Police pull over 'two abrest' cyclists - argument ensues
Discussion
FiF said:
Mave said:
If you actually want to contribute the discussion, maybe you should start playing the ball not the man.
Is that comment despite one of my earlier inputs eliciting the response from you that you were in complete agreement. Make your mind up.
I may have agreed with some of your comments, just as you've agreed with some if mine in the past. But seeing as you keep jumping into discussions accusing me of being confrontational whilst being silent about the posting style of CB1965, or TBL, like it or not my comment stands.
Edited by Mave on Thursday 24th August 19:47
Tbh TBL, I think you haven't actually answered the extremely specific and targeted edge scenario question, I've looked and read back through the thread and the answer you gave was not whether it was or wasn't safe but that you would stop regardless. The rest of it is a lot of deliberately diversionary stuff.
If I'm wrong in that, then apologies, but that's how I see it.
For the record, in my view, it's clearly a teeing up question, to nick Winston Wolf's terminology. Phrases involving barges and poles come to mind.
Thread continues with both sides circling round.
If I'm wrong in that, then apologies, but that's how I see it.
For the record, in my view, it's clearly a teeing up question, to nick Winston Wolf's terminology. Phrases involving barges and poles come to mind.
Thread continues with both sides circling round.
Yeah because if I say that situation is safe, he gonna justify it as "you said it was safe to run a red light so you must think its safe to run all of them blah blah".
if i say it is not safe, he will say im an idiot as it "clearly is"
When in actuallity what I am trying to get at is that whether it is safe or not does not matter. The law says don't run red lights so don't run red lights.
And it is is a slippery slope because if you justify running a few red lights you will one day justify it wrong, get hit in the side by a big truck, and wish you had stopped, if you live long enough for such thoughts.
Just like my analogy about speeding really. If you justify speeding at 3am in the middle of a motorway as safe, you might end up justifying a dangerous situation as safe in the future when it isn't.
I guess the question is, is speeding more safer than running red lights?
But the other question is, do cyclists break the law more than motorists do? I know one thing and that is, cars dont drive down pavements. You got this whole cyclists vs motorists "war" and then cyclists vs pedestrians on shared cycle paths, and then you have cyclists vs pedestrians on pavements. My mummy used to tell me "if you are the common denominator in a problem then the problem is you".
if i say it is not safe, he will say im an idiot as it "clearly is"
When in actuallity what I am trying to get at is that whether it is safe or not does not matter. The law says don't run red lights so don't run red lights.
And it is is a slippery slope because if you justify running a few red lights you will one day justify it wrong, get hit in the side by a big truck, and wish you had stopped, if you live long enough for such thoughts.
Just like my analogy about speeding really. If you justify speeding at 3am in the middle of a motorway as safe, you might end up justifying a dangerous situation as safe in the future when it isn't.
I guess the question is, is speeding more safer than running red lights?
But the other question is, do cyclists break the law more than motorists do? I know one thing and that is, cars dont drive down pavements. You got this whole cyclists vs motorists "war" and then cyclists vs pedestrians on shared cycle paths, and then you have cyclists vs pedestrians on pavements. My mummy used to tell me "if you are the common denominator in a problem then the problem is you".
twoblacklines said:
Yeah because if I say that situation is safe, he gonna justify it as "you said it was safe to run a red light so you must think its safe to run all of them blah blah".
if i say it is not safe, he will say im an idiot as it "clearly is"
When in actuallity what I am trying to get at is that whether it is safe or not does not matter. The law says don't run red lights so don't run red lights.
And it is is a slippery slope because if you justify running a few red lights you will one day justify it wrong, get hit in the side by a big truck, and wish you had stopped, if you live long enough for such thoughts.
Just like my analogy about speeding really. If you justify speeding at 3am in the middle of a motorway as safe, you might end up justifying a dangerous situation as safe in the future when it isn't.
I guess the question is, is speeding more safer than running red lights?
But the other question is, do cyclists break the law more than motorists do? I know one thing and that is, cars dont drive down pavements. You got this whole cyclists vs motorists "war" and then cyclists vs pedestrians on shared cycle paths, and then you have cyclists vs pedestrians on pavements. My mummy used to tell me "if you are the common denominator in a problem then the problem is you".
Whoa! fif i say it is not safe, he will say im an idiot as it "clearly is"
When in actuallity what I am trying to get at is that whether it is safe or not does not matter. The law says don't run red lights so don't run red lights.
And it is is a slippery slope because if you justify running a few red lights you will one day justify it wrong, get hit in the side by a big truck, and wish you had stopped, if you live long enough for such thoughts.
Just like my analogy about speeding really. If you justify speeding at 3am in the middle of a motorway as safe, you might end up justifying a dangerous situation as safe in the future when it isn't.
I guess the question is, is speeding more safer than running red lights?
But the other question is, do cyclists break the law more than motorists do? I know one thing and that is, cars dont drive down pavements. You got this whole cyclists vs motorists "war" and then cyclists vs pedestrians on shared cycle paths, and then you have cyclists vs pedestrians on pavements. My mummy used to tell me "if you are the common denominator in a problem then the problem is you".
king hells bells. Look, I'm on my phone so can't edit your post, but I've just come to your claim that cars don't drive down pavements.
So in my decades of driving, the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of cars I have seen parked on pavements - what are they then, precisely?
The Highway Code says you MUST not drive on or over a pavement except to access property etc etc, and quotes the references to law.
And this law is TOTALLY ignored, utterly and completely.
Honestly, I'm a driver, not a cyclist, but I am staggered at The blindness of my fellow motorists. They are just blind to what they do, and this obsession with bloody cycling simply has no logic or sense to it.
Once again, I find myself absolutely staggered over a statement made by someone constantly whinging and wagging fingers at others.
Stickyfinger said:
Really, moving onto a pavement to park (which is a st practice) is the same as driving down a pavement.......classic !
On many occasions I've seen cars driven along pavements to park. On countless occasions I've seen pedestrians struggle to get by, or who have take to the road to walk past. t practice) is the same as driving down a pavement.......classic !On one of my routes to work I see cars parked fully on the pavement, blocking the pavement completely, directly opposite a children's nursery. On another route cars are parked on pavement and cycle lane.
The cars are driven on the pavement, end of. And it's illegal.
More to the point though, tbl has this obsession about cyclists behaviour, and then goes and makes a statement like that. What a giveaway!
Btw, Nice choice of word that, 'moving', instead of the more accurate 'driving'. I like that.
I move down the road myself, quite often over the speed limit.
twoblacklines said:
Mave, this just seems like your ego talking now. You are so desperate to be right about something you keep asking me to answer a question I have already answered. I suggest this is probably because you are WRONG yet cannot see past your egoic foolishness.
Going round in circles here.
And yet, in your very next post, you acknowledge to FIF that you haven't answered the question...Going round in circles here.
twoblacklines said:
Yeah because if I say that situation is safe, he gonna justify it as "you said it was safe to run a red light so you must think its safe to run all of them blah blah".
if i say it is not safe, he will say im an idiot as it "clearly is"
The reason I asked you the question is for the benefit of the doubt. If you continue to support the view that going through a red light with none else around for miles is dangerous (not illegal, but dangerous) then IMHO that sets a very high standard for careful road use. Which is fine.if i say it is not safe, he will say im an idiot as it "clearly is"
But you also consider it not unsafe to go around a blind bend quicker than you can see to be safe which IMHO sets a very low standard for careful road use.
Everyone has differing levels of risk acceptance / risk aversion, but they are normally fairly consistent with themselves. I don't understand how you can expect such perfect road use in one breath but then accept such poor road use in the next. What am I missing?
Edited by Mave on Friday 25th August 07:24
Got to say cars driving down pavements is an increasing problem, and I'm not just talking about in the interest of parking. Increasingly see it done to avoid waiting, everything from two wheels up on the kerb where the road is too narrow to pass vehicles waiting to turn right, say, to full on CBA to wait behind this queue, full onto the kerb and drive down it behind lamp posts trees and any other street furniture until they are at the front or can't get any further and then push their nose back into the queue.
Can't say I have noticed any specific subset of society liable to do this, which gets rid of the racist jibe, common denominators they're all wkers, see earlier posts.
Can't say I have noticed any specific subset of society liable to do this, which gets rid of the racist jibe, common denominators they're all w
kers, see earlier posts.Edited by FiF on Friday 25th August 07:17
twoblacklines said:
And it is is a slippery slope because if you justify running a few red lights you will one day justify it wrong, get hit in the side by a big truck, and wish you had stopped, if you live long enough for such thoughts.
This is the point I was also trying to get to the other day about trained response drivers. They are the only ones with a specific exemption to exceed speed limits and treat red lights as a give way. If they use that exemption when it's not safe or necessary, despite extensive and specific training, then they will feel the full force of the law. Arse covering everyday in evidence statements, stuff like, "the traffic signal was at red so I switched on my blue lights, warning signals and proceeded with caution." Tip, best to have it as a shortcut key on Microsoft Word etc. 
FiF said:
Got to say cars driving down pavements is an increasing problem, and I'm not just talking about in the interest of parking. Increasingly see it done to avoid waiting, everything from two wheels up on the kerb where the road is too narrow to pass vehicles waiting to turn right, say, to full on CBA to wait behind this queue, full onto the kerb and drive down it behind lamp posts trees and any other street furniture until they are at the front or can't get any further and then push their nose back into the queue.
Can't say I have noticed any specific subset of society liable to do this, which gets rid of the racist jibe, common denominators they're all wkers, see earlier posts.
And on this we agree, it's not the mode of transport it's the wCan't say I have noticed any specific subset of society liable to do this, which gets rid of the racist jibe, common denominators they're all w
kers, see earlier posts.Edited by FiF on Friday 25th August 07:17
kers that we all object to. Unfortunately there are wkers in trucks, cars and on bikes. They get the rest of us a bad name through sweeping generalisations...
TBL gets a hard time because he expects one type of road user to obey the laws to a greater degree than he follows them himself.
We all speed a bit if it's safe, yet we don't seem to mind because it's *safe* and it's *us*.
Putting 2 wheels on a pavement to park isnt the same as driving along the pavement so lets not get all excited about that one.
On a rare occasion I have seen folk use the pavement as a way of getting around others and this is obviously wrong.
But like just about everything on this thread, its all about how things are done. Some things that are illegal are safe to do and others arent.
On a rare occasion I have seen folk use the pavement as a way of getting around others and this is obviously wrong.
But like just about everything on this thread, its all about how things are done. Some things that are illegal are safe to do and others arent.
But let's not underestimate how many pedestrians are killed, by cars, on pavements - typically 100-200 per year!
Or, to put it into context; for all the discussion on PH generally characterising cyclists as Darwin award winners, or cycling in general as being dangerous and needing regulation for cyclist's safety; the total number of cyclists dying on our roads every year is fewer than the number of pedestrians killed on pavements by cars.
Or, to put it into context; for all the discussion on PH generally characterising cyclists as Darwin award winners, or cycling in general as being dangerous and needing regulation for cyclist's safety; the total number of cyclists dying on our roads every year is fewer than the number of pedestrians killed on pavements by cars.
Edited by Mave on Friday 25th August 15:57
Engineer792 said:
Mave said:
But let's not underestimate how many pedestrians are killed, by cars, on pavements - typically 100-200 per year!
Source?And how many of those were out-of-control cars leaving the road, or similar, as opposed to simply driving on the pavement?
Engineer792 said:
Mave said:
But let's not underestimate how many pedestrians are killed, by cars, on pavements - typically 100-200 per year!
Source?And how many of those were out-of-control cars leaving the road, or similar, as opposed to simply driving on the pavement?
Plod: I'm afraid I have to inform you that your wife and daughter were killed in a collision involving a car this morning...
Widower: Was it driving on the footway, or simply out of control?
Plod (puzzled): Errrrm. It was a driver exceeding his, and/or the car's capabilities who lost control.
Widower: Ah. That's OK then. So long as it wasn't deliberately driven onto the footway. Thank you officer, and good day...
Parking? Driving? Being beamed down onto? Irrelevant. If your wheels have left the CARRIAGEWAY and are on the FOOTWAY you are a Grade A twunt. It's constant too. Every-bloody-where. I saw a pensioner with a walking frame forced to walk out onto a busy 'A' road just yesterday, just so some fat useless 'tard could waddle straight into the chip shop opposite.
It seems to be done out of a misguided courtesy to "not obstruct the road". Except the footway is as much a part of the road as the carriageway. If you can't park without obstructing either, or both, park somewhere safe and legal further away and take that one brisk walk per month that might save your fat lazy arse from an early death. Or perhaps don't. Because you're a selfish cretin who the world would no doubt get along just fine without...
yellowjack said:
Engineer792 said:
Mave said:
But let's not underestimate how many pedestrians are killed, by cars, on pavements - typically 100-200 per year!
Source?And how many of those were out-of-control cars leaving the road, or similar, as opposed to simply driving on the pavement?
Plod: I'm afraid I have to inform you that your wife and daughter were killed in a collision involving a car this morning...
Widower: Was it driving on the footway, or simply out of control?
Plod (puzzled): Errrrm. It was a driver exceeding his, and/or the car's capabilities who lost control.
Widower: Ah. That's OK then. So long as it wasn't deliberately driven onto the footway. Thank you officer, and good day...
Parking? Driving? Being beamed down onto? Irrelevant. If your wheels have left the CARRIAGEWAY and are on the FOOTWAY you are a Grade A twunt. It's constant too. Every-bloody-where. I saw a pensioner with a walking frame forced to walk out onto a busy 'A' road just yesterday, just so some fat useless 'tard could waddle straight into the chip shop opposite.
It seems to be done out of a misguided courtesy to "not obstruct the road". Except the footway is as much a part of the road as the carriageway. If you can't park without obstructing either, or both, park somewhere safe and legal further away and take that one brisk walk per month that might save your fat lazy arse from an early death. Or perhaps don't. Because you're a selfish cretin who the world would no doubt get along just fine without...
If you wish to discuss those things then feel free to start another thread.
Engineer792 said:
Now that you've relieved yourself from all that bile, perhaps you will notice that this discussion is about driving on the pavement, not crossing the pavement having lost control (which cyclists tend not to do), nor is it about parking on the pavement.
If you wish to discuss those things then feel free to start another thread.
Yup. Heaven forfend that we actually turn the focus on things that really have an impact on, and inconvenience the daily lives of thousands upon thousands of people. Better to focus on some legitimate road users inconsiderately impacting on the lives of others eh?If you wish to discuss those things then feel free to start another thread.
Oh. Wait. (Hypocrisy alert!) Whether it's cyclists riding two-abreast, or f
ktards driving and/or parking on FOOTWAYS, it amounts to the same thing. Except that it's not actually illegal, nor acknowledged as being intrinsically dangerous to ride two-abreast.Focus on the important stuff?
Edit:
For those wanting a specific example...
Someone call "House!" in this game of Retard Bingo...
Fat
in a Range Rover? Check!Close to a row of shops which is about 50% takeaways? Check!
Almost entirely obstructing the footway? Check!
Double Yellow lines? Check!
Obstructing a cycle lane? Check!
Close to a junction with the busy A30 AND on a bus route? Check!
But it's OK. He'll "only be a few minutes" after all. In the meantime any disabled or elderly pedestrians can just take their chances by walking into the path of traffic turning left on a green traffic light off the A30. Just so that fat lazy f
ker doesn't have to walk any further than absolutely necessary to get to the takeaway.Edited by yellowjack on Friday 25th August 17:17
yellowjack said:
Engineer792 said:
Now that you've relieved yourself from all that bile, perhaps you will notice that this discussion is about driving on the pavement, not crossing the pavement having lost control (which cyclists tend not to do), nor is it about parking on the pavement.
If you wish to discuss those things then feel free to start another thread.
Yup. Heaven forfend that we actually turn the focus on things that really have an impact on, and inconvenience the daily lives of thousands upon thousands of people. Better to focus on some legitimate road users inconsiderately impacting on the lives of others eh?If you wish to discuss those things then feel free to start another thread.
Oh. Wait. (Hypocrisy alert!) Whether it's cyclists riding two-abreast, or f
ktards driving and/or parking on FOOTWAYS, it amounts to the same thing. Except that it's not actually illegal, nor acknowledged as being intrinsically dangerous to ride two-abreast.Focus on the important stuff?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff