traffic blocking your options. When did the cyclist and queue of cars come past the runner?

If it was after he had banged on your car then he might be realising afterwards why you stopped and didn't move out of your lane (and regretting getting so angry).

Just assuming you're 100% right and the runner is 100% wrong doesn't help.

Sometimes I walk on the same roads. In fact, I just needed to walk from my village to the village 2 miles away to collect my car, not far from where this incident happened. We have no public transport, Mrs QQ isn't here, there's nobody who can give me a lift and taxis out here have a rural surcharge plus silly waiting times making it both stupidly expensive and time consuming. Besides, 2 miles isn't that far, and this isn't the first time. I stuck to the side of the road as is suggested by the HWC, kept an eye on oncoming cars, and I could easily hear cars coming up from behind me. Given the cyclist had multiple cars behind it, it would've been nigh on impossible for the runner to not have heard them approaching unless he had earpods in, which is frankly stupid and dangerous. I'm afraid I didn't pay much attention to that bit of detail as I was more concerned about the kids, so I was checking that the doors were locked, hoping the glass wouldn't break, and thinking of what I could use for self-defence if it did.

In any event, even if I had done something wrong, becoming violent and starting to hit my already stationary car, which posed him no danger and gave him plenty of room to run round on either side including a wide grass verge, in itself was 100% wrong. The cyclist and the vehicles behind him started to go past us soon after his first bang on my bonnet, so he became aware of their presence at that moment even if he wasn't before, yet he continued hitting my car, and with his screaming and swearing. There's absolutely nothing which can justify his behaviour.

There are plenty of situations in life where one party is 100% wrong and the other is completely blame free, yet some people try to apportion blame to both. I'm getting a bit of tired of this "you must've done something wrong to annoy the runner because he's a virtuous runner with a halo on his head and you're the devil's spawn as you're in a massive SUV and obviously don't like runners". Do you say the same thing to all people at the receiving end of all violent attacks? "Yes, he smashed the victim's skull in, your honour, but the victim deserved it, so the defendant is only 50% guilty of this horrific attack, and the victim should also be handed the same sentence as the defendant."

This isn't about leisure vs transport but about doing the sensible thing instead of forcing one's entitlement down everyone's throats, because then everyone responds by trying to shove their entitlements down everyone else's throats too. Give a little, don't just take shed loads. What happened to that?

[Blib]

KTMsm said:

Lots of people seem to have forgotten that roads are primarily for transport, not leisure

I live in the countryside as do my parents and on the 5 mile drive between our houses on a sunny weekend I might encounter maybe five joggers, five sets of cyclists and two horses

Patience starts to wane after a while, particularly if any of them are arsey

I wonder why we bother with parks, footpaths and cycle ways

I live in the countryside too and come across these types often.

What I usually do is clip them with my wing mirror ever so slightly as I pass by, just to remind them who's the boss.

I'm quite good at it now.

[heebeegeetee]

KTMsm said:

EVERYWHERE !

There are multiple parks and hundreds of miles of footpaths within 5 miles !

Could you give us a Google maps link roughly to the area you're referring to?

I believe I'm very familiar with the countryside (through work but also having driven tens of thousands of miles purely for leisure) and have never seen anything like. Any footpaths are likely to be off road and totally unsuitable for running or cycling. By parks, do you mean national parks?

Either way, each and everyone of us are tax payers and therefore perfectly entitled to use the roads. Walkers, runners, cyclists and horse riders may specifically choose quieter country roads.

Btw I bloody hate horse riders on the roads, but I've never questioned the aspect of entitlement.

[braddo]

QuickQuack said:

I'm getting a bit of tired of this "you must've done something wrong to annoy the runner because he's a virtuous runner with a halo on his head and you're the devil's spawn as you're in a massive SUV and obviously don't like runners".

No-one has said that. You're writing hyperbole while saying that others shouldn't.

All I have tried to point out is that there is usually a reason why other road users get upset, but repeatedly banging on windows is going too far and this should be chalked up to being a bit of a freak event and an angry tt.

But it certainly isn't a sign of there being 'militant' runners in the countryside.

[QuickQuack]

braddo said:

QuickQuack said:

I'm getting a bit of tired of this "you must've done something wrong to annoy the runner because he's a virtuous runner with a halo on his head and you're the devil's spawn as you're in a massive SUV and obviously don't like runners".

No-one has said that. You're writing hyperbole while saying that others shouldn't.

So what's this if not precisely what I've described? In fact, it goes even further than what I've described, he's saying that the runner had a point! It's one of the worst examples of victim blaming there is.

theplayingmantis said:

Op clearly did some bad driving to trigger mad runner then furiously backtracked about the nature of his stop when called out on it.

Would be a case of when 2 idiots meet, but one who could easily have killed the other due to inattentiveness so maybe runner had a point.

[theplayingmantis]

Turn it up QQ!

as others have articulated your op smacks of self righteousness (the mention of the robustness of the RR is classic PH!) and then as with all threads like this, and i'm sure we are all guilty of the same at some point, i certainly am, back track endlessly and when someone suggests maybe this is what happened in a more, shall we say, gentle terms, where the op left ambiguity, its furiously agreed, that yes thats what i actually meant to say.

usually the op stops digging and sometimes deletes, so chapeau for that, embrace and own it. we have all been there, and will be again one day.

Perhaps you did nothing wrong, perhaps you did. we all make mistakes, this thread has moved beyond that to the conceptual now though.

sometimes i think its worth asking what would biggbnn do, but then i see him as the forum karma guru

[theplayingmantis]

QuickQuack said:

braddo said:

QuickQuack said:

The runner was an absolute loon and 100% in the wrong with what he did.

Maybe he didn't realise there was oncoming traffic blocking your options. When did the cyclist and queue of cars come past the runner?

If it was after he had banged on your car then he might be realising afterwards why you stopped and didn't move out of your lane (and regretting getting so angry).

Just assuming you're 100% right and the runner is 100% wrong doesn't help.

Sometimes I walk on the same roads. In fact, I just needed to walk from my village to the village 2 miles away to collect my car, not far from where this incident happened. We have no public transport, Mrs QQ isn't here, there's nobody who can give me a lift and taxis out here have a rural surcharge plus silly waiting times making it both stupidly expensive and time consuming. Besides, 2 miles isn't that far, and this isn't the first time. I stuck to the side of the road as is suggested by the HWC, kept an eye on oncoming cars, and I could easily hear cars coming up from behind me. Given the cyclist had multiple cars behind it, it would've been nigh on impossible for the runner to not have heard them approaching unless he had earpods in, which is frankly stupid and dangerous. I'm afraid I didn't pay much attention to that bit of detail as I was more concerned about the kids, so I was checking that the doors were locked, hoping the glass wouldn't break, and thinking of what I could use for self-defence if it did.

In any event, even if I had done something wrong, becoming violent and starting to hit my already stationary car, which posed him no danger and gave him plenty of room to run round on either side including a wide grass verge, in itself was 100% wrong. The cyclist and the vehicles behind him started to go past us soon after his first bang on my bonnet, so he became aware of their presence at that moment even if he wasn't before, yet he continued hitting my car, and with his screaming and swearing. There's absolutely nothing which can justify his behaviour.

There are plenty of situations in life where one party is 100% wrong and the other is completely blame free, yet some people try to apportion blame to both. I'm getting a bit of tired of this "you must've done something wrong to annoy the runner because he's a virtuous runner with a halo on his head and you're the devil's spawn as you're in a massive SUV and obviously don't like runners". Do you say the same thing to all people at the receiving end of all violent attacks? "Yes, he smashed the victim's skull in, your honour, but the victim deserved it, so the defendant is only 50% guilty of this horrific attack, and the victim should also be handed the same sentence as the defendant."

This isn't about leisure vs transport but about doing the sensible thing instead of forcing one's entitlement down everyone's throats, because then everyone responds by trying to shove their entitlements down everyone else's throats too. Give a little, don't just take shed loads. What happened to that?

lets see pics of village, road etc? house price too, whys mrs qq not there, thats a worry surely? what was the runner screaming? perhaps laughing at him would have helped? who wants to shove what now down whose throat?

as my ifit trainer says dig dig dig

[theplayingmantis]

Somewhatfoolish said:

IMO cycling (preferably on an e-bike) is the best way to get around zone 1 in decent weather. Once you're confident enough to be assertive with other traffic (for me the thing that I needed to develop balls for was turning right, but it came eventually) it's absolutely brilliant fun. And I'm as unfit as they come without being actively disabled or elderly, so if I can do it 90% of drivers can. Plenty of pay-by-minute e-bike hire schemes which is what I use - I do have my own e-bike but I live hundreds of miles away so it's not what I use down there.

Londoners don't have basic manners anyway, so it's not especially surprising that they don't as road users either. Perils of big city life.

As for cyclists darting around pedestrians - I think something you don't realise without thinking about it (even as an experienced cylcist) when you're a pedestrian is how much the cyclist can see, to you it will look like them swishing past out of nowhere but they've seen you ages ago. Of course there are nutty ones too but most of the so-called near misses seem to be in the first category.



My illustration of why. Basically the cyclist is watching the pedestrian all the time about to pass in front of him quite closely. The pedestrian cannot see the cyclist until the last second. HTH.

Edited by Somewhatfoolish on Friday 26th April 00:52

cant believe no-ones given any love for that illustration! (it gets the point across but the bike man makes you chuckle). and the darting point you make is correct.

[Sporky]

QuickQuack said:

braddo said:

QuickQuack said:

I'm getting a bit of tired of this "you must've done something wrong to annoy the runner because he's a virtuous runner with a halo on his head and you're the devil's spawn as you're in a massive SUV and obviously don't like runners".

No-one has said that. You're writing hyperbole while saying that others shouldn't.

So what's this if not precisely what I've described? In fact, it goes even further than what I've described, he's saying that the runner had a point! It's one of the worst examples of victim blaming there is.

theplayingmantis said:

Op clearly did some bad driving to trigger mad runner then furiously backtracked about the nature of his stop when called out on it.

Would be a case of when 2 idiots meet, but one who could easily have killed the other due to inattentiveness so maybe runner had a point.

I can't see in that where the runner is described as having a halo.

Your definition of "precisely" may not be precisely the same as the dictionary one.

[_Neal_]

braddo said:

QuickQuack said:

I'm getting a bit of tired of this "you must've done something wrong to annoy the runner because he's a virtuous runner with a halo on his head and you're the devil's spawn as you're in a massive SUV and obviously don't like runners".

No-one has said that. You're writing hyperbole while saying that others shouldn't.

All I have tried to point out is that there is usually a reason why other road users get upset, but repeatedly banging on windows is going too far and this should be chalked up to being a bit of a freak event and an angry tt.

But it certainly isn't a sign of there being 'militant' runners in the countryside.

Exactly. A really unpleasant thing happened to you OP, but you're not helping yourself on this thread with the hyperbole and generalisations.

If you had posted "a horrible thing happened to me the other day..." and then taken a more relaxed approach, rather than trying to tar all runners with the same brush and then not being at all chilled when questioned, things may have panned out differently.