Another cyclist dies in London
Discussion
FiF said:
Ares said:
FourWheelDrift said:
FiF said:
No it isn't quite clearly pointing away. The white part you see is the shaft of the arrow, and there is a somewhat unclear wider white part at this end of that further marking.
Until we either get a street view or better picture we aren't going to agree on this. You think I'm wrong, I think you're wrong. As written earlier we should leave it until identified properly.
they are going the wrong way, street view - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5825397,-0.01284...Until we either get a street view or better picture we aren't going to agree on this. You think I'm wrong, I think you're wrong. As written earlier we should leave it until identified properly.
Plus if you travel back along the road to alongside the Forest Pathway College, there are the signs to show it's a road where contraflow cycling is permitted.
cb1965 said:
Ares said:
Any more conjecture you want to throw in to try and dilute your wish to inflict physical harm on another human being?
No dilution - just hope whoever runs them over doesn't lose any sleep over it. They're stupid and the gene pool could well do without them!
- you originally said you hoped they would get run over.Do you feel the same way about someone who exceeds the speed limit by 50%? Or someone who goes through a red light? Or someone that glances at their phone on the move? Or someone that ignores a 'no right turn' sign? Do you wish them all physical harm too?
FiF said:
Ares said:
FourWheelDrift said:
FiF said:
No it isn't quite clearly pointing away. The white part you see is the shaft of the arrow, and there is a somewhat unclear wider white part at this end of that further marking.
Until we either get a street view or better picture we aren't going to agree on this. You think I'm wrong, I think you're wrong. As written earlier we should leave it until identified properly.
they are going the wrong way, street view - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5825397,-0.01284...Until we either get a street view or better picture we aren't going to agree on this. You think I'm wrong, I think you're wrong. As written earlier we should leave it until identified properly.
Plus if you travel back along the road to alongside the Forest Pathway College, there are the signs to show it's a road where contraflow cycling is permitted.
The cyclists ('normal' people, in 'normal' clothes, cycling at 'normal' speeds for utility, rather than for sport, and therefore exactly the kind of cycling/cyclists beloved of the frothy-mouthed lycra-haters) in the top picture are actually doing nothing wrong.
Cycling in the "wrong" direction, as expressly permitted by the signage in the lower picture, is actually perfectly legal. It follows, therefore (using the usual motorist logic) that if it is indeed legal, then it MUST be safe.
So this pair of riders don't deserve to die under the wheels of a high horse driven by the likes of ceebeebies1965 then?
I dare not scroll through huge chunks of this thread now, because it has become unreadable by virtue of page after page of petty bickering with participants bringing nothing new to the debate. Then I take a quick look and find that someone actually tries to make a relevant point. Sadly it quickly descends to impenetrable bickering again, often quite swiftly.
Ares said:
cb1965 said:
Ares said:
Any more conjecture you want to throw in to try and dilute your wish to inflict physical harm on another human being?
No dilution - just hope whoever runs them over doesn't lose any sleep over it. They're stupid and the gene pool could well do without them! - you originally said you hoped they would get run over.Do you feel the same way about someone who exceeds the speed limit by 50%? Or someone who goes through a red light? Or someone that glances at their phone on the move? Or someone that ignores a 'no right turn' sign? Do you wish them all physical harm too?
As to your other questions... depends on whether they are on a bike or in a car
cb1965 said:
Ares said:
cb1965 said:
Ares said:
Any more conjecture you want to throw in to try and dilute your wish to inflict physical harm on another human being?
No dilution - just hope whoever runs them over doesn't lose any sleep over it. They're stupid and the gene pool could well do without them! - you originally said you hoped they would get run over.Do you feel the same way about someone who exceeds the speed limit by 50%? Or someone who goes through a red light? Or someone that glances at their phone on the move? Or someone that ignores a 'no right turn' sign? Do you wish them all physical harm too?
As to your other questions... depends on whether they are on a bike or in a car
yellowjack said:
So all's well then?
The cyclists ('normal' people, in 'normal' clothes, cycling at 'normal' speeds for utility, rather than for sport, and therefore exactly the kind of cycling/cyclists beloved of the frothy-mouthed lycra-haters) in the top picture are actually doing nothing wrong.
Cycling in the "wrong" direction, as expressly permitted by the signage in the lower picture, is actually perfectly legal. It follows, therefore (using the usual motorist logic) that if it is indeed legal, then it MUST be safe.
So this pair of riders don't deserve to die under the wheels of a high horse driven by the likes of ceebeebies1965 then?
I dare not scroll through huge chunks of this thread now, because it has become unreadable by virtue of page after page of petty bickering with participants bringing nothing new to the debate. Then I take a quick look and find that someone actually tries to make a relevant point. Sadly it quickly descends to impenetrable bickering again, often quite swiftly.
QED... The cyclists ('normal' people, in 'normal' clothes, cycling at 'normal' speeds for utility, rather than for sport, and therefore exactly the kind of cycling/cyclists beloved of the frothy-mouthed lycra-haters) in the top picture are actually doing nothing wrong.
Cycling in the "wrong" direction, as expressly permitted by the signage in the lower picture, is actually perfectly legal. It follows, therefore (using the usual motorist logic) that if it is indeed legal, then it MUST be safe.
So this pair of riders don't deserve to die under the wheels of a high horse driven by the likes of ceebeebies1965 then?
I dare not scroll through huge chunks of this thread now, because it has become unreadable by virtue of page after page of petty bickering with participants bringing nothing new to the debate. Then I take a quick look and find that someone actually tries to make a relevant point. Sadly it quickly descends to impenetrable bickering again, often quite swiftly.
Ares said:
FourWheelDrift said:
FiF said:
No it isn't quite clearly pointing away. The white part you see is the shaft of the arrow, and there is a somewhat unclear wider white part at this end of that further marking.
Until we either get a street view or better picture we aren't going to agree on this. You think I'm wrong, I think you're wrong. As written earlier we should leave it until identified properly.
they are going the wrong way, street view - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5825397,-0.01284...Until we either get a street view or better picture we aren't going to agree on this. You think I'm wrong, I think you're wrong. As written earlier we should leave it until identified properly.
Ares said:
cb1965 said:
Ares said:
cb1965 said:
Ares said:
Any more conjecture you want to throw in to try and dilute your wish to inflict physical harm on another human being?
No dilution - just hope whoever runs them over doesn't lose any sleep over it. They're stupid and the gene pool could well do without them! - you originally said you hoped they would get run over.Do you feel the same way about someone who exceeds the speed limit by 50%? Or someone who goes through a red light? Or someone that glances at their phone on the move? Or someone that ignores a 'no right turn' sign? Do you wish them all physical harm too?
As to your other questions... depends on whether they are on a bike or in a car
Mave said:
Worth noting, that street view looks like it was taken at a different time - the pavement and road layout have changed. Not saying whether the arrow was going away from or towards us, just that we should be careful drawing conclusions from an out of date Street view!
True, up to date map imagery suggests it's still one way, and the 'cyclist contraflow' picture looks similarly up to date.
Ares said:
God knows. It's the address of the street view image
It is, thought it looked familiar.Nice scheme, part of the 'Mini-Holland' project in Walthamstow, London. Mostly (or fully) funded by TfL. Its improved the streetscape massively, another area being gentrified and another area I should of invested in 10 years ago.
Ares said:
DoubleD said:
Ares said:
TobyLerone said:
cb1965 said:
Cyclists contra flow whenever it suits them. Six this morning just south of Vauxhall Bridge all cycling against 2 lanes of one way rush hour traffic.... ****ing ****s, hope they get run over frankly!
And I thought I could get tightly wound...Attitudes like this are probably a fair contributor to the road incidents in the big smoke.
It pisses me off when cyclists flagrantly flaunt the laws of the road.... but I don't wish any of them dead!
Chill dude. Take a breath and be content that you are comfortable, warm and dry in your car while the cyclists push through and disappear in short order.
Wishing other people physical harm is pathetic.
Ares said:
Digby said:
will_ said:
Why did you leave out the other half of the result of this "clampdown" - the 9,000+ tickets handed out to motorists?
Why do you feel the need to mention them? Someone else did, anyway.If you can't see the blatantly obvious intent of such a statement then you are kidding yourself, as well as seeking to kid others!
I didn't see any cars stopped at the junction we were working near, no. It was clearly targeted due to riders constantly jumping that set of lights.
And as I keep saying (I can quote this numerous times), I'm not talking of just zipping through moments after a red. They had no interest in the light colour or whether traffic had been crossing from an opposite green for some time. I don't see cars doing that, just as I don't see them on and off pavements etc. That's probably the fourth or fifth time I have tried to explain, but all you get thrown back at you is "You said you never see cars on pavements" and "Never seen a car jump a red? Hahaha"
I also don't see motorbikes doing this. Some may do, of course, but I have yet to see it.
DoubleD said:
If the road is set up for and allows riding against the flow of traffic then yes its fine. If not then its a very stupid thing to do.
I'm not sure it is fine, and I do question the wisdom of these road schemes. With drivers like ceebeebies1965 wishing such people to be run over, Stickyfinger happy to admit he polices the roads according to his Myway Code, drivers like this breaking a woman's spine because he thought she was a bloke http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/09/road-ra... Professor Ian Walker's research showing that drivers will deliberately pass closer (and sometime aggressively) if they don't like what the cyclist is wearing, https://www.psychologicalscience.org/uncategorized...and so on,
I just don't think that British drivers are able to cope with these schemes. If cyclists are able to proceed in both directions, I think the signs saying so need to be billboard sized, before yet another driver takes the law into his hands and injures someone or worse.
Edited by heebeegeetee on Wednesday 18th October 21:54
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff