Police pull over 'two abrest' cyclists - argument ensues
Discussion
boyse7en said:
Because its far cheaper and more available now than it used to be. Back in the early 1990s I went to buy some cycling shorts and they cost me £20 – when my weekly rent was £25.
Now nearly 30 years later I can get a pair from Wiggle/PlanetX/Wherever for under £15.
I do fail to see why its an issue though. I wear running shorts, running shoes and running tops when I go running, I wear swimming trunks when I go swimming, I wear football shorts and boots for football...
It's just the best clothing for the job
Yep, when I go driving I wear a full race suit. It's just the best clothing for the job!Now nearly 30 years later I can get a pair from Wiggle/PlanetX/Wherever for under £15.
I do fail to see why its an issue though. I wear running shorts, running shoes and running tops when I go running, I wear swimming trunks when I go swimming, I wear football shorts and boots for football...
It's just the best clothing for the job
Mave said:
So your comparison makes no sense then.
A full on racing overall is not the best clothing for driving a car on the road whereas, by comparison, Lycra does make pretty good road cycling clothing.
The only one childish and stupid is the one who decides if someone is a t
t based on what clothes they are wearing.
Ah so you admit they are racing then, it's all about getting the best time on a public road? And fA full on racing overall is not the best clothing for driving a car on the road whereas, by comparison, Lycra does make pretty good road cycling clothing.
The only one childish and stupid is the one who decides if someone is a t
t based on what clothes they are wearing.k anyone who gets in their way yes? They can wear a bit of lycra if it makes them feel better, but dressing up in the complete Sky Team gear including all those aerodynamic aids and other such nonsense makes them look like t
ts... probably becuase that's what they are!In the interests of balance I see plenty of 'normal' cyclists that feel no need to dress up like their heroes so are they missing a trick? Nope, they're just normal people!!
WinstonWolf said:
Learn to read fella, and contain that temper of yours. I'm not usually one for stereotypes, but you do seem to fit the bill for the typical angry 4x4 owner.
FFS here it goes again spouting drivel. Please just stop, you're embarrassing yourself every time you touch the keyboard with your erroneous amateur psychology.
Mave said:
You don't know if your own post is a question or a statement? You're insulting people's interpretation of what you've posted when you don't even know what you mean yourself! Are you an idiot? (That's a question by the way).
What do I think? I think you're going round making deliberately antagonistic statements that don't bear up to much, if any, scrutiny; and then trying to deflect, swerve, bluster and insult your way out when challenged.
I was taking the piss out of you! Hope that helps! What do I think? I think you're going round making deliberately antagonistic statements that don't bear up to much, if any, scrutiny; and then trying to deflect, swerve, bluster and insult your way out when challenged.
As for your last sentence I stopped reading when you said I think as you clearly don't or at least not without excessive bias bordering on fanatical!
Mave said:
Ah, the old "I was joking / taking the piss" approach to defending an indefensible position. Well done, keep digging...
You're the one that can't understand a question mark, not me. Nothing indefensible, it's just if you're not capable of reaching my intellectual level there is no point trying to engage you as an equal. This has been evident in every one of our exchanges hence why I just treat you as I find you... a biased not very bright individual!Conscript said:
He did understand the question mark. His response was quite clearly in the negative.
You "asked" him if he admitted he was racing on the public road (even though the wording does imply you are making an assertion, not posing a question).
His response is "Where have I said anything of the sort?". Which implies that no, he didn't admit he was racing on a public road.
Surely someone of your intellectual level would be able to work that out, rather than going off on a rant about question marks and grammar?
The answer required yes or no, not another of its implications! If you look through its posting history it never answers any question with a straight answer. You "asked" him if he admitted he was racing on the public road (even though the wording does imply you are making an assertion, not posing a question).
His response is "Where have I said anything of the sort?". Which implies that no, he didn't admit he was racing on a public road.
Surely someone of your intellectual level would be able to work that out, rather than going off on a rant about question marks and grammar?
Conscript said:
Oh, give it up. He pointed out that your comparison was ridiculous, and rather than just accept it, you deflected by trying to imply he was admitting to racing on the road. Then when he makes it clear that he never made anything like that sort of suggestion, you go off on one about grammar, and question marks and "intellectualism".
You're coming across as a childish, obstinate fool. Grow up.
Oh calm down FFS! I think Mave's a ****, deal with it!You're coming across as a childish, obstinate fool. Grow up.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: It seems a simple matter of common sense. I found myself today behind some poor wheezing sod cycling up a hill on a single lane road, in the middle of nowhere, with a tailback behind him, and a completely empty wide pavement.
The law says he can ride on the road. Reality suggests many motorists were taking a risk because all that happened was they were pissed off and took risks to floor it and get past in the gaps in anything coming the other way.
Same with the two-abreast mob, whatever the law says it seems common sense that you're more likely to get knocked off your bike if you ride two-abreast so you can talk to your mate.
This in spades. The law says he can ride on the road. Reality suggests many motorists were taking a risk because all that happened was they were pissed off and took risks to floor it and get past in the gaps in anything coming the other way.
Same with the two-abreast mob, whatever the law says it seems common sense that you're more likely to get knocked off your bike if you ride two-abreast so you can talk to your mate.
I'm no lover of the plod however common sense fail on part of cyclists and generally acting the superiority
for the sake of it. Tossers.One day an Evo will come belting round a corner and take the one on the outside of the two abreast completely out and during those last few breaths of life I imagine he will think "I'm a t
t"It's interesting as I read over and over again about how poorly designed cycle lanes are and that is why cyclists never use them preferring instead to mix it with the cars etc.
Why, instead of conducting protests such as lying in the road and playing dead, don't the pro cycling groups try and offer their obviously way more expert views to the authorities and help them design proper cycling facilities?
I suspect I know the answer, but let the fun commence.
Why, instead of conducting protests such as lying in the road and playing dead, don't the pro cycling groups try and offer their obviously way more expert views to the authorities and help them design proper cycling facilities?
I suspect I know the answer, but let the fun commence.
IroningMan said:
The vast, vast majority of the UK's 'cycling facilities' are comprised of no more than paint and achieve the square root of bugger all because their existence is incentivised by the metre, rather than by any real drive to improve conditions for road users.
The pro cycling groups put a huge amount of effort into lobbying the authorities - or did you think it was the cabbies who asked for the recent changes to London's cycling infrastructure?
Personally I don't want to see 'proper cycling facilities' - they won't help me deal with the idiots when I'm not on my bike, which is most of the time. I want to see higher driving standards.
I wasn't talking about lobbying which, in the case of cycling is really is nothing more than waving your hands in the air and saying 'poor me', I was talking about offering their opinions on how to design the sort of facilities they might actually use. It pisses me off that my taxes are spent on things that nobody can use! The pro cycling groups put a huge amount of effort into lobbying the authorities - or did you think it was the cabbies who asked for the recent changes to London's cycling infrastructure?
Personally I don't want to see 'proper cycling facilities' - they won't help me deal with the idiots when I'm not on my bike, which is most of the time. I want to see higher driving standards.
PS Personally I want to see higher cycling standards
cb1965 said:
It's interesting as I read over and over again about how poorly designed cycle lanes are and that is why cyclists never use them preferring instead to mix it with the cars etc.
Why, instead of conducting protests such as lying in the road and playing dead, don't the pro cycling groups try and offer their obviously way more expert views to the authorities and help them design proper cycling facilities?
I suspect I know the answer, but let the fun commence.
(Derek Smith length post ahoy)Why, instead of conducting protests such as lying in the road and playing dead, don't the pro cycling groups try and offer their obviously way more expert views to the authorities and help them design proper cycling facilities?
I suspect I know the answer, but let the fun commence.
I can answer that, a bit.
I have in the past had dealings with cycling groups with regard to spending pots of funding, via something beauracratically called Local Highways Panels (via a County Council, and at another time, a City Council). There is/was a set amount of money for local improvements in each borough/district, which was set aside from pothole repair or changing light bulbs.
The cycling groups were invited to comment, as they were usually the first, loudest, and most vociferous complainers that our proposed schemes were car focussed - which is fair enough, our schemes do tend to benefit motor vehicles as they are the most common vehicles on the road. So, we'd ask the cycling charities/groups for their input to give them a fair crack of the whip wrt sustainable transport solutions.
An example of something they suggested (and have not shut up about in 8 years)?:
A segregated (kerbed) cycle lane up the middle of a major A-road in to the city, with right-of-way over the (very much narrowed) vehicle lanes either side. Not thinking that this would essentially turn the entire road into two one-way roads with no means to turn right out of any side roads, or right in to any side roads. This included industrial areas, delivery yards, residential roads, and bus routes. The road already has shared use paths, and the only accident history in 3 years is a single slight accident, where a cyclist rode in to a pedestrian at a controlled crossing. They wanted buildings demolished at either end of the road to make room for roundabouts to allow the inconvenienced vehicles to turn round. Utter pipe dream, and would have cost millions.
New zebra-style crossings which are also for cyclist use were suggested - i.e. as soon as the cyclist hits it, they have right of way. They've seen them somewhere in Europe and think they should be brought in here - regardless of the fact they are unknown and would require a huge education campaign for drivers. (For information, new sign and marking arrangements are VERY rare. There are many many hoops to jump through to get non-prescribed (ie non-normal) markings allowed.
There was no suggestion for cycle lanes, advanced stop lines, better parking areas or more joined-up cycle routes etc. Every proposal they put forward was at the direct detriment to all other road users. Special diagonal cycle-only ("you must stop pedestrians from using them") lanes across major intersections - practically unworkable, and highly confusing for all other road users having diagonal signals. Remove cars from roads during peak hours. Allow cycling through ped-only areas of the town centre. The suggestions were completely OTT and unworkable - yet try and explain that the pot of money isn't millions, but thousands, and they go running to the local MP crying about unfairness. More than once I've had to explain to an MP or Councillor how some things aren't feasible, but the cycle group reps (which is normally a retired librarian or someone who doesn't understand about practicalities of highway engineering/traffic management) just don't appear to listen. One cyclist guy in particular winds himself up so much before these meetings that his hands shook, and he couldn't help but shout. They tend to get your back up a bit.
That said, I used to commute 5 miles each way in to Cambridge, all of it on off-road cycle routes, and I never once had a puncture, saw smashed glass all over the place, dog s
t, poor maintenance, got run over, nearly got run over, etc. It was a pleasure to ride in there. I can only think the people who complain about glass on the cyclepaths live in stty areas. So, in typical PH style, to those I say "work harder and move somewhere nicer". 
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff