What are your unpopular opinions?

[anonymous-user]

Well that all went swimmingly didn't it ?
And just to think I really really meant it about the disability motorised thingeys. And I stand by it. Many are driven/ ridden by fat obese layabouts who just don't give a toss about anyone other than themselves

[Disastrous]

paulguitar said:

Disastrous said:

paulguitar said:

Disastrous said:

Funkycoldribena said:

paulguitar said:

I agree with that, as both a car driver and (occasional) cyclist. I think it is astonishing one can cycle on a public road without having taken a test, and I often wince as I see cyclist ignoring red lights as if they think they are not obliged to obey them.

How to get kids really not bothering to cycle...

Agreed. Why do some people so desperately want to over-regulate everything??

Just leave it as it is and accept that some cyclists will ignore red lights. Most will suffer no ill effects. Some will be in accidents. Those who are will come off worse. The end.

I don't feel as if I 'desperately' want to do anything. However, I would like the idea that all road users including cyclists have a decent idea of how the roads work and what the signs mean.

Fewer dead children would be a big bonus too.

Why can’t it just be left as it is?

It can be left as it is. In my opinion though having more cyclists able to understand how a traffic light works and able to read a road sign would almost certainly result in a decrease in their deaths and injuries on the roads. That would be a good thing, wouldn't it?

Well, your original comment suggests that you think cyclists are disobeying signals, rather than simply ignorant of their meaning. A test is unlikely to change that unless you start fining and penalising cyclists as if they were motorists but that would likely to put kids/everyone off cycling, and I don’t think that would be a good thing.

The fact that you find the status quo astonishing suggested you would prefer to change things so apologies if I read you wrongly.

[hyphen]

Funkycoldribena said:

paulguitar said:

I agree with that, as both a car driver and (occasional) cyclist. I think it is astonishing one can cycle on a public road without having taken a test, and I often wince as I see cyclist ignoring red lights as if they think they are not obliged to obey them.

How to get kids really not bothering to cycle...

So you are saying this would remove those cyclists who don't want to learn and so follow rules off the road?

Great

[JustinF]

singlecoil said:

paulguitar said:

That record contains 'a Day in the Life', 'Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds', 'She's Leaving Home', and others and is to this day considered perhaps the most groundbreaking and influential record of the whole pop era...

Except for Revolver, of course.

The whole pop era is kinda my point, they made pop music, I think pop music is mostly for the sheep and prefer edgy music; lyrics that talk about the human condition good and bad rather than just love love love tripe.

Apologies for not coming back sooner, not been in front of a screen all day.

[JustinF]

IJB1959 said:

Yep, the 'thread rage' brigade are back on here again

you've been here a year and you think you get to comment on other posters, gtfo.

[JustinF]

The Selfish Gene said:

As for it killing off cycling for kids - they should be in the park, not on the road until they are 17 anyway.

I cycled 3 miles to school every day for years below 17, no accidents.
My son cycles to school every day, no accidents.
He's ridden in excess of 10,000km on road and isn't 17 for another 11 months.
last years summer hol for us was a road tour of Normandy.
This years' Hol is going to be alpine climbs as seen in TdF.
He's 16.
Your opinion is unpopular with me, you have succeeded with the thread title.
(quite a few people have lost sight of the thread)

[glazbagun]

JustinF said:

The whole pop era is kinda my point, they made pop music, I think pop music is mostly for the sheep and prefer edgy music; lyrics that talk about the human condition good and bad rather than just love love love tripe.

Apologies for not coming back sooner, not been in front of a screen all day.

While I agree (and would have given the same reason prior to changing my mind about them), I think it's important to note that the reason they sound so much like pop music is because they were there at the foundation of pop music.

What they made became pop music!

I feel similarly when I hear older generations talking about how Deep Purple were "metal", or how listening to "Born to be Wild" makes Paramore or Blink 182 sound like gods of rock. Everything is built from what went before.

If I ever have kids, I hope I can shield them enough to chronologically introduce them to a lot of music before the blandness of Spotify and infinite choice gets to them.

[JustinF]

glazbagun said:

JustinF said:

The whole pop era is kinda my point, they made pop music, I think pop music is mostly for the sheep and prefer edgy music; lyrics that talk about the human condition good and bad rather than just love love love tripe.

Apologies for not coming back sooner, not been in front of a screen all day.

While I agree (and would have given the same reason prior to changing my mind about them), I think it's important to note that the reason they sound so much like pop music is because they were there at the foundation of pop music.

What they made became pop music!

I feel similarly when I hear older generations talking about how Deep Purple were "metal", or how listening to "Born to be Wild" makes Paramore or Blink 182 sound like gods of rock. Everything is built from what went before.

If I ever have kids, I hope I can shield them enough to chronologically introduce them to a lot of music before the blandness of Spotify and infinite choice gets to them.

Thanks for that reply, I guess my kids will feel less enthused about Nirvana than I did (it's losing it's sheen for me too if I'm honest); hearing 90's rave tunes on Nissan adverts (sons of a loop da loop era, Far Out) shows how edgy becomes mainstream quite well.
It's hard for me to see the impact the Beatles had as i was born later, but I stand by my opinion that the hype exceeds the talent and those still championing them are blinkered (aren't we all!)

[mattyn1]

I thought there was a thing called the Cycling Proficiency Test. I did one years ago at school and got a little triangular badge!

[marksx]

JustinF said:

Thanks for that reply, I guess my kids will feel less enthused about Nirvana than I did (it's losing it's sheen for me too if I'm honest); hearing 90's rave tunes on Nissan adverts (sons of a loop da loop era, Far Out) shows how edgy becomes mainstream quite well.
It's hard for me to see the impact the Beatles had as i was born later, but I stand by my opinion that the hype exceeds the talent and those still championing them are blinkered (aren't we all!)

Nirvana, now there's a band I listen to and think 'christ, why the hell did I listen to this rubbish?!'

And to think I used to play it to death on an old tdk cassette!

Pearl jam however, I can listen to anytime.

[singlecoil]

JustinF said:

Apologies for not coming back sooner, not been in front of a screen all day.

It was paulguitar who was hoping for a reply from you, not me.

[Too Drunk to Funk]

singlecoil said:

fatboy18 said:

counterofbeans said:

JustinF said:

The Beatles stuff is amusing, the fans are all over how great they are, but it's a matter of taste; I don't dislike their music but i don't rate it either, it's pop rock without any guts and they sold a load of absolute tripe which the fanbase bought anyway, sgt pepper's was a fking joke and still people rate it.
6/10.

Dead Kennedy's were a better band, Pixies made better music, Richard Ashcroft has more songwriting ability in his off hand than all of the Beatles bar Lennon.

The foo fighters are today's equivalent, all the right ingredients but all that comes out the other end is beige music.

It's like using a slow cooker, tip whatever you like into it, it all comes out tasting OK but never great.

Of course it's all a matter of opinion, but yours is bks.

Great PH Answer

I concur.

There's a big difference in liking things you've been told are good and actually having good taste.

Look at the popularity of Oasis or Michael McIntyre.

[singlecoil]

Too Drunk to Funk said:

There's a big difference in liking things you've been told are good and actually having good taste.

Look at the popularity of Oasis or Michael McIntyre.

Who is it that you think is liking things they've been told to like?

[Antony Moxey]

singlecoil said:

Antony Moxey said:

Why do you guess that, I've made no indication to that end whatsoever. If a driver is able to see whether traffic in the lane to his right has stopped or there is a gap large enough for him to cross that lane safely, why can't he do the same if he wishes to turn left?

I can't be arsed to draw a diagram, and it's clear that you are unable to see what I am getting at, so there's no point in continuing this.

Yeah, go on, have a go. You obviously think you've got a point so why not try and make it a bit clearer? I'm always happy to be corrected if someone proves me wrong.

[Antony Moxey]

paulguitar said:

Disastrous said:

paulguitar said:

Disastrous said:

Funkycoldribena said:

paulguitar said:

I agree with that, as both a car driver and (occasional) cyclist. I think it is astonishing one can cycle on a public road without having taken a test, and I often wince as I see cyclist ignoring red lights as if they think they are not obliged to obey them.

How to get kids really not bothering to cycle...

Agreed. Why do some people so desperately want to over-regulate everything??

Just leave it as it is and accept that some cyclists will ignore red lights. Most will suffer no ill effects. Some will be in accidents. Those who are will come off worse. The end.

I don't feel as if I 'desperately' want to do anything. However, I would like the idea that all road users including cyclists have a decent idea of how the roads work and what the signs mean.

Fewer dead children would be a big bonus too.

Why can’t it just be left as it is?

It can be left as it is. In my opinion though having more cyclists able to understand how a traffic light works and able to read a road sign would almost certainly result in a decrease in their deaths and injuries on the roads. That would be a good thing, wouldn't it?

So would educating drivers. They make more mistakes - and fatal ones at that - than cyclists ever will. I would guess (and no I don't have any stats, it's a guess) that more motorists are responsible for cyclists' deaths than cyclists are.

[anonymous-user]

After recent events on here.
Cyclists can come across as a bit ....... obsessive, a bit intense

[singlecoil]

Antony Moxey said:

singlecoil said:

Antony Moxey said:

Why do you guess that, I've made no indication to that end whatsoever. If a driver is able to see whether traffic in the lane to his right has stopped or there is a gap large enough for him to cross that lane safely, why can't he do the same if he wishes to turn left?

I can't be arsed to draw a diagram, and it's clear that you are unable to see what I am getting at, so there's no point in continuing this.

Yeah, go on, have a go. You obviously think you've got a point so why not try and make it a bit clearer? I'm always happy to be corrected if someone proves me wrong.

It's not a question of proving you or anybody else is 'wrong'. AFAICS it's simply a case of clearing up a misunderstanding. I've had a couple of goes already and that's all the effort I feel it's worth.

[captain_cynic]

Disastrous said:

Agreed. Why do some people so desperately want to over-regulate everything??

Just leave it as it is and accept that some cyclists will ignore red lights. Most will suffer no ill effects. Some will be in accidents. Those who are will come off worse. The end.

Its not over-regulating, cyclists are a law unto themselves and need to be taken to heel. However all we want are for cyclists to accept the same level of responsibility as other road users.

The problem is, cyclists really don't want to be able to be held accountable as they'll have to stop running red lights and holding up traffic.

[captain_cynic]

Disastrous said:

Why can’t it just be left as it is?

Cycling cannot be left as is because too many people are doing it.

Cyclists are still operating under the rules and laws established when cycling was just a hobby practised by a few on the weekend. These rules and laws do not scale when cycling is used as a regular mode of transportation.

There are two truths that need to be accepted:
1. Drivers, cyclists are here in not insignificant numbers and aren't going away. Get used to it.
2. Cyclists, you are here in not insignificant numbers and aren't going away. Because of this you will be required to be licensed and registered like any other vehicle and driver on the road. Get used to it.

[Antony Moxey]

singlecoil said:

Antony Moxey said:

singlecoil said:

Antony Moxey said:

Why do you guess that, I've made no indication to that end whatsoever. If a driver is able to see whether traffic in the lane to his right has stopped or there is a gap large enough for him to cross that lane safely, why can't he do the same if he wishes to turn left?

I can't be arsed to draw a diagram, and it's clear that you are unable to see what I am getting at, so there's no point in continuing this.

Yeah, go on, have a go. You obviously think you've got a point so why not try and make it a bit clearer? I'm always happy to be corrected if someone proves me wrong.

It's not a question of proving you or anybody else is 'wrong'. AFAICS it's simply a case of clearing up a misunderstanding. I've had a couple of goes already and that's all the effort I feel it's worth.

But as far as I was concerned there wasn't a misunderstanding. You were saying it was the cyclist's fault racing up the inside of a car turning left and that it was up to him to slow down rather than the driver be observant before turning left. All I asked was what was the difference between that and turning right?