Cycling two abreast

James Hodson <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

(martin) said:

"This isn't a F**ing cycle lane"

Too right, Martin. It's a 'kin road, innit?

James

Yeah I forgot, cycle lanes are those things where you you get "oi mind my f**ing dog!!!" especially
when only used by dog walkers since resurfaced courtesy of Sustrans.

Dave Larrington said:

Quoted message said:

Stepping out of your front gate ....

How would a non-accident have been nastier if it had been one of your children?

Children are smaller and lighter. A cyclist might bounce off a big heavy object such as, for
example, a Mr Larrington, but cause a child to be propelled with some vigour towards the scenery
or ground.

A non occuring accident is a non occuring acsident what ever the age of the pedestrian and what ever
sort of vehicle was involved. All the we have so far is that an illegal act occured that caused no
injury, the same non injury would have happened if it was an illegal act in a car or if a child had
been involved. 0+0=0 no matter how much people hate zeros and it is pointless to blame illegal
cyclists for not causing injuries . If you want to say it's illegal and that is enough to decry it,
then fine, but that's another argument.

"Marc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dave Larrington said:

Quoted message said:

Stepping out of your front gate ....

How would a non-accident have been nastier if it had been one of your children?

Children are smaller and lighter. A cyclist might bounce off a big

heavy

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

object such as, for example, a Mr Larrington, but cause a child to be propelled with some vigour
towards the scenery or ground.

A non occuring accident is a non occuring acsident what ever the age of the pedestrian and what
ever sort of vehicle was involved. All the we have so far is that an illegal act occured that
caused no injury,

I find your attitude astonishing. It was a very very near miss and if my daughter had - as most
kids often do - had danced out of the gate infront of me she could well have been seriously injured
(or worse)

The point I was making and a point which remains valid is that the illegal and inconsiderate actions
of a cyclist (cycling at speed on the pavement in a residential area with limited visibility) put me
at significant risk of an accident.

I do also have to say that the attitude I see expressed here by a number of posters , and which your
post typifies, "Two wheel good. Two legs or 4 wheels bad" does the interests of the cycling
community no good at all, and more likely does harm.

I wonder, would you take the same view if a motorist seeing an empty pelican on red, decided to
continue through at 40mph: an illegal act occurred that caused no injury.

I repeat form my original on the subject: "Now I guess that most on here would not dream of behaving
like the cyclists I describe but please let us not pretend that all cyclists are paragons of
roadusing virtue."

pk

Paul Kelly said:

The point I was making and a point which remains valid is that the illegal and inconsiderate
actions of a cyclist (cycling at speed on the pavement in a residential area with limited
visibility) put me at significant risk of an accident.

I don't support pavement cycling - it's illegal and dangerous - but you might want to consider why
the cyclist might have been on the pavement in the first place. The road is easier to ride on, but a
lot of people are initimidated off the road by motorist behaviour.

Pavement cycling is a secondary effect of the massive land grab perpetrated by car drivers since
they decided the roads belonged to them, which started when cars were well and truly outnumbered by
every other mode.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ Advance
notice: ADSL service in process of transfer to a new ISP. Obviously there will be a week of downtime
between the engineer removing the BT service and the same engineer connecting the same equipment on
the same line in the same exchange and billing it to the new ISP.

Paul Kelly said:

"Marc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Dave Larrington said:

> Stepping out of your front gate ....
>
> How would a non-accident have been nastier if it had been one of your children?

Children are smaller and lighter. A cyclist might bounce off a big

heavy

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

object such as, for example, a Mr Larrington, but cause a child to be propelled with some
vigour towards the scenery or ground.

A non occuring accident is a non occuring acsident what ever the age of the pedestrian and what
ever sort of vehicle was involved. All the we have so far is that an illegal act occured that
caused no injury,

I find your attitude astonishing.

I find your type of "Pullleasse think of the chilldruunnnn" type of non thought worrying.

Quoted message said:

It was a very very near miss and if my daughter had - as most kids often do - had danced out of the
gate infront of me she could well have been seriously injured (or worse)

If a 747 had landed on her, a cycle helmet would not have saved her. The preceeding sentence makes
no sense in relation to the risk/danger of the incident outside your gate,but has as much bearing on
what did happen as your statement. The fact remains that an illegal act was committed that did not
cause any injury and wouldn't have caused any injury if it was your daughter and not you in the same
place. If however your daughter was earlier, the cyclist was faster, or the cyclist was 6 inches to
one side then an accident would have occured. Balance this against what would have happened if you
had been ten minuted later, the cyclist had been ten minuted earlier , or if he had been travelling
a lot slower, all of the above had an equal chance of happening.

Quoted message said:

The point I was making and a point which remains valid is that the illegal and inconsiderate
actions of a cyclist (cycling at speed on the pavement in a residential area with limited
visibility) put me at significant risk of an accident.

It was the only valid point and at such a basic level I'm surprised you bothered uttering it. Now,
quantify the risk of the accident occuring ( as this oen didn't) then estimate the possible
consequences. once you have done that, replace the cycle with a car and repeat, then try and argue
that careless and lawbreaking cyclists are in the same league of danger as cars...

Quoted message said:

I do also have to say that the attitude I see expressed here by a number of posters , and which
your post typifies, "Two wheel good. Two legs or 4 wheels bad" does the interests of the cycling
community no good at all, and more likely does harm.

As a motorsport enthusiast I don't think I have ever expressed the simplistic views that you ascribe
to me. In fact this very discussion is about me trying to show you that your very, very, very,
simplistic extrapolation from non accidents is ridiculous.

Quoted message said:

I wonder, would you take the same view if a motorist seeing an empty pelican on red, decided to
continue through at 40mph: an illegal act occurred that caused no injury.

No, because both the risk and danger for the above is higher than from the equally illegal, but less
risky or dangerous , cyclist.

Quoted message said:

I repeat form my original on the subject: "Now I guess that most on here would not dream of
behaving like the cyclists I describe but please let us not pretend that all cyclists are paragons
of roadusing virtue."

I have never argued anything but that the actions you describe are illegal , but there is a great
difference between illegal and unsafe and a huge gap between the risk/danger created by
motorvehicles and cycles.

--
Marc Stickers,decals,membership,cards, T shirts, signs etc for clubs and associations of all types.
jaceeprint.demon.co.ukjaceeprint.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Paul Kelly said:

The point I was making and a point which remains valid is that the

illegal

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and inconsiderate actions of a cyclist (cycling at speed on the pavement

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a residential area with limited visibility) put me at significant risk of

an

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

accident.

I don't support pavement cycling - it's illegal and dangerous - but you might want to consider why
the cyclist might have been on the pavement in the first place. The road is easier to ride on, but
a lot of people are initimidated off the road by motorist behaviour.

Residential road in town. no traffic. no reason to be on the pavement

Quoted message said:

Pavement cycling is a secondary effect of the massive land grab perpetrated by car drivers since
they decided the roads belonged to them, which started when cars were well and truly outnumbered
by every other mode.

You go away from the point: Some cyclists DO behave in dangerous and unacceptable ways. they should
not be defended by anyone.

pk

"marc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The fact remains that an illegal act was committed that did not cause any injury and wouldn't have
caused any injury if it was your daughter and not you in the same place. If however your daughter
was earlier, the cyclist was faster, or the cyclist was 6 inches to one side then an accident
would have occured. Balance this against what would have happened if you had been ten minuted
later, the cyclist had been ten minuted earlier , or if he had been travelling a lot slower, all
of the above had an equal chance of happening.

by you logic we as cyclists have no reason to be critical of car drivers who overtake too close to
us on narrow lanes? (see other thread)

FFS stop trying to defend the indefensible!

pk

1

Paul Kelly said:

Quoted message said:

I don't support pavement cycling - it's illegal and dangerous - but you might want to consider
why the cyclist might have been on the pavement in the first place. The road is easier to ride
on, but a lot of people are initimidated off the road by motorist behaviour.

Quoted message said:

Residential road in town. no traffic. no reason to be on the pavement

You miss the point: the road network as a whole is infested with people who drive as if they are
the only one on the road. People get into habits, like not riding on the carriageway because it's
often scary.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Pavement cycling is a secondary effect of the massive land grab perpetrated by car drivers since
they decided the roads belonged to them, which started when cars were well and truly outnumbered
by every other mode.

Quoted message said:

You go away from the point: Some cyclists DO behave in dangerous and unacceptable ways. they should
not be defended by anyone.

Caution required. It appeared dangerous to you, but no injury was sustained by any party, so the
cyclist may have been movving slower than you think, may have been more in command of his machine
than you think, may have been more aware of you than you were of him.

My grandfather used to tell the tale of the lorry which almost killed him. He tripped and fell off
the pavement in front of a huge truck - if it hadn't been parked he'd have been dead for sure.

Defending the cyclist? I don't think anybody's seriously defending him, other than to point out
the reasons why ordinary decent people might take to the pavements in defiance of the law, but
neither are we inclined to accept that a near miss is a near fatality. Apart form anything else we
experience near misses every day from cars, which have a very much higher potential to harm us
than a bike has to harm you; we get used to it. Mostly we just grumble about the clueless cagers
and carry on.

For my part, I think the cyclist was behaving like an [censored]. And that's about it, really.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗ Advance
notice: ADSL service in process of transfer to a new ISP. Obviously there will be a week of downtime
between the engineer removing the BT service and the same engineer connecting the same equipment on
the same line in the same exchange and billing it to the new ISP.

Paul Kelly said:

Quoted message said:

The fact remains that an illegal act was committed that did not cause any injury and wouldn't
have caused any injury if it was your daughter and not you in the same place. If however your
daughter was earlier, the cyclist was faster, or the cyclist was 6 inches to one side then an
accident would have occured. Balance this against what would have happened if you had been ten
minuted later, the cyclist had been ten minuted earlier , or if he had been travelling a lot
slower, all of the above had an equal chance of happening.

by you logic we as cyclists have no reason to be critical of car drivers who overtake too close to
us on narrow lanes? (see other thread)

There is a reasonable chance of death from the above, there wasn't from your non-accident, the two
are not comparable. Are you still trying to claim some form of expertise in risk managment? If you
are I would be olbliged if you could tell me who is complacent enough to employ you, I will note
their names for further ignoring.

Quoted message said:

FFS stop trying to defend the indefensible!

Please , try and show where I have defended anything. As far as I can see I have only attacked your
"thinking from the goolies" utterances.

"Marc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Paul Kelly said:

Quoted message said:

The fact remains that an illegal act was committed that did not cause any injury and wouldn't
have caused any injury if

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

was your daughter and not you in the same place. If however your daughter was earlier, the
cyclist was faster, or the cyclist was 6 inches to one side then an accident would have
occured. Balance this against what would have happened if you had been ten minuted later,

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

cyclist had been ten minuted earlier , or if he had been travelling a lot slower, all of the
above had an equal chance of happening.

by you logic we as cyclists have no reason to be critical of car drivers

who

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

overtake too close to us on narrow lanes? (see other thread)

There is a reasonable chance of death from the above, there wasn't from your non-accident, the two
are not comparable. Are you still trying to claim some form of expertise in risk managment? If you
are I would be olbliged if you could tell me who is complacent enough to employ you, I will note
their names for further ignoring.

Quoted message said:

FFS stop trying to defend the indefensible!

Please , try and show where I have defended anything. As far as I can see I have only attacked
your "thinking from the goolies" utterances.

Ah well, if that is the general tone of this group then you are not my type of cyclist.

bye

pk

Just zis Guy said:

For my part, I think the cyclist was behaving like an [censored]. And that's about it, really.

Snap! He wasn't the only one!

Paul Kelly said:

Quoted message said:

Please , try and show where I have defended anything. As far as I can see I have only attacked
your "thinking from the goolies" utterances.

Ah well, if that is the general tone of this group then you are not my type of cyclist.

I am not not the general tone of anything, let alone this group, if you are daft enough to allow one
person to sway you then you are probably stupid enough to think that all cyclists are pavement
killers , or even just that all cyclists are killers , maybe even that all cyclists are cannibals. I
can't stop you jumping to illogical conclusions.

As for "type of cyclists " not wishing to be typecast , may I suggest the only type that is "yours'
will be one that you breed yourself, able to take offense at any non-accident and weave that into a
fantasy of death and destruction based on two cases of non-accident".May I wish you best of luck as
an educator , both at home and in the workplace.

Quoted message said:

bye

pk

Paul Kelly said:

Ah well, if that is the general tone of this group then you are not my type of cyclist.

Paul, I don't think this is the general tone of the whole group. I suspect that if Marc actually had
any credentials as a motorsport driver rather than enthusiast, he might have an altogether different
view on all kinds of safety and legality issues (now thats got to get a reaction - not necessarily
pleasant, but lets at least try shall we?).

However, apart from a few individuals getting a little worked up occaisionally (and one, not Marc,
to whom the Larrington Treatment(tm) should be applied), I find this newsgroup to be better than
most of the others I've read.

--
Jim Price

jimprice.dsl.pipex.comjimprice.dsl.pipex.comOpen ↗

Conscientious objection is hard work in an economic war.

Aye!.

Jim Price said:

I suspect that if Marc actually had any credentials as a motorsport driver rather than
enthusiast, he might have an altogether different view on all kinds of safety and legality issues
(now thats got to get a reaction - not necessarily pleasant, but lets at least try shall we?).

Marshaled on my first rally at aged 14 ( The Golden Dragon Rally Bro Morgannwg), crewed my first
trial at 15, navigated my first rally at 16, drove my first at 17, since then I have driven in
rallies sprint's,trials, hillclimbs, PCTs , autotests, autocross and competition safaris at clubman
and national level. I have navigated at international level on rallies and hill rallies. I have been
a stage commander on club, national and international rallies, a clerk of the course on club and
national rallies, driving standards observer on so many events that I lose count, competitor liason
officer on, I forget how many, events , sponsored rallies ,senior control officer too many times to
count, stage safety officer on a world championship event four years on the trot (1) I think I have
picked up a few bits across the years on "safety and legality issues"

How's the reaction?

(1) Until I decided that the organisers didn't realise that if I didn't catch their mistakes it
would be me standing in the coroners court, justifing their decisions. (2)

(2) Or maybe they did ....

Marc wrote: <selectively snipped lots of experience in motorsport>

Quoted message said:

driving standards observer on so many events that I lose count

Quoted message said:

senior control officer too many times to count, stage safety officer on a world championship event
four years on the trot

And you've never reported anyone who had a near miss? Or did something potentially dangerous, but
didn't _actually_ cause an accident in that specific instance?

Quoted message said:

How's the reaction?

Now I like you a lot more!

--
Jim Price

jimprice.dsl.pipex.comjimprice.dsl.pipex.comOpen ↗

Conscientious objection is hard work in an economic war.

Aye!.