Cycle races on dual carriageways !

[anonymous-user]

Snowboy said:

Actually Mr Walm, part of the problem is you have is people like this person fighting in your corner.
It turns a reasonable discussion into a stupid fight.

It is not me crying about not being able to navigate a few things on the road. You don't cycle, I drive and cycle so it would appear I would be better placed to understand both sides to the story? Your 'reasonable discussion' is to promote the use of the roads in a more suitable way according to your own personal rules. Anyway you were 'out'.....or not.

[will_]

Snowboy said:

Actually Mr Walm, part of the problem is you have is people like this person fighting in your corner.
It turns a reasonable discussion into a stupid fight.

But on "your" side you have the intellectual might of posters like jimbop1 who has an irrational, biggoted hatred of cyclists (and isn't ashamed to evidence it on any cycling thread there is).

Plus all the other posters like him.

[Snowboy]

will_ said:

But on "your" side you have the intellectual might of posters like jimbop1 who has an irrational, biggoted hatred of cyclists (and isn't ashamed to evidence it on any cycling thread there is).

Plus all the other posters like him.

Yes.
So everyone has their hackles up and reasonable comments are lost or misunderstood or misquoted.
And people make stupid assumptions about whether people cycle or not.

It's why I'm trying to get out of this thread.
It's not constructive or helpful to anyone.

[walm]

I like jimbop1 - he makes rabid pro-cyclists (such as me) seem almost reasonable!

[will_]

Snowboy said:

Yes.
So everyone has their hackles up and reasonable comments are lost or misunderstood or misquoted.
And people make stupid assumptions about whether people cycle or not.

It's why I'm trying to get out of this thread.
It's not constructive or helpful to anyone.

Indeed, because threads like these crop up on a regular basis and always, always include at least one cretin talking about who "pays for the road" (thereby displaying their gross ignorance), followed by someone else calling them (akin to) grossly ignorant.

It is pretty dull to have to deal with the same stupid points repeatedly - you can understand the frustration shown. The difference is the "internet cyclists" (as Johnnytheboy likes to call us/them) are generally much better educated about the topic than those who just pile straight in the the "road tax"/"holding me up"/"they all jump red lights" predjucial, incorrect garbage. And that's why cycling topics all end the same way, with a couple of people en route trying to make the perfectly fair point that people are the same whatever form of transport they happen to be on!

The fact that the opening posts to such threads often include laughable hyperbole as to the issue caused is comical were it not taken so seriously - "the queue was 10 miles long!!!one!1!"

[Johnnytheboy]

will_ said:

The difference is the "internet cyclists" (as Johnnytheboy likes to call us/them) are generally much better educated about the topic than those who just pile straight in the the "road tax"/"holding me up"/"they all jump red lights" predjucial, incorrect garbage.

Fame at last! I'm glad you know what I mean at least. Though I'm hope you'd acknowledge that I've never raised the road tax thing.

will_ said:

It is pretty dull to have to deal with the same stupid points repeatedly - you can understand the frustration shown.

Don't post then! I struggle to overcome the ennui once the usual arguments take over.

[goldblum]

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.

[will_]

walm said:

I like jimbop1 - he makes rabid pro-cyclists (such as me) seem almost reasonable!

Me too - I hate surprises so it's always good to see him in such threads, wading in and proudly displaying his debating rigour.

Nothing if not consistent.

[Johnnytheboy]

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.

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.

[will_]

Johnnytheboy said:

will_ said:

The difference is the "internet cyclists" (as Johnnytheboy likes to call us/them) are generally much better educated about the topic than those who just pile straight in the the "road tax"/"holding me up"/"they all jump red lights" predjucial, incorrect garbage.

Fame at last! I'm glad you know what I mean at least. Though I'm hope you'd acknowledge that I've never raised the road tax thing.

I've always known what you mean - I just think you're blind to the "internet car drivers" because there are more of them, albeit that the make the same points as each other.

Infamy might be more appropriate.

Johnnytheboy said:

will_ said:

It is pretty dull to have to deal with the same stupid points repeatedly - you can understand the frustration shown.

Don't post then! I struggle to overcome the ennui once the usual arguments take over.

I don't, always - but others do. If you don't seek to argue against rapbid stupidity you can't hope to overcome it though.

I promise not to think of any PHers as cretinous morons if, in threads regarding cyclists, they:
(a) don't mention "road tax" and accept that it's perfectly possible for any given cyclist to contribute more to "the roads" in terms of tax-take than any given driver (and that it's impossible to tell) - and in any event, drivers have no greater "right" or priority on the road;
(b) acknowledge that there are no arguments in favour of cyclists having insurance that don't apply to pedestrians, children and all other road users;
(c) don't treat cyclists as a single group, judged by the actions of a minority;
(d) don't suggest that, for some curiously psychopathic justification, cyclists "breaking the law" deserve to be run over/killed;
(e) accept that even if cyclists do "hold them up" this delay pales into insignificance when compared to the congestion caused by cars;
(f) understand that, riding single file or two abreast, there is no difference as to the space required to overtake (i.e. you're going to need no on-coming traffic);
(g) decide, once and for all, whether "they" want cyclists off the road or off the pavement (but not both);
(h) acknowledge that it is laughably hypocritical for car drivers to call cyclists "dangerous" or to complain about cyclists "breaking the law".

If these basic issues were left out of cycling discussions they might be a bit less predictable/boring/frustrating/embarassing. Chances of that happening.....?

[oyster]

1ians said:

Rich_W said:

We've been over this :sigh:

a) Hit and Run is a st driver. Nothing to do with the bike rider. who was apparently legally using the road. Again. You're victim blaming. If he wasn't there (legally) he wouldn't have been killed. Do rape victims deserve it because they were in a nightclub having a few drinks. Far safer to be at home wouldn't you think?

b) Cycle paths are not always the safest place to be. Especially if you're riding at speed and it's a shared one with pedestrains. Sometimes they are, but there;s one a few miles from me I'd love to use. But it's like riding over the surface of the moon covered in glass (punctures) and all sorts of rubbish and st. Plus couple points where the trees just block it completely. It would be far safer to use it but it's virtually unuseable. And this is the same county that hosted the 2012 Olympic cycle race and love to bang on about how great they are at promoting cycling...

A) To use your rape analogy, why walk home down rape alley late at night when there's a perfectly good, well lit path next to it? Yes, you should be able to, but is it sensible to?

B) Yes, I'm aware of the pros and cons of cycle paths. I've actually got the advantage of having cycled on the cycle path I'm referring to. I decided that I'd rather slow down around dog walkers than get hit by a car doing anywhere between 40-90. The other point I made was there's always the option to cycle through the village that the dual carriageway is meant to bypass.

In other words it's always the victim's fault?

[anonymous-user]

will_ said:

Chances of that happening.....?

I'm going to guess slim

[jimbop1]

paranoid airbag said:

The part where you can't spell "cyclists" comes across as pretty idiotic tbh.

As does the part where you say "it's pointless arguing"... and then argue.

Maybe the reason why you've not convinced anyone is actually something to do with you...

But I kept getting told off for calling cyclists..cyclists, by cyclists.

[jimbop1]

will_ said:

walm said:

I like jimbop1 - he makes rabid pro-cyclists (such as me) seem almost reasonable!

Me too - I hate surprises so it's always good to see him in such threads, wading in and proudly displaying his debating rigour.

Nothing if not consistent.

Aw thanks guys. I like you too.

[Simond S]

deltashad said:

I see plenty of cyclist who completely ignore cycle lanes, because it's beneath them.

Surely it isn't beneath them.

And I (as a cyclist) don't use cycle lanes as they are mainly covered in grit and debris that causes punctures. Also, thy result in having to filter into motor traffic more frequently which is not as safe as riding along the main road.

On a totally separate note .

So much bks spouted on this thread. IF (and I doubt a lot of what is written here is truth) the OP came across a peloton riding on a dual carriageway then it wasn't a time trial. Time trials always have a number of riders spread over a large distance and you'll usually find one rider every 4-500 metres, with the off few close together as a quicker rider catches the guy in front. (Picture the Olympics when Bradley won overtaking only one or two people).

If it was a club ride then there would not be marshalls at junctions, but riders would ride close together. Even is 8 riders are two abreast they still take up less room than a tractor, maintain a similar pace, and 8 people are getting on with their lives instead of one.

The other option is that is was a charity ride, where you'll have groups of riders and marshalls.

Whichever it was (if it ever happened) all the drivers who see the cyclist at fault need to take a step back. Thankfully drivers are starting to be convicted for dangerous driving and once the next step is taken and the use of a car to harm / kill is treated the same was as killing / harming in any other instance drivers will hopefully realise they hold human lives in their hands.

Not many cyclists get angry at car drivers for no reason, we have no reason to. Bear in mind the fact that we are cycling as a hobby shows that we already value our health, and are sociable. We are also acutely aware that so many drivers are consumed by anger that cyclists are on the road and have no issue with causing us harm.

It is a shame that forums don't require the use of real names and locations. Maybe then some of the generic hatred would fade away and people would treat each other with respect.

[okgo]

Snowboy said:

Actually Mr Walm, part of the problem is you have is people like this person fighting in your corner.
It turns a reasonable discussion into a stupid fight.

No, I think you will find that is you, baiting on every single cycling/driving thread I've seen you post on.

[Pkh72]

Simond S said:

Surely it isn't beneath them.

And I (as a cyclist) don't use cycle lanes as they are mainly covered in grit and debris that causes punctures. Also, thy result in having to filter into motor traffic more frequently which is not as safe as riding along the main road.

On a totally separate note .

So much bks spouted on this thread. IF (and I doubt a lot of what is written here is truth) the OP came across a peloton riding on a dual carriageway then it wasn't a time trial. Time trials always have a number of riders spread over a large distance and you'll usually find one rider every 4-500 metres, with the off few close together as a quicker rider catches the guy in front. (Picture the Olympics when Bradley won overtaking only one or two people).

If it was a club ride then there would not be marshalls at junctions, but riders would ride close together. Even is 8 riders are two abreast they still take up less room than a tractor, maintain a similar pace, and 8 people are getting on with their lives instead of one.

The other option is that is was a charity ride, where you'll have groups of riders and marshalls.

Whichever it was (if it ever happened) all the drivers who see the cyclist at fault need to take a step back. Thankfully drivers are starting to be convicted for dangerous driving and once the next step is taken and the use of a car to harm / kill is treated the same was as killing / harming in any other instance drivers will hopefully realise they hold human lives in their hands.

Not many cyclists get angry at car drivers for no reason, we have no reason to. Bear in mind the fact that we are cycling as a hobby shows that we already value our health, and are sociable. We are also acutely aware that so many drivers are consumed by anger that cyclists are on the road and have no issue with causing us harm.

It is a shame that forums don't require the use of real names and locations. Maybe then some of the generic hatred would fade away and people would treat each other with respect.

I think you're getting the OP and some of the subsequent hyperbole mixed up.

Just to clarify:-

The OP was talking about time trials using the A50, i'm not sure how far up the A50 they go but they generally join the A50 from the A516 between Etwall and Hilton.
I live next to the A50 and they are time trials, the riders do set off at intervals, they only group together if somebody has been caught and an overtake is taking place, they keep to the inside of the inside lane, traffic can easily get past but they struggle for reasons already discussed.
The events are also marshalled and signposted to warn traffic of a cycle event taking place.

[Garvin]

will_ said:

I promise not to think of any PHers as cretinous morons if, in threads regarding cyclists, they:
(a) don't mention "road tax" and accept that it's perfectly possible for any given cyclist to contribute more to "the roads" in terms of tax-take than any given driver (and that it's impossible to tell) - and in any event, drivers have no greater "right" or priority on the road;
(b) acknowledge that there are no arguments in favour of cyclists having insurance that don't apply to pedestrians, children and all other road users;
(c) don't treat cyclists as a single group, judged by the actions of a minority;
(d) don't suggest that, for some curiously psychopathic justification, cyclists "breaking the law" deserve to be run over/killed;
(e) accept that even if cyclists do "hold them up" this delay pales into insignificance when compared to the congestion caused by cars;
(f) understand that, riding single file or two abreast, there is no difference as to the space required to overtake (i.e. you're going to need no on-coming traffic);
(g) decide, once and for all, whether "they" want cyclists off the road or off the pavement (but not both);
(h) acknowledge that it is laughably hypocritical for car drivers to call cyclists "dangerous" or to complain about cyclists "breaking the law".

If these basic issues were left out of cycling discussions they might be a bit less predictable/boring/frustrating/embarassing. Chances of that happening.....?

Almost agree . . . . . . except for b). I have wondered on the occasions of nearly being mowed down by a cyclist riding down a footpath at speed (and it happens more and more frequently these days) what financial compensation would be forthcoming to rectify any losses if, one day, the nearly becomes a reality?

[deltashad]

We need to get the topic back on subject. Why are they not paying road tax and dress like anorexic clowns?

[Johnnytheboy]

will_ said:

Infamy might be more appropriate.

Oh I like infamy! To paraphrase the Big Bang Theory, I find being cast in the role of bad boy oddly titillating.

will_ said:

I promise not to think of any PHers as cretinous morons if, in threads regarding cyclists, they...

...If these basic issues were left out of cycling discussions they might be a bit less predictable/boring/frustrating/embarassing. Chances of that happening.....?

So basically you want people that disagree with you to stop doing so, and then you'll stop treating them as morons. I'm struggling to think of the word for that: anti-democratic probably covers it.

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.

I really don't have any beef with cyclists as a group, whatever you may think. It's this staggeringly pompous self-belief of a vocal few that I find so nauseating, but at least it's easy to wind you all up!