Motorist letter in local rag

[Simon Mason]

"Sir Jeremy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ad6a[email protected]...
> 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.

I think motorists should harrass drivers of electric cars as they don't pay
any "road tax". Parp parp - get off my road, you don't pay tax!


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

 

[naked_draughtsman]

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:32:29 +0100, 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.
>
> 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.

There was a similar one in our local paper yesterday from a pedestrian
about being abused by a fat bloke riding on the pavement because the
pedestrian didn't get into the road to let him through. The pedestrian was
rightly annoyed about this.

He also had a dig at some cyclists he'd seen riding the wrong way
down a one way street (again, IMO the writer is right to be miffed).
I've resisted the temptation to send in a reply pointing out hown many
times I've had to take evasive action while driving, riding or walking due
to people driving the wrong way down one way streets!

peter

 

[Don Whybrow]

bugbear wrote:
> Good cycle lanes are rare.

Are there any!

--
Don Whybrow

Sequi Bonum Non Time

A conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking.
(Arthur Bloch)

 

[Martin Dann]

Nuxx Bar 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.

Many cycle lanes encourage bad cycling skills.

e.g. The feeder lanes to ASLs. They encourage cyclists to undertake just
prior to a junction, putting them in danger should the lead vehicle pull
away and not see the cyclist. This is especially bad with lorries.
The cyclist then becomes used to undertaking in this situation, and will
do it when there is not an ASL or feeder lane.

Many cycle lanes are too thin, they encourage cyclists to cycle to close
to the kerb, and also encourage motorists to pass cyclists too closely.
There are many cycle lanes that pass parked cars in the door zone.

There are cycle lanes around here which I think are dangerous, so I
often cycle in the lane to the right. I would cycle closer to the kerb
if the lane was not there.

Take a quick look at
http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/facility-of-the-month/
for some great examples.


To answer your other question, I don't deliberately avoid all cycle
lanes out of principle. I sometimes use them if I feel they are safe.

There are a few off road cycle tracks that I occasionally use, including
the B2B which I often go out of my way to cycle down.

 

[[email protected]]

On Apr 12, 1:29 am, 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?

No, that's terribly unfair. Rats are intelligent social friendly
animals, they'd never willingly spend an hour a day, alone, on the
mundane act of repetitively operating machinery.

I'd say motorists are more like sheep, but that's probably unfair to
sheep. Bah.

James

 

[Jeff]

Nuxx Bar 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
> 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.

One issue I have with cycle lanes, aside from the fact that there are
pitifully few that are worth riding in, is that the few good ones tend
to attract pedestrians, small children, people walking dogs, roller
bladers, etc. I've seen bicycle paths with signs limiting the speed to
10KMH because of safety issues with children and such.

Frankly, if they can provide me with bicycle paths that go where I want
to go (I ride to commute, not just for fun), and are designed to let me
get there safely at a reasonable speed (i.e. as fast as I can ride),
great. Otherwise, save the taxpayers' money.

 

[news.virginmedia.com]

"spindrift" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:f92b[email protected]...
On Apr 11, 3:46 pm, Duncan Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>I fear that the push for cycle lanes will result in cyclists being
>pushed off the road altogether. Those of you who might dismiss such a
>view as paranoia brought on by galloping monoxide poisoning would do
>well to remember the words of Edmund King, of the Automobile
>Association: "I think separating out cyclists [from other traffic] can
>only be good for everyone.

Agreed 100%.

I also believe that cycle lanes are being used as road narrowing schemes,
such as Meadowbank Road between Rotherham and Sheffield. Cycle lane down one
side only, with all new wider central islands, and even wider central
hatching.
Formerly a nice big wide 40mph road safe for everybody, now a cyclist death
trap, which I suspect now meets the criteria to be reduced to 30mph. Thus
meeting the malicious ends of Rotherham Council as part of the bus company
funded M1 Clean Air Corridor Partnership.

We need to be recognised as valid road users, not hived off into
cuddly-wuddly dismount-every-5-yards playground-furniture crazy golf
courses.

 

[news.virginmedia.com]

"Nuxx Bar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:766a[email protected]...
> 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.

Yes. They're a worthless waste of money. Take the lot out now.

Did anyone ever ask cyclists if they wanted a 12 inch wide strip of gutter?
or a weaving chicane ridden, dismount-sign strewn bit of red tarmac with
fences across it, and signs and trees in the middle of it, lined with broken
glass and dog ****?
A contractor will certainly quote £150,000 to build the damn thing. Then
some idiot will give him the money.

Whether I am in my car or on my bike I am a road user. I demand to be
treated with the same respect regardless of my method of transport.

 

[JNugent]

news.virginmedia.com wrote:
> "Nuxx Bar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:766a[email protected]...
>> 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.
>
> Yes. They're a worthless waste of money. Take the lot out now.
>
> Did anyone ever ask cyclists if they wanted a 12 inch wide strip of gutter?
> or a weaving chicane ridden, dismount-sign strewn bit of red tarmac with
> fences across it, and signs and trees in the middle of it, lined with broken
> glass and dog ****?
> A contractor will certainly quote £150,000 to build the damn thing. Then
> some idiot will give him the money.
>
> Whether I am in my car or on my bike I am a road user. I demand to be
> treated with the same respect regardless of my method of transport.

Oddly, and though you might not believe it, you ARE being "treated with
the same respect" as the drivers of motor vehicles.

Take a look at the way that the roads are being sabotaged, more or less
everywhere.

 

[Paul Boyd]

Ian Smith said the following on 11/04/2008 13:36:

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

I do use cycle facilities almost exclusively on my short commute (about
2.5 miles). None are what I would call good, but some bits are actually
not too bad. Depending on my frame of mind at the time I do sometimes
just miss big chunks out and use the roads though.

Mind you, I've moved down to Weston-super-Mare from Kingswood, east of
Bristol, so *any* cycle facility that is even vaguely usable is still a
novelty!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[Ian Smith]

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008, Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:
> Ian Smith said the following on 11/04/2008 13:36:
>
> > Personally I don't use them because I have never in my life seen such
> > a facility.
>
> I do use cycle facilities almost exclusively on my short commute (about
> 2.5 miles). None are what I would call good,

So none meet the criterion being proposed. So you're actually
agreeing with me - you don't use facilities that meet the criterion,
because they don't exist.

You might use other facilities that don't meet the criterion, but
that's a different point. As it happens, I too use a few - on my
former commute there was an off-road cycle track that was narrow, had
blind corners and anti-bicycle gates at each end (yes really - a cycle
path, clearly signed and marked as such with staggered barriers at
each end designed to block bicycles) but which cut off quite a lot of
length and a badly snarled junction, so I used it.

Would the idiots design and build a bypass and put solid bollards at
each end to stop cars driving onto it? I just don't understand where
these 'people' get their ideas.

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

 

[Paul Boyd]

Ian Smith said the following on 12/04/2008 09:23:

> So none meet the criterion being proposed. So you're actually
> agreeing with me

Yes.

> Would the idiots design and build a bypass and put solid bollards at
> each end to stop cars driving onto it? I just don't understand where
> these 'people' get their ideas.

I would love to see a section of road built in the same manner as most
cycle paths are built. Stingers to represent broken glass, chicanes
that make it very difficult to get through, or impossible if you have a
trailer or bigger vehicle, random 6in steps and drops to simulate
"dropped" kerbs, randomly designating a section as footpath to prevent
its legal use by cars, the list could go on!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[dkahn400]

On Apr 11, 5:33 pm, Nuxx Bar <[email protected]> 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.

Yes, absolutely.

--
Dave...

 

[dkahn400]

On Apr 11, 10:46 pm, Martin Dann <[email protected]> wrote:

> To answer your other question, I don't deliberately avoid all cycle
> lanes out of principle. I sometimes use them if I feel they are safe.

Like you I cycle in what I assess to be the best position for any
given situation. This may be in the cycle lane but is more often
outside it.

--
Dave...

 

[soup]

naked_draughtsman wrote:

> He also had a dig at some cyclists he'd seen riding the wrong way
> down a one way street (again, IMO the writer is right to be miffed).

Was this definetly one way for cyclists, even taxi drivers (who [should]
know better) think a one way that applies to them means it CAN'T be two
way for cycles.
a La :-http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=WXk332TgRh4

--
'S rioghal mo dhream
www.cheesesoup.myby.co.uk

 

[Adam Lea]

"soup" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> naked_draughtsman wrote:
>
>> He also had a dig at some cyclists he'd seen riding the wrong way
>> down a one way street (again, IMO the writer is right to be miffed).
>
> Was this definetly one way for cyclists, even taxi drivers (who [should]
> know better) think a one way that applies to them means it CAN'T be two
> way for cycles.
> a La :-http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=WXk332TgRh4
>
> --
> 'S rioghal mo dhream
> www.cheesesoup.myby.co.uk

In that video I don't understand why the cyclist didn't slow down when he
could see the car encroaching on the cycle lane in the distance.

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Ian Smith wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Apr 2008, Paul Boyd <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote:
>> Ian Smith said the following on 11/04/2008 13:36:
>>
>> > Personally I don't use them because I have never in my life seen such
>> > a facility.
>>
>> I do use cycle facilities almost exclusively on my short commute (about
>> 2.5 miles). None are what I would call good,
>
>So none meet the criterion being proposed. So you're actually
>agreeing with me - you don't use facilities that meet the criterion,
>because they don't exist.

There's a picture of some cyclists that meet Nuxx's description here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/gallery/s3_08-09gallery/800/08.jpg

 

[Nuxx Bar]

On Apr 11, 6:56 pm, "burtthebike" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Nuxx Bar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:cd15[email protected]...
>
> > 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.

This is why it's amusing when trolls like you deny that you hate
motorists. "Oh no, I don't hate motorists, just the ones that ever
speed and/or don't always stick to A roads for my convenience and/
or ...". In other words, all motorists. What is the problem with
admitting it?

 

[Nuxx Bar]

On Apr 11, 11:01 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Apr 12, 1:29 am, 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?
>
> No, that's terribly unfair. Rats are intelligent social friendly
> animals, they'd never willingly spend an hour a day, alone, on the
> mundane act of repetitively operating machinery.
>
> I'd say motorists are more like sheep, but that's probably unfair to
> sheep. Bah.

Some of them are, but not all of them. Why would you tar all
motorists with the same brush when you presumably don't like the same
thing being done to cyclists?

 

[Duncan Smith]

>
> 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.

Yes, I would say you're exactly right!