Police pull over 'two abrest' cyclists - argument ensues

Police pull over 'two abrest' cyclists - argument ensues

Author
Discussion

Stickyfinger

8,429 posts

104 months

Friday 25th August 2017
quotequote all
yellowjack said:
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?

Oh. Wait. (Hypocrisy alert!) Whether it's cyclists riding two-abreast, or fktards 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?

rolleyes

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 fker doesn't have to walk any further than absolutely necessary to get to the takeaway.

Edited by yellowjack on Friday 25th August 17:17
On the above:
Tow cars....Issue tickets ENFORCE the regulations.......

but what does it prove other than what everybody says....car drivers are wkers as well. We KNOW that already

heebeegeetee

28,591 posts

247 months

Friday 25th August 2017
quotequote all
yellowjack said:
Like it matters?

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...


rolleyes

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...
clap

heebeegeetee

28,591 posts

247 months

Friday 25th August 2017
quotequote all
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.

The HC says you MUST not (it uses capitals iirc) drive on or over the pavement. Don't give us this claptrap about 'I wasn't driving I was moving' or blather about parking and so on.

If you're parked on the pavement you've driven on the pavement, end of. Presumably you think rules are for other people.

Now that's all well and good and I don't really give a kipper, but you can't do this and use your 1-2 tonne car to damage the pavement and then come on here and complain about cyclists also not obeying the rules.

And that's what underlies all of these many anti-cycling threads: massive hypocrisy and a good deal of dishonesty too.

Btw have we seen the picture this week of the Range Rover parked on graves?
Because off-roader innit?

twoblacklines

1,575 posts

160 months

Friday 25th August 2017
quotequote all
Mave said:
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.



Edited by Mave on Friday 25th August 07:24
No I dont. I admit I did do, I described a situation, got told I was wrong and corrected it.

















About 6 months ago.


Yet you are still bleating on about it as if I posted that last week and have not corrected my driving since.

DoubleD

22,154 posts

107 months

Friday 25th August 2017
quotequote all
I was driving yesterday on a narrow but straight country road. Two cyclists are riding towards me side by side. The road isnt wide enough to pass by them with 1.5 meters of clearance, did they adjust there position, no, they were far too busy chatting to even notice me.

twoblacklines

1,575 posts

160 months

Friday 25th August 2017
quotequote all
FiF said:
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.

Edited by FiF on Friday 25th August 07:17
Been driving for nearly 20 years. NEVER seen this occur.

But I see plenty of cyclists on the pavements every single day.

twoblacklines

1,575 posts

160 months

Friday 25th August 2017
quotequote all
WinstonWolf said:
And on this we agree, it's not the mode of transport it's the wkers 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*.
We werent talking about speeding we were talking about jumping red lights.

Which car drivers don't do half as much as cyclists do.

I really don't understand it.

"I'm a cyclist so I don't have 2 tonnes of car around me.

"This means I am vulnerable"

"I have a smart idea, let's take my vulnerable self and skip this here red light"

"SMASH"

"OMG what did you run me over for can't you see I'm a vulnerable road user????"



johnwilliams77

8,308 posts

102 months

Friday 25th August 2017
quotequote all
twoblacklines said:
But I see plenty of cyclists on the pavements every single day.
What is the issue with that?

DoubleD

22,154 posts

107 months

Friday 25th August 2017
quotequote all
Look we are all adults, so we all know the difference between driving on a pavement and parking on a pavement so lets move on.

twoblacklines

1,575 posts

160 months

Friday 25th August 2017
quotequote all
yellowjack said:


Edited by yellowjack on Friday 25th August 17:17
I would argue that, whilst both the owners of the cars and the cyclists are in the wrong....


This situation is safer


Than this one:


Pedestrians have to go round large unmoving object vs having to go around fast object moving at them at speed.

Like this poor guy


Note the empty cycle lane.

Mave

8,208 posts

214 months

Friday 25th August 2017
quotequote all
twoblacklines said:
Mave said:
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.
No I dont. I admit I did do, I described a situation, got told I was wrong and corrected it.

About 6 months ago.

Yet you are still bleating on about it as if I posted that last week and have not corrected my driving since.
Yes you originally posted that some time ago.

Yet LAST WEEK you referred to it saying it "wasn't strictly unsafe on that particular road"; remember we're talking about going around a blind bend so quickly that you nearly killed someone by driving into the back of them. That's unsafe by any sensible definition.

The fact that you can so easily trivialise that incident; yet the next day gleefully claim a cyclist has shown themselves as doing something dangerous when, (whilst illegal), it was nothing of the sort; just indicates to me that you didn't actually learn anything 6 months ago, and in reality you still think it was the cyclists fault. Remember what I said last week about confirmation bias? (if you bothered to read it...) Demanding unrealistically high stands from the "out" group (cyclists) whilst not even acknowledging poor stands from the "in" group (self / motorists).

yellowjack

17,065 posts

165 months

Friday 25th August 2017
quotequote all
twoblacklines said:
I would argue that, whilst both the owners of the cars and the cyclists are in the wrong....


This situation is safer


Than this one:


Pedestrians have to go round large unmoving object vs having to go around fast object moving at them at speed.

Like this poor guy


Note the empty cycle lane.
I won't defend the last picture because it's plainly wrong that those cyclists are on the footway. But there is legislation that can land them with a fine for that offence. Just as the driving/parking on footways offence is seldom enforced, then so it is right that guidance given to police forces suggests only enforcing the "pavement cycling" law when the cyclist rides in a wilful and clearly dangerous manner.

The top two images? You can argue that all you wish. You can argue that black is white if you wish, but it won't make you right. You WANT those riders on the shared use path to ride in the carriageway. But you can guarantee if they do, then they'll be abused, sworn at, and told to "get on the fking cycle path" by knuckle dragging fkwits in cars and vans.


The hypocrisy in this thread from the bike-bashers was already staggering. Now it grows beyond measurable bounds.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you think that the shared use path in Boscombe/Southbourne in the post above is "dangerous".

But you also think that cyclists on the carriageway are dangerous, and/or a danger to themselves and others.

Picture the scene...

A driver on his way to the beach in Bournemouth. He's "stuck" behind a couple of cyclists as he makes his way through Bolderwood, in the picturesque New Forest. "Damn these bastid cyclists. They're a complete pain in the arse. Someone ought to do something about it. Build cycle paths to get them off MY roads, FFS!"

After crawling through Lyndhurst in nose-to-tail queues of cars all trying to squash themselves into the limited, finite road space afforded by New Forest roads, said driver finally gets to his destination, and by some miracle finds a place to park. Faced with a walk, heavily laden with pushchairs, picnics, and buckets and spades, with three excited young kids in tow, he happens to walk along the shared use path. "Damn these bastid cyclists. They're a complete pain in the arse. Someone ought to come to their senses and ban them from the footways. They ought to be separated from me and my kids. Put them on the carriageway, FFS!"

You really do want to have your cake AND eat it.

Schrodinger's Cyclist. Simultaneously going too fast in town, and too slow outside of it. Simultaneously unwanted on footways and carriageways.

I'm not sure whether I ought to offer you a better shovel so you can dig yourself in deeper, or have some sympathy and offer you a ladder to help you get out. What is certain is that you're at the bottom of a hole you dug yourself into, and people are laughing at you. I suggest you stop now, because laughing at you has ceased to be amusing. It's clear that you are not saying these things just to stir an argument on the internet, but that you actually might hold true to these views in real life. Which is a scary thought...

banghead


It's too late, really, because I've already been dragged down to your level, but I'm out. I'm going to go talk to my goldfish instead. I'm completely confident that they'll make more sense than some of the dummy-spitting gibbering fools in this thread...


frown


Before I go, though, in the interests of balance...

https://www.thelocal.no/20170824/turkish-cyclist-s...

...a story about a cyclist being an absolute moron.

I've heard tales of another moron who stubbornly insists on riding through the Hindhead tunnel on the A3. He apparently actively encourages people he rides with to do the same. But because the vast majority of cyclists are sensible, intelligent, and quite risk averse, as word spreads of his idiocy he's slowly but surely running out of people willing to ride anywhere with him, and he's been shown the door by the club he used to ride with.

Edit to add a link to what I believe is the source of your photograph posted above... https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2013/06/...

It's clear that there is an ideal solution. Dig the entire fking road network up, and start again with clearly separated provision for all user groups. But we have neither the will, the space, nor the funds to do that. So share the space we must. I try to make sure I share nicely. Plenty of drivers happily do so too. But it only works if everyone does. A good start would be to look a little further ahead than the end of your bonnet (or your front wheel), or the rear bumper of the car ahead and actually PLAN your next move. This applies equally to bicycles and cars. But while we are surrounded by the incurably selfish, I can't see this ever happening I'm afraid. Too many people come upon an easily observed and planned for hazard and are surprised by it. It is they who are the cause of the majority of problems on the roads, and they are, as has been said before, moving among us in/on many different forms of transport...

hippy

byebye




Edited by yellowjack on Friday 25th August 19:11

twoblacklines

1,575 posts

160 months

Friday 25th August 2017
quotequote all
They aren't riding in the shared path, they are riding in the pedestrian portion of the shared path. You can even see her about to cross the part with an adult and a child holding hands painted on the floor. Funny how you totally dismiss that though, eh?

DoubleD

22,154 posts

107 months

Friday 25th August 2017
quotequote all
on segregated cycle tracks the pedestrian side remains a footway, so if you cycle into the pedestrian side to pass a pedestrian in the cycle lane you technically commit a pavement cycling offence. There's an anomaly because cyclists have to ride on their side, but pedestrians are only advised to use theirs.

Mave

8,208 posts

214 months

Friday 25th August 2017
quotequote all
twoblacklines said:
They aren't riding in the shared path, they are riding in the pedestrian portion of the shared path. You can even see her about to cross the part with an adult and a child holding hands painted on the floor. Funny how you totally dismiss that though, eh?
Just to give you something else to froth about,
guess what? Every time I cycle into work, I cycle on a pavement. For about half a mile! Why? Because in the specific circumstances it's considerate and safe! :-o

twoblacklines

1,575 posts

160 months

Friday 25th August 2017
quotequote all
Mave said:
Just to give you something else to froth about,
guess what? Every time I cycle into work, I cycle on a pavement. For about half a mile! Why? Because in the specific circumstances it's considerate and safe! :-o
Because there is a bike lane on the pavement?

yellowjack

17,065 posts

165 months

Friday 25th August 2017
quotequote all
twoblacklines said:
They aren't riding in the shared path, they are riding in the pedestrian portion of the shared path. You can even see her about to cross the part with an adult and a child holding hands painted on the floor. Funny how you totally dismiss that though, eh?
Sigh!

Road signs. Fairly self explanatory. And as we cannot see from the image YOU supplied what the statutory signs actually depict, it's impossible to know whether the path is, whether by statute law or bylaw, defined as a segregated or non-segregated path...

https://www.sustrans.org.uk/what-you-can-do/cyclin...



This sign, with no white lines, tells you that it’s a shared-use, unsegregated cycle and pedestrian route.



A white line in the sign indicates that it’s a segregated shared-use route for cyclists and pedestrians, so make sure you ride on the correct side.

All of which is irrelevant, as the cyclists have clearly changed their course in order to avoid the photographer who is clearly obstructing the other side of the path. Or is it Schrodinger's Photographer? Simultaneously there, but not there?



Dime bar, anyone...?

Mave

8,208 posts

214 months

Friday 25th August 2017
quotequote all
twoblacklines said:
Mave said:
Just to give you something else to froth about,
guess what? Every time I cycle into work, I cycle on a pavement. For about half a mile! Why? Because in the specific circumstances it's considerate and safe! :-o
Because there is a bike lane on the pavement?
Nope. It's a pavement and I know it's illegal to use it. But sometimes you need to take the lesser of two evils and I prioritise safety and courtesy over legalities.

yellowjack

17,065 posts

165 months

Friday 25th August 2017
quotequote all
We might actually be getting somewhere though...



...because it's about time that someone pointed out to ignorant pedestrians on SHARED USE paths that walking in large groups so as to deny other user groups reasonable and equitable access is ignorant, stupid, and potentially dangerous.

And just why is it that no matter how many dog walkers you challenge over the fact that the local SSSI looks and smells like a toilet, it's ALWAYS "someone else's dog" that left a turd in the middle of the path, and "some other dog owner" that failed to pick their dog's st up.

And finally, to throw back one of the driving club's favourite statements from bike bashing threads...

" Cyclists Pedestrians. Take some responsibility for your own safety for a change. Stop putting yourselves into dangerous situations and relying on drivers cyclists to take avoiding action to keep you safe... "

See how absurd that particular argument is now? wink

DoubleD

22,154 posts

107 months

Friday 25th August 2017
quotequote all
Doesnt sound absurd, sounds rather sensible.