Another anti-cycling letter in a local newspaper



Status
Not open for further replies.
<-- Wide Load --> <[email protected]> wrote:

> And yes, I usually cycle as close to the kerb as possible when on the road as I've been
> side-swiped, and it's not nice and makes me very wary and paranoid.

In general, holding a line close to the kerb is more dangerous - and makes you more likely to get
hit - than holding a steady line 2 or 3 feet from the kerb. There are a number of reasons why this
is the case, including:

- you will be more visible to other drivers;
- they have to perform a conscious manoeuvre to overtake you, they can not just carry on as though
you were not there;
- if anyone does get too close to you, you have enough room to swerve to the left to escape them.
- the road is likely to be much smoother and not full of litter, pot holes and sunken drain covers.

Maybe you've had one or two bad experiences when cycling on the road, I am not disputing that or
trying to make light of it. Accidents happen, and sometimes things go against the odds. Every now
and then, a horse wins at 100:1. You can be cycling in the safest way possible and still be hit.
That doesn't detract from it being the safest way to cycle. And on the road, a reasonable distance
from the kerb¹, is the safest way to cycle.

> Lots of people are quoting stats, but I think stats vary, certainly from country to country, we
> don't really hold a candle to NL and Germany who's cyclist numbers are much higher than ours here
> in the UK, and also from region to region, people drive differently in different areas of the UK.

The Netherlands may well have more cyclists, but that is down to a number of various cultural
factors, including the very flat nature of the land and the small size of the country. Have you
compared accident rates between the countries?

> "Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

And you are still not setting out your messages properly.

¹ This is often called the "Primary Riding Position"

--
Stevie D \\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the \\\\\\\__X__///////
common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs" ___\\\\\\\'/
\'///////_____________________________________________
 
<-- Wide Load --> <[email protected]> wrote:

> Are you the admin?

No, just a regular member of the newsgroup, glad to have rejoined recently after a year's absence.

There is no admin. This is an unmoderated newsgroup with no control, no cabal, no boss, no leader,
nothing. Just lots of people talking about things. But as with most social groups, there are
conventions and guidelines that people are expected to follow. Two of those conventions are:
- only quote what is relevant from the previous message,
- put your reply below the bit you've quoted. These are in place for very good reasons, and are
followed on the majority of newsgroups.

We can't throw you out of the newsgroup if you continue to ignore these rules, and we can't stop you
reading or contributing to it. But if you do continue to ignore them, and in doing so make your
messages more effort to read, you'll find that plenty of people will start ignoring you. If you want
to join in with everyone here, and are prepared to follow the conventions, listen to what people
have to say and act accordingly, you will be very welcome.

--
Stevie D \\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the \\\\\\\__X__///////
common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs" ___\\\\\\\'/
\'///////_____________________________________________
 
"Stephen \(aka steford\)" <[email protected]> writes:

> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> > "<-- Wide Load --> @blueyonder.co.uk>" <apsw07048<nospam> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> snip
>
> I don't know how you ride/walk but I'm quite capable of looking both ways, listening and crossing
> at junctions either on my bike, scooter or walking and I have been so probably since childhood. I
> slow down if there are pedestrians out of courtesy, go faster when there is no-one about - that's
> why I take the bike.

Yes, we know. The world _is_ flat. The earth _is_ the centre of the Universe and the sun and stars
_do_ revolve around it. The earth _was_ created less than 6000 years ago and dinosaurs never
existed. All those pesky scientists who claim differently are just delusional idiots who waste
taxpayers money. And the law _is_ there so that other people will obey it, but you are exempt
because you _know_ _better_, especially about safety.

This is getting just a little tiresome, you know.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; I'll have a proper rant later, when I get the time.
 
Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as "Stephen (aka steford)"
<[email protected]> breathed:

>Personally I see nothing wrong with riding on the pavement or going through a red as long as I'm
>not putting myself or others at risk or inconvenience (which I see daily)

I was going to post a rather spectacular rant in response to this, but I'm abstaining from rants
these days, so suffice it to say that cyclists going through red lights annoys me a little when I'm
in my car, but makes my blood boil when I've stopped legally at the lights on my bike.

You are totally, utterly wrong and your actions bring all cyclists onto disrepute. Please
reconsider.

--
- Pyromancer, speaking for himself. http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk <-- Pagan Gothic Rock!
http://www.littlematchgirl.co.uk <-- Electronic Metal! http://www.revival.stormshadow.com <-- The
Gothic Revival.
 
"Stephen (aka steford)" wrote:
> Russell Fulker wrote:
> > from http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/03.shtml
> >
> > "You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Do not leave your cycle where it would endanger or obstruct
> > road users or pedestrians, for example, lying on the pavement. Use cycle parking facilities
> > where provided. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A sect 129"
>
> I stand corrected. I must tell my 4 year old he has to cycle on the road then.

He can probably get away with it until he reaches the age of criminal responsibility (about 10).

Colin McKenzie
 
Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as "Stephen (aka steford)"
<[email protected]> breathed:

>Because I think it's pretty much OK to ride on the pavement in some circumstances, it's not
>enforced (largely) and I don't consider it hazardous.

Aha - just like all the people in uk.transport who believe speed cameras only exist to raise revenue
and that speeding is perfectly safe? They tend to use almost exactly the same arguments you do,
especially the "I don't consider it hazardous" one.

--
- Pyromancer, speaking for himself. http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk <-- Pagan Gothic Rock!
http://www.littlematchgirl.co.uk <-- Electronic Metal! http://www.revival.stormshadow.com <-- The
Gothic Revival.
 
Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Roger Barker
<[email protected]> breathed:

>In article <[email protected]>, Adrian Boliston
><[email protected]> writes
>>"Peter Connolly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> http://makeashorterlink.com/?T2F8324D5
>>>
>>> ...tolerance to all road users, eh?
>>>
>>> I'm waiting to see what the local cycling groups response is.
>>
>>Not exactly "anti-cycling", as there are still too many cyclists who ignore red lights and cycle
>>on pavements!
>
>It's definitely anti-cyclist, and contains an implied threat - "So come on you arrogant cyclists -
>obey the laws of the road or you will be sorry."

That's not a threat, it's just a statement of fact when some idiot shoots through a red light only
to find a 38 ton truck doing 40mph (quite legally on a dual carriageway) bearing down on them from a
couple of feet away.

It's quite possible to be every bit as idiotic and suicidal on a bike as it is in a souped-up
boy-racer mobile, it just tends to be quieter and do less damage to whatever eventually hits you.

--
- Pyromancer, speaking for himself. http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk <-- Pagan Gothic Rock!
http://www.littlematchgirl.co.uk <-- Electronic Metal! http://www.revival.stormshadow.com <-- The
Gothic Revival.
 
Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as "<-- Wide Load -->"
<apsw07048@?.?.co.uk.invalid> breathed:

>No way! You can't tell me that me running into a pedestrian with my bike will kill them..

Why not? Riding a bike into someone and throwing them violently to the ground is highly likely to
kill them. Though they might escape with just permanent brain damage and the next six years in a
coma until the life support is switched off.

--
- Pyromancer, speaking for himself. http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk <-- Pagan Gothic Rock!
http://www.littlematchgirl.co.uk <-- Electronic Metal! http://www.revival.stormshadow.com <-- The
Gothic Revival.
 
Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Gary Sinnott
<[email protected]> breathed:

>"So come on you arrogant cyclists - obey the laws of the road or you will be sorry."
>
>Oh, righto. I spose I must defer to quite a few arrogant motorists/bikers and one or two peds too.
>Granted there are some right ****'eads on bikes these days but what is he saying - **** him off and
>he'll run ya down, or what?

I didn't read it that way at all, to me it was "if those cyclists who ignore the rules keep on
riding the way they are now, sooner or later they'll either get flattened by a truck they didn't
see, or kill someone's granny they also didn't see".

--
- Pyromancer, speaking for himself. http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk <-- Pagan Gothic Rock!
http://www.littlematchgirl.co.uk <-- Electronic Metal! http://www.revival.stormshadow.com <-- The
Gothic Revival.
 
Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as "<-- Wide Load -->"
<apsw07048@?.?.co.uk.invalid> breathed:

>ok, ok, I wil get the book. :)
>
>And yes, I usually cycle as close to the kerb as possible when on the road as I've been
>side-swiped, and it's not nice and makes me very wary and paranoid.

There's your problem. If you try and creep along in the gutter, then motorists coming up behind
think there's plenty of room and try and squeeze past, with unpleasant results.

Move out into the carriageway proper, which is where you *should* be, and drivers will take more
notice of your presence.

Finally, will you *please* start snipping bits you're not replying to, and answering *underneath*
the previous post instead of on top of it? Ta!

--
- Pyromancer, speaking for himself. http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk <-- Pagan Gothic Rock!
http://www.littlematchgirl.co.uk <-- Electronic Metal! http://www.revival.stormshadow.com <--
The Gothic Revival.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Pyromancer
<[email protected]> writes
>Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Gary Sinnott <[email protected]>
>breathed:
>
>>"So come on you arrogant cyclists - obey the laws of the road or you will be sorry."
>>
>>Oh, righto. I spose I must defer to quite a few arrogant motorists/bikers and one or two peds too.
>>Granted there are some right ****'eads on bikes these days but what is he saying - **** him off
>>and he'll run ya down, or what?
>
>I didn't read it that way at all, to me it was "if those cyclists who ignore the rules keep on
>riding the way they are now, sooner or later they'll either get flattened by a truck they didn't
>see, or kill someone's granny they also didn't see".

Wow! That's some paraphrasing! Maybe you should take a breather from posting in this thread and go
and read it again...

--
Roger Barker [email protected] Boston, UK
 
Peter Clinch wrote: .....
> You say you never cycle on main roads so it would appear to be the case that your opinions are
> based on perception rather than the direct experience of doing it. That's not a very sound basis
> for concrete conclusions if you think about it. And nor is anecdotal evidence: you really do
> have to look at the bigger picture and statistics have a track record of being the best way of
> doing that.
>

Or, more briefly still: Perceived danger and actual danger are two different things. Read Cyclecraft
or go on a good training course (free if you live in Acton, which someone mentioned), to reduce the
one that matters.

Colin McKenzie
 
> No, just a regular member of the newsgroup, glad to have rejoined recently after a year's absence.
>
> There is no admin. This is an unmoderated newsgroup with no control, no cabal, no boss, no leader,
> nothing. Just lots of people talking about things. But as with most social groups, there are
> conventions and guidelines that people are expected to follow. Two of those conventions are:
> - only quote what is relevant from the previous message,
> - put your reply below the bit you've quoted. These are in place for very good reasons, and are
> followed on the majority of newsgroups.
>
> We can't throw you out of the newsgroup if you continue to ignore these rules, and we can't stop
> you reading or contributing to it. But if you do continue to ignore them, and in doing so make
> your messages more effort to read, you'll find that plenty of people will start ignoring you. If
> you want to join in with everyone here, and are prepared to follow the conventions, listen to what
> people have to say and act accordingly, you will be very welcome.
>
> --
> Stevie D \\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the \\\\\\\__X__///////
> common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs" ___\\\\\\\'/
> \'///////_____________________________________________

OK, Thanks, Will endevour not to **** people off.
 
On Tue, 9 Sep, Pyromancer <[email protected]> wrote:
> Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as "<-- Wide Load -->"
> <apsw07048@?.?.co.uk.invalid> breathed:
>
> >No way! You can't tell me that me running into a pedestrian with my bike will kill them..
>
> Why not? Riding a bike into someone and throwing them violently to the ground is highly likely to
> kill them.

Absolutely, that's why the death rate in bicycle-pedestrian collisions is so high. Yeah, I mean,
some years there's a whole one pedestrian killed like that.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 10:02:56 +0100 someone who may be [email protected] (marc) wrote this:-

>" <-- Wide Load --> wrote:
>
>> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
>FFS

Agreed. I think that tells us all that we need to know.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
 
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 12:27:53 +0100 someone who may be "<-- Wide Load -->"
<apsw07048<nospam>@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote this:-

>In the West of Scotland where I live drivers are particularly mental and have verly little respect
>for the cyclist.

I think you now need to tell us which part of the West of Scotland you are referring to.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
 
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 09:25:25 +0100 someone who may be "<-- Wide Load -->"
<apsw07048<nospam>@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote this:-

>A tractor on the other hand would pull over from time to time to let traffic past.

Fascinating.

>I don't know what kind of roads you cycle on, but I'm sure if you cycled the roads I'm talking
>about, YOUR digestion system would be working a little overtime.

You don't know whether I cycle at all. It makes little difference to the discussion.

>Reasonably safe isn't good enough.

Sorry, but reasonably safe is the only thing on offer on earth. To claim otherwise is to venture
into the territory of party politicians, journalists and groups that claim to represent survivors of
train crashes.

I can only guarantee two things, neither of which are to do with cycling.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
 
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 19:51:27 +0100, Roger Barker <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, Pyromancer
><[email protected]> writes
>>Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Gary Sinnott <[email protected]>
>>breathed:
>>
>>>"So come on you arrogant cyclists - obey the laws of the road or you will be sorry."
>>>
>>>Oh, righto. I spose I must defer to quite a few arrogant motorists/bikers and one or two peds
>>>too. Granted there are some right ****'eads on bikes these days but what is he saying - **** him
>>>off and he'll run ya down, or what?
>>
>>I didn't read it that way at all, to me it was "if those cyclists who ignore the rules keep on
>>riding the way they are now, sooner or later they'll either get flattened by a truck they didn't
>>see, or kill someone's granny they also didn't see".
>
>Wow! That's some paraphrasing! Maybe you should take a breather from posting in this thread and go
>and read it again...

Da! The way the letter reads is that all cyclists are to be tarred with the same brush - we're all
arrogant and therefore, by implication, **** road users - therefore we must take care not to incur
the wrath of the always perfect letter writer.

Take his car away from him for a month. Make him spend two weeks of his travelling on a bike, two
weeks on foot. Then ask him if he still thinks the same way.

Gary

--------------------------------------------------
Reply to gary <at> data <dot> mildenhall <dot> com
--------------------------------------------------
 
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 14:53:58 +0100, "Stephen \(aka steford\)"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>PK wrote:
>> "Stephen (aka steford)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Peter Clinch wrote:
>>>> Roger Barker wrote:
>>
>>> Personally I see nothing wrong with riding on the pavement or going through a red as long as I'm
>>> not putting myself or others at risk or inconvenience (which I see daily)
>>
>>
>> What is your view of a motorist driving up to a pelican crossing that turns red but there is
>> no-0ne in sight?
>>
>> Is it legitimate for him to sail through the red light?
>>
>Well it's illegal and he could be stopped for doing so if seen. However there is no danger so it's
>not that big a deal. Personally I wouldn't do it but wouldn't particularly care if someone did
>under the circumstances you describe above. There is far worse than this at every set of traffic
>lights in the UK every hour of the day which goes largely unpunished and is far more
>dangerous/inconvenient.
>

The bigger problem with this is that people who would start to skip empty reds are more likely to do
it on a regular basis - which would then follow by conditioned reflex that they may just forget that
people can go splat and do it when there are people on the crossing.

"Bad habits" & all that. Once you start it can be hell to stop.

Gary

--------------------------------------------------
Reply to gary <at> data <dot> mildenhall <dot> com
--------------------------------------------------
 
Status
Not open for further replies.