Eccentric, Moi?



Today as usual I cycled to work. In the evening I went to a retiral
function which was being held about 5 miles from the house.
Having considered the options of
1 going in the car and not drinking.
2 going by bus. Involving a 5 min walk followed by a 10 to 40 minute
wait folowed by a 20 minute bus ride, followed by a 10 min walk - total
45 - 75 mintues travel
3 going by train - 20 min walk to station - 20 min train ride, and 15
minute walk or
4 a leisurely cycle 25 minutes

No contest. But eccentric enough for numerous comments from the cagers.
All the comments were friendly enough but they just don't get it.

Iain
 
P

Pinky

Guest
I am doing something similar next Tuesday

The annual Christmas diabetic holier happens to fall on St Nicholas' day --
(I go to the boring monthly meetings to help maintain my dietary efforts and
keep me alive!)
Anyway it is about a 1/2 hr gentle ride (7 miles ish) on the velo along
"death alley" (the A630 into Doncaster) at a quiet time. To go by bus it
would take me at least an hour with a change + a walk. Train is just
impossible - walk - train - walk - wait - bus.
Best of all I shall leave home when all the motorists have cleared the
"rush hour" mauling and return before the chucking out time driver is on
the road (Drink officer -- Not ever -- just help me to stand up - syndrome).

It will also mean that I shall be able to have 2 glasses of a decent claret
( or even house wine) and a cognac after without making myself incapable of
cycling home.

As an aside -- it is quite odd ( funny peculiar) that most people at these
diabetic meetings are all hugely overweight --- as was I, 4 years ago --
and do nothing about it. But dieting is immensely difficult on a long term
basis - I ran a 3 year strict system to get down form 123kg to 90 kg and
now I vary from 80 to 90 kg depending on my cycling season ( down from
spring/summer - increasing in autumn/winter).
BUT it is all about "quality of life" -- one has to enjoy being alive.
I enjoy cycling on my long annual camping tours but most of my daily
"training" runs are a necessary chore - lightened by the odd pleasant
happening -- but so often darkened by crass motorists

I have rambled on too much -- as I often do -- but cycling by night is
frequently safer than cycling by day ( illuminated and reflected in
abundance).

In the end it is quicker, cheaper and ( amazingly) safer on my velo! ( it is
a velocepanther)

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
Remove PSANTISPAM to reply
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Today as usual I cycled to work. In the evening I went to a retiral
> function which was being held about 5 miles from the house.
> Having considered the options of
> 1 going in the car and not drinking.
> 2 going by bus. Involving a 5 min walk followed by a 10 to 40 minute
> wait folowed by a 20 minute bus ride, followed by a 10 min walk - total
> 45 - 75 mintues travel
> 3 going by train - 20 min walk to station - 20 min train ride, and 15
> minute walk or
> 4 a leisurely cycle 25 minutes
>
> No contest. But eccentric enough for numerous comments from the cagers.
> All the comments were friendly enough but they just don't get it.
>
> Iain
>
 
C

Clive George

Guest
"Pinky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

> As an aside -- it is quite odd ( funny peculiar) that most people at these
> diabetic meetings are all hugely overweight --- as was I, 4 years ago --
> and do nothing about it.


I could mention at this point the diabetic nurse's reaction when doing my
exit interview (or whatever it was) after being diagnosed I said I'd be
cycling 4 miles to work and 6 miles back - 'Can't you make it a bit
shorter?' (ans = 'No, I wouldn't make it home').

Since I have subsequently managed a daily 10.75 mile each way cycle commute,
this suggests their concerns were misplaced.

cheers,
clive
 
P

Pinky

Guest
"Clive George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "Pinky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
>> As an aside -- it is quite odd ( funny peculiar) that most people at
>> these diabetic meetings are all hugely overweight --- as was I, 4 years
>> ago -- and do nothing about it.

>
> I could mention at this point the diabetic nurse's reaction when doing my
> exit interview (or whatever it was) after being diagnosed I said I'd be
> cycling 4 miles to work and 6 miles back - 'Can't you make it a bit
> shorter?' (ans = 'No, I wouldn't make it home').
>
> Since I have subsequently managed a daily 10.75 mile each way cycle
> commute, this suggests their concerns were misplaced.
>
> cheers,
> clive
>
>
>
>--



Spot on!
I try to do 20 miles every day ( but fail miserably in winter --- I don't
mind cycling in the cold and wet --- but I don't like starting in those
conditions!)

Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
Remove PSANTISPAM to reply
 
Z

Zog The Undeniable

Guest
[email protected] wrote:

> Today as usual I cycled to work. In the evening I went to a retiral
> function which was being held about 5 miles from the house.
> Having considered the options of
> 1 going in the car and not drinking.
> 2 going by bus. Involving a 5 min walk followed by a 10 to 40 minute
> wait folowed by a 20 minute bus ride, followed by a 10 min walk - total
> 45 - 75 mintues travel
> 3 going by train - 20 min walk to station - 20 min train ride, and 15
> minute walk or
> 4 a leisurely cycle 25 minutes


Cycling after drinking makes you feel as if you're going faster - or is
that just the dark?

BTW, being *drunk* when cycling is an offence but, as a cyclist, you can
legally refuse a breath test, leaving the officers free to devise
amusing ways to test your sobriety.
 
J

John B

Guest
Zog The Undeniable wrote:

>
> BTW, being *drunk* when cycling is an offence but, as a cyclist, you can
> legally refuse a breath test, leaving the officers free to devise
> amusing ways to test your sobriety.


Yep, like making things *very* inconvenient.

It happened to me last year when I was knocked off on a roundabout by a
white van turning left across my path.
The attending police asked me to take a test, saying it was policy in
Hampshire to test *all* road users after a collision.
If I didn't comply I would need to accompany him to the nearest open police
station - 15 miles away, where I may have quite a wait before being attended
to.

As I wanted my tea and was only 300 yards from home, I reluctantly agreed
:-(

John B
 
John B wrote:

> The attending police asked me to take a test, saying it was policy in
> Hampshire to test *all* road users after a collision.
> If I didn't comply I would need to accompany him to the nearest open police
> station - 15 miles away, where I may have quite a wait before being attended
> to.
>
> As I wanted my tea and was only 300 yards from home, I reluctantly agreed



It might be policy to test all drivers but there is no provision in law
to test cylists with a breath test. The breath test was introduced
along with the seperate offence of driving or attempting to drive a
motor vehicle whilst the alchol in the drivers breath, blood or urine
exceeded a set limit.
This was I believe due to the fact that prosecuting drunk drivers
was difficult as it relied on the subjective opinions of the arresting
officers and a medical examination at the station which might take
place hours after the person was arrested.
No set alcohol limit exists for cyclist so there is no power to
breath test them. The thinking might have been that drunk cyclist are
a danger mainly to themselves while drunk drivers kill mainly other
people.
Unless the attending police had reason to believe you were unfit
to cycle through alcohol - ie smelling of alcohol and unsteady on your
feet they would hve no power to take you to a police station.
Sounds like somebody has either misunderstood a policy or the
policy was badly written by somebody who thought all road users were
drivers.
Iain
 
J

John B

Guest
"[email protected]" wrote:

> John B wrote:
>
> > The attending police asked me to take a test, saying it was policy in
> > Hampshire to test *all* road users after a collision.
> > If I didn't comply I would need to accompany him to the nearest open police
> > station - 15 miles away, where I may have quite a wait before being attended
> > to.
> >
> > As I wanted my tea and was only 300 yards from home, I reluctantly agreed

>
> It might be policy to test all drivers but there is no provision in law
> to test cylists with a breath test.


I am very aware of that, but once I pointed that out to the PC I was on sticky
ground as questioning him seemed to wind him up and make him more determined :-(

> Unless the attending police had reason to believe you were unfit
> to cycle through alcohol - ie smelling of alcohol and unsteady on your
> feet they would hve no power to take you to a police station.


Maybe, but I'm sure an overzealous PC trying to look macho would try to conjure
up a reason.
In judging the situation at the time, and with my tea on the table just down the
road, I went for the non-confrontational approach and decided to comply.
Another time I might not and might call their bluff.

> Sounds like somebody has either misunderstood a policy or the
> policy was badly written by somebody who thought all road users were
> drivers


I actually agree with breath-testing cyclists, and see no real problem with it.
Whilst I would support its introduction I do strongly object to the police
imposing such a policy without it being incorporated into the law.
It just strengthens the perception that the police take the law into their own
hands.

The police are not the law-makers, simply the enforcers.

What will be next?

John B
 
S

Simon Brooke

Guest
in message <[email protected]>, John B
('[email protected]') wrote:

>
>
> Zog The Undeniable wrote:
>
>>
>> BTW, being *drunk* when cycling is an offence but, as a cyclist, you
>> can legally refuse a breath test, leaving the officers free to devise
>> amusing ways to test your sobriety.

>
> Yep, like making things *very* inconvenient.
>
> It happened to me last year when I was knocked off on a roundabout by a
> white van turning left across my path.
> The attending police asked me to take a test, saying it was policy in
> Hampshire to test *all* road users after a collision.


Frankly, this seems reasonable to me, and I wish my local police force
had a similar policy. Your judgement is just as impaired by alcohol
whether you are on a bike or in a car, and although you may be less
likely to kill others, causing an accident in which you are the only
fatality is nevertheless not very considerate to the driver involved.
And there's always the possibility that a driver, swerving to miss you,
may kill others.

Cycling under the influence seems to me just as morally indefensible as
driving under the influence.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Sending your money to someone just because they've erected
;; a barrier of obscurity and secrets around the tools you
;; need to use your data does not help the economy or spur
;; innovation. - Waffle Iron Slashdot, June 16th, 2002
 
J

John B

Guest
Simon Brooke wrote:

> in message <[email protected]>, John B
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> > It happened to me last year when I was knocked off on a roundabout by a
> > white van turning left across my path.
> > The attending police asked me to take a test, saying it was policy in
> > Hampshire to test *all* road users after a collision.

>
> Frankly, this seems reasonable to me, and I wish my local police force
> had a similar policy. Your judgement is just as impaired by alcohol
> whether you are on a bike or in a car, and although you may be less
> likely to kill others, causing an accident in which you are the only
> fatality is nevertheless not very considerate to the driver involved.
> And there's always the possibility that a driver, swerving to miss you,
> may kill others.
>
> Cycling under the influence seems to me just as morally indefensible as
> driving under the influence.


I agree entirely and would fully support the introduction of compulsory
testing in *all* road collisions where a vehicle is involved.

What I do object to is the introduction of such measures without the back up
of the law.
For the police to be able to make up 'laws' as they go along, without going
through parliament is dangerous for society.

John B
 
Simon Brooke wrote:



> Cycling under the influence seems to me just as morally indefensible as
> driving under the influence.



Cycling whilst drunk is obviously illegal and morally wrong. But
cycling after a couple of pints when you are not drunk is both legal
and unlikely to cause any problems to either you or any other road
users.
Driving a car after a couple of pints is liable to put most people
slightly over the drink drive limit. This is correctly an offence as
even slight impairment is a serious matter when you are driving a ton
of metal at high speed.
Can anybody quote stats or even single incidents where drunk
cyclists have caused any injuries to other road users?
As to road safety it's a pity legislators don't take other factor
affecting drivers ability to drive ,like mobile phone use, as
seriously. Bring in automatic bans for all mobile phone use when
driving would save lives.
Iain
 
John B wrote:

> Maybe, but I'm sure an overzealous PC trying to look macho would try to conjure
> up a reason.
> In judging the situation at the time, and with my tea on the table just down the
> road, I went for the non-confrontational approach and decided to comply.
> Another time I might not and might call their bluff.


Yes sometimes thats the easiest thing to do. I was once cycling two
abreast on a 4 lane road (both of us in the inside lane) when a police
van pulled alongside us. The driver was going purple in the face
shouting we were causing an obstruction and were not allowed to cycle
two abreast.
I knew he was talking nonsense but took the non confrontational
approach of singling out.
Of course I then took the centre of the lane and traffic still had to
use the outside lane to get past us. This seemed to satisfy him and he
drove on despite the fact any "obstruction" was still there. Not a
good advert for Strathclyde Police.

Iain
 
N

Not Responding

Guest
Simon Brooke wrote:

>
> Cycling under the influence seems to me just as morally indefensible as
> driving under the influence.
>


Eh? There seems to me that there is at least an order of magnitude of
difference in moral reprehensibilty between wobbling on your bike while
****** and driving a tonne of metal when ******.

When you're out riding on country lanes at 2330-ish, do you really fear
the drunk cyclists as much as you fear the drunk drivers?
 
N

Not Responding

Guest
Simon Brooke wrote:

>
> Cycling under the influence seems to me just as morally indefensible as
> driving under the influence.
>


Eh? There seems to me that there is at least an order of magnitude of
difference in moral reprehensibilty between wobbling on your bike while
****** and driving a tonne of metal when ******.

When you're out riding on country lanes at 2330-ish, do you really fear
the drunk cyclists as much as you fear the drunk drivers?
 
W

wafflycat

Guest
"Not Responding" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Simon Brooke wrote:
>
>>
>> Cycling under the influence seems to me just as morally indefensible as
>> driving under the influence.
>>

>
> Eh? There seems to me that there is at least an order of magnitude of
> difference in moral reprehensibilty between wobbling on your bike while
> ****** and driving a tonne of metal when ******.
>
> When you're out riding on country lanes at 2330-ish, do you really fear
> the drunk cyclists as much as you fear the drunk drivers?


As I don't drink alcohol when cycling or driving, I'd be right-royally-upset
if me, in motorist mode for example, was being entirely legal & safe & some
drunk twit on a bicycle cycled out of a side-road into my car whereupon said
drunk cyclist killed or injured his/herself and it would be through no fault
of mine... There is no excuse of being drunk in charge of either cycle or
motor IMO.

Cheers, helen s
 
J

James Annan

Guest
wafflycat wrote:
>
> "Not Responding" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
>> Simon Brooke wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Cycling under the influence seems to me just as morally indefensible as
>>> driving under the influence.
>>>

>>
>> Eh? There seems to me that there is at least an order of magnitude of
>> difference in moral reprehensibilty between wobbling on your bike
>> while ****** and driving a tonne of metal when ******.
>>
>> When you're out riding on country lanes at 2330-ish, do you really
>> fear the drunk cyclists as much as you fear the drunk drivers?

>
>
> As I don't drink alcohol when cycling or driving, I'd be
> right-royally-upset if me, in motorist mode for example, was being
> entirely legal & safe & some drunk twit on a bicycle cycled out of a
> side-road into my car whereupon said drunk cyclist killed or injured
> his/herself and it would be through no fault of mine... There is no
> excuse of being drunk in charge of either cycle or motor IMO.
>


Do you think it is ok to drink and walk? How about "drunk in charge of a
sofa"? I could potentially be right-royally-upset if some ****** git
spilt a pint on me while I was minding my own business, but I hope I
would be able to keep a sense of proportion about it.

James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/
 
A

Al C-F

Guest
Simon Brooke wrote:

>
> Cycling under the influence seems to me just as morally indefensible as
> driving under the influence.
>


What a silly and sanctimonious thing to write. Have some sense of
proportion.
 
N

Not Responding

Guest
wafflycat wrote:
>
> "Not Responding" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
>> Simon Brooke wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Cycling under the influence seems to me just as morally indefensible as
>>> driving under the influence.
>>>

>>
>> Eh? There seems to me that there is at least an order of magnitude of
>> difference in moral reprehensibilty between wobbling on your bike
>> while ****** and driving a tonne of metal when ******.
>>
>> When you're out riding on country lanes at 2330-ish, do you really
>> fear the drunk cyclists as much as you fear the drunk drivers?

>
>
> As I don't drink alcohol when cycling or driving, I'd be
> right-royally-upset if me, in motorist mode for example, was being
> entirely legal & safe & some drunk twit on a bicycle cycled out of a
> side-road into my car whereupon said drunk cyclist killed or injured
> his/herself and it would be through no fault of mine... There is no
> excuse of being drunk in charge of either cycle or motor IMO.


Ah, yes. The ABD's favourite drink related stat; X% of peds killed on
the road are over the drink drive limit.

Curiously, they never cite the fact that out of ped/driver/car
passenger/m'cyclist fatalities, cyclists have the lowest average blood
alcohol.
 
W

wafflycat

Guest
"Not Responding" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> wafflycat wrote:


>> As I don't drink alcohol when cycling or driving, I'd be
>> right-royally-upset if me, in motorist mode for example, was being
>> entirely legal & safe & some drunk twit on a bicycle cycled out of a
>> side-road into my car whereupon said drunk cyclist killed or injured
>> his/herself and it would be through no fault of mine... There is no
>> excuse of being drunk in charge of either cycle or motor IMO.

>
> Ah, yes. The ABD's favourite drink related stat; X% of peds killed on the
> road are over the drink drive limit.
>
> Curiously, they never cite the fact that out of ped/driver/car
> passenger/m'cyclist fatalities, cyclists have the lowest average blood
> alcohol.


I didn't mention stats at all. I simply said that I don't think there's any
excuse for being drunk in charge of cycle or motor. I'm not excusing any
group.

Cheers, helen s
 
S

Sandy Morton

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
wafflycat <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote:
> I didn't mention stats at all. I simply said that I don't think
> there's any excuse for being drunk in charge of cycle or motor. I'm
> not excusing any group.


Stats don't come into the equation - nobody should drink and drive
anything with wheels or hooves. If you stagger off the pavement it's
your own fault.

--
T h e - e x t e n d e r ! ! ! !
 

Similar threads