Motorist letter in local rag

[Mark]

Hi,

<rant>After I got home yesterday after two motorists overtook me only
giving about 2 inches of room I read the local rag where some ****hole
had written a letter saying that cyclists should be fined for cycling
on the road if there is a cycle route.

I know it's not worth getting annoyed but I get harrassed every day by
aggressive motorists who cannot wait 1 second to overtake me safely so
just drive straight at me.</rant>

(I just wanted to get this off my chest) M.

 

[bugbear]

Mark wrote:
> Hi,
>
> <rant>After I got home yesterday after two motorists overtook me only
> giving about 2 inches of room I read the local rag where some ****hole
> had written a letter saying that cyclists should be fined for cycling
> on the road if there is a cycle route.

As long as motorists can be fined for using rat runs
and town centres where "better" approved routes
exist...

BugBear

 

[Nuxx Bar]

On Apr 11, 12:55 pm, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim>
wrote:
> Mark wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> > <rant>After I got home yesterday after two motorists overtook me only
> > giving about 2 inches of room I read the local rag where some ****hole
> > had written a letter saying that cyclists should be fined for cycling
> > on the road if there is a cycle route.
>
> As long as motorists can be fined for using rat runs
> and town centres where "better" approved routes
> exist...

"Rat run" is a malicious term used by anti-car zealots, not that there
are any of them on this group, just people who have all the same
opinions as them, like Chapman.

 

[Nuxx Bar]

On Apr 11, 12:32 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
> <rant>After I got home yesterday after two motorists overtook me only
> giving about 2 inches of room I read the local rag where some ****hole
> had written a letter saying that cyclists should be fined for cycling
> on the road if there is a cycle route.

I don't agree that that should ever happen, and far too many cycle
lanes are unusable for one reason or another. But just out of
interest, if there's a cycle route which is easily accessible, on the
right side, safe, of a good standard and just as flat and direct as
the road (if not more so), why would a cyclist elect not to use it
unless he was trying to make some point like "I'm proper traffic and
I'm not going to get out of the way of motorists even if it would make
it easier for me as well"?

No-one's saying cyclists are "second class road users", but if a good
quality, useful, fully usable cycle lane has been built at the
taxpayer's expense, then surely only a cyclist with a chip on their
shoulder would still bring themselves into conflict with other traffic
by using the road. As with red light jumpers and idiotic motorist-
hating nutters, it's cyclists like that which give other cyclists a
bad press.

 

[Ian Smith]

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 12:32 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
> > <rant>After I got home yesterday after two motorists overtook me only
> > giving about 2 inches of room I read the local rag where some ****hole
> > had written a letter saying that cyclists should be fined for cycling
> > on the road if there is a cycle route.
>
> I don't agree that that should ever happen, and far too many cycle
> lanes are unusable for one reason or another. But just out of
> interest, if there's a cycle route which is easily accessible, on the
> right side, safe, of a good standard and just as flat and direct as
> the road (if not more so), why would a cyclist elect not to use it

In order to ride one of the pigs flying overhead?

Personally I don't use them because I have never in my life seen such
a facility.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Daniel Barlow]

Ian Smith <[email protected]> writes:

>> I don't agree that that should ever happen, and far too many cycle
>> lanes are unusable for one reason or another. But just out of
>> interest, if there's a cycle route which is easily accessible, on the
>> right side, safe, of a good standard and just as flat and direct as
>> the road (if not more so), why would a cyclist elect not to use it
>
> In order to ride one of the pigs flying overhead?

Riding the pig is probably a better idea. Even if this mythical cycle
route does exist somewhere, it probably has a van illegally parked in it.


-dan

 

[Nuxx Bar]

On Apr 11, 1:36 pm, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Apr 11, 12:32 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > <rant>After I got home yesterday after two motorists overtook me only
> > > giving about 2 inches of room I read the local rag where some ****hole
> > > had written a letter saying that cyclists should be fined for cycling
> > > on the road if there is a cycle route.
>
> > I don't agree that that should ever happen, and far too many cycle
> > lanes are unusable for one reason or another. But just out of
> > interest, if there's a cycle route which is easily accessible, on the
> > right side, safe, of a good standard and just as flat and direct as
> > the road (if not more so), why would a cyclist elect not to use it
>
> In order to ride one of the pigs flying overhead?
>
> Personally I don't use them because I have never in my life seen such
> a facility.

If that's the case then fair enough. It's a poor state of affairs
though.

 

[Duncan Smith]

>
> No-one's saying cyclists are "second class road users", but if a good
> quality, useful, fully usable cycle lane has been built at the
> taxpayer's expense, then surely only a cyclist with a chip on their
> shoulder would still bring themselves into conflict with other traffic
> by using the road.

Cycle-lanes collect debris that cause punctures. Cycle-lanes cause
increased danger to cyclists at every single junction. Do you put
yourself into conflict with lorries or heavyplant just beceause you
share the same road space?

Regards,

Duncan

 

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 05:08:48 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Nuxx Bar
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>"Rat run" is a malicious term used by anti-car zealots

Nice try.

I refer readers to
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/surrey/7304326.stm>

'County councillor David Munro said residents had complained about
the problem and the action was being taken to keep them safe.

'The executive member for transport added: "Moushill Lane is a
street with families and young children living in it.'

Presumably all these residents are anti-car zealots? I doubt it.

Next contestant please.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[Nuxx Bar]

On Apr 11, 5:21 pm, David Hansen <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 05:08:48 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Nuxx Bar
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
> >"Rat run" is a malicious term used by anti-car zealots
>
> Nice try.
>
> I refer readers to
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/surrey/7304326.stm>
>
> 'County councillor David Munro said residents had complained about
> the problem and the action was being taken to keep them safe.
>
> 'The executive member for transport added: "Moushill Lane is a
> street with families and young children living in it.'
>
> Presumably all these residents are anti-car zealots? I doubt it.
>
> Next contestant please.

You think it's all right to refer to motorists as "rats" just because
they're trying to avoid the most congested routes?

 

[Nuxx Bar]

On Apr 11, 3:46 pm, Duncan Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > No-one's saying cyclists are "second class road users", but if a good
> > quality, useful, fully usable cycle lane has been built at the
> > taxpayer's expense, then surely only a cyclist with a chip on their
> > shoulder would still bring themselves into conflict with other traffic
> > by using the road.
>
> Cycle-lanes collect debris that cause punctures. Cycle-lanes cause
> increased danger to cyclists at every single junction. Do you put
> yourself into conflict with lorries or heavyplant just beceause you
> share the same road space?

So you'd rather not have the lanes at all? Presumably you'd agree
that if people aren't going to use them then they're a waste of money.

And if they collect debris, then the ones that are marked on the road
are also a needless PITA for non-cyclist traffic, since they
effectively narrow the road for no reason.

 

[bugbear]

Nuxx Bar wrote:
> On Apr 11, 1:36 pm, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Apr 11, 12:32 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> <rant>After I got home yesterday after two motorists overtook me only
>>>> giving about 2 inches of room I read the local rag where some ****hole
>>>> had written a letter saying that cyclists should be fined for cycling
>>>> on the road if there is a cycle route.
>>> I don't agree that that should ever happen, and far too many cycle
>>> lanes are unusable for one reason or another. But just out of
>>> interest, if there's a cycle route which is easily accessible, on the
>>> right side, safe, of a good standard and just as flat and direct as
>>> the road (if not more so), why would a cyclist elect not to use it
>> In order to ride one of the pigs flying overhead?
>>
>> Personally I don't use them because I have never in my life seen such
>> a facility.
>
> If that's the case then fair enough. It's a poor state of affairs
> though.

Oh, well spotted.

BugBear

 

[bugbear]

Nuxx Bar wrote:
>
> So you'd rather not have the lanes at all? Presumably you'd agree
> that if people aren't going to use them then they're a waste of money.

Absolutely. You're getting there slowly.

Poor cycle lanes are no use and (therefore) a waste of money.

Good cycle lanes are rare.

BugBear

 

[GeoffC]

Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> You think it's all right to refer to motorists as "rats" just
> because
> they're trying to avoid the most congested routes?

They are not being referred to as rats anymore than pedestrians using
a crossing could be called zebras.

--

Geoff

 

[Sir Jeremy]

On 11 Apr, 12:32, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> <rant>After I got home yesterday after two motorists overtook me only
> giving about 2 inches of room I read the local rag where some ****hole
> had written a letter saying that cyclists should be fined for cycling
> on the road if there is a cycle route.
>
> I know it's not worth getting annoyed but I get harrassed every day by
> aggressive motorists who cannot wait 1 second to overtake me safely so
> just drive straight at me.</rant>
>
> (I just wanted to get this off my chest) M.


You wouldn't get harrassed or annoyed if you used the cycle route
then, assuming there is one.

 

[burtthebike]

"Nuxx Bar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:cd15147a-d443-4deb-944f-ed1fb761d5f0@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 11, 5:21 pm, David Hansen <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 05:08:48 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Nuxx Bar
>> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>> Next contestant please.
>
> You think it's all right to refer to motorists as "rats" just because
> they're trying to avoid the most congested routes?

True. It is unnecessarily polite.

 

[Simon Mason]

"Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi,
>
> <rant>After I got home yesterday after two motorists overtook me only
> giving about 2 inches of room I read the local rag where some ****hole
> had written a letter saying that cyclists should be fined for cycling
> on the road if there is a cycle route.
>
> I know it's not worth getting annoyed but I get harrassed every day by
> aggressive motorists who cannot wait 1 second to overtake me safely so
> just drive straight at me.</rant>
>
> (I just wanted to get this off my chest) M.

I'm past the stage where I give a toss anymore. As long as they don't hit
me, which so far none has, then I don't care. I'm fit and strong that's all
that matters. Drivers who don't want you on "their" road aren't going to go
away I'm afraid.


--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/

 

[Ian Smith]

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 1:36 pm, Ian Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Apr 11, 12:32 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > <rant>After I got home yesterday after two motorists overtook me only
> > > > giving about 2 inches of room I read the local rag where some ****hole
> > > > had written a letter saying that cyclists should be fined for cycling
> > > > on the road if there is a cycle route.
> >
> > > I don't agree that that should ever happen, and far too many cycle
> > > lanes are unusable for one reason or another. But just out of
> > > interest, if there's a cycle route which is easily accessible, on the
> > > right side, safe, of a good standard and just as flat and direct as
> > > the road (if not more so), why would a cyclist elect not to use it
> >
> > In order to ride one of the pigs flying overhead?
> >
> > Personally I don't use them because I have never in my life seen such
> > a facility.
>
> If that's the case then fair enough. It's a poor state of affairs
> though.

No **** Sherlock.

--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Ian Smith]

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 3:46 pm, Duncan Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > No-one's saying cyclists are "second class road users", but if a good
> > > quality, useful, fully usable cycle lane has been built at the
> > > taxpayer's expense, then surely only a cyclist with a chip on their
> > > shoulder would still bring themselves into conflict with other traffic
> > > by using the road.
> >
> > Cycle-lanes collect debris that cause punctures. Cycle-lanes cause
> > increased danger to cyclists at every single junction. Do you put
> > yourself into conflict with lorries or heavyplant just beceause you
> > share the same road space?
>
> So you'd rather not have the lanes at all? Presumably you'd agree
> that if people aren't going to use them then they're a waste of money.

I'd rather not have them even if they were free - they are bad for
numerous reasons, the fact that they cost tax money for no gain is a
relatively minor one.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[Simon Mason]

"Nuxx Bar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> I don't agree that that should ever happen, and far too many cycle
> lanes are unusable for one reason or another. But just out of
> interest, if there's a cycle route which is easily accessible, on the
> right side, safe, of a good standard and just as flat and direct as
> the road (if not more so), why would a cyclist elect not to use it
> unless he was trying to make some point like "I'm proper traffic and
> I'm not going to get out of the way of motorists even if it would make
> it easier for me as well"?
>

I use an off road cycle path on my commute as it happens to link two roads
closed to motor vehicles. It is only about 500 metres long but I end up
walking most of it due to the fact that the local yobbos tend to think it is
amusing to coat it with lots of green glass shards.

When I first stated cycling to work 10 years ago I'd use the off road tracks
all the time and it took maybe an hour to get to work. Now I ride a road
bike and have more confidence I stick to the roads and can do it in half the
time.

--
Simon Mason
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/