SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[Tom]

Here's the roads in question...it is national speed limit...so everyone doing 70 of course.
Who the fuck would use the road with those cycle paths...every morning at least one.

View attachment 34488View attachment 34489

The first one is the Formby Bypass with a modified footway, with blue signs indicating that cyclists may use it. I'd probably use it because I don't trust people not to do stupid shit on roads like that, but tell me, if I did use it, how do I get around this roundabout?

https://goo.gl/maps/f9vrhgbpoVp

In the Netherlands they'd simply build the cycle path around the roundabout and force motorists to cede priority to cyclists (and pedestrians). But in Formby, the path ends and you're left on your own. So how would you do it?

It is not a purpose-built cycle path. Someone got a bit of money and the council simply improved the footway that already existed. They didn't even bother with the shared footway signs, so according to the images on Streetview cyclists aren't actually allowed on there - they'd be breaking the law.

The second one is the coastal road south out of Southport, a road I have cycled down. That "cycle path" is fucking shite. It is narrow as hell (barely 2 feet in places) and bumpy as fuck. It's a very thin bit of asphalt laid directly over tree roots and all manner of shit. There are numerous obstacles and dangers to avoid, including loose gravel and badly-finished roadworks. When you encounter a pedestrian, one of you has to go onto the grass - there isn't enough room. If you encounter another cyclist, both have to stop. Top speed on that path is about 10-15mph, compared to 20-25mph on the road (depending on wind direction, wind is strong along there).

the cyclepath is immaculate

No, neither are immaculate. They are both shit, but you wouldn't know because you've never tried to ride them.

 

[Job]

Well this is all dragging out a bit and obviously most people use the paths..its the a565 from formby and onto the southport coastal rd...its just those people who do use the road are always lycrad wannabes who think somehow they have earned using the road.

 

[Scouse]

Why does your quote mention slow-moving traffic then? Slow-moving != Stationary waiting for a light to change.

*Ahem*
View attachment 34487

How do they fill up that box then knob jockey?

 

[Job]

The first one is the Formby Bypass with a modified footway, with blue signs indicating that cyclists may use it. I'd probably use it because I don't trust people not to do stupid shit on roads like that, but tell me, if I did use it, how do I get around this roundabout?

https://goo.gl/maps/f9vrhgbpoVp

In the Netherlands they'd simply build the cycle path around the roundabout and force motorists to cede priority to cyclists (and pedestrians). But in Formby, the path ends and you're left on your own. So how would you do it?

It is not a purpose-built cycle path. Someone got a bit of money and the council simply improved the footway that already existed. They didn't even bother with the shared footway signs, so according to the images on Streetview cyclists aren't actually allowed on there - they'd be breaking the law.

The second one is the coastal road south out of Southport, a road I have cycled down. That "cycle path" is fucking shite. It is narrow as hell (barely 2 feet in places) and bumpy as fuck. It's a very thin bit of asphalt laid directly over tree roots and all manner of shit. There are numerous obstacles and dangers to avoid, including loose gravel and badly-finished roadworks. When you encounter a pedestrian, one of you has to go onto the grass - there isn't enough room. If you encounter another cyclist, both have to stop. Top speed on that path is about 10-15mph, compared to 20-25mph on the road (depending on wind direction, wind is strong along there).



No, neither are immaculate. They are both shit, but you wouldn't know because you've never tried to ride them.

Oh ffs its nothing like that..ive ridden it loads of times you can see from the pics it rarely goes to 2ft wide and there is practically never pedestrians on it.

 

[Scouse]

Been giving Audible a go, there seems to be something wrong with audio books. I think its because I like to take a break in a book, maybe mid sentence, or scan back a bit.

I love 'em - but only when doing something else. Like driving or riding.

Can't do 'em at home. But then I get 5 or 6 hours a week of audiobook

 

[Tom]

Oh ffs its nothing like that..ive ridden it loads of times you can see from the pics it rarely goes to 2ft wide and there is practically never pedestrians on it.

It is everything like I said. I ride up to 10,000 miles a year, I think I know what I'm talking about.

 

[Tom]

Yay for high-quality purpose-built cycle paths!

https://goo.gl/maps/wGPHevkKgJr

 

[Edmond]

I can't believe after all the years of cycling talk/arguments, that we don't actually have a 'Cycling' thread

 

[Bodhi]

How do they fill up that box then knob jockey?

How many of those boxes do we have in Stafford then dickface?

 

[fettoken]

I can't believe after all the years of cycling talk/arguments, that we don't actually have a 'Cycling' thread

What are you waiting for then? Yesterday, you said tomorrow, so just do it!

 

[CorNokZ]

What are you waiting for then? Yesterday, you said tomorrow, so just do it!

What a motivational speech. You should work for Nike or some shit

 

[Scouse]

How many of those boxes do we have in Stafford then dickface?

Who gives a monkeys if your backward council hasn't rolled out to newer, better, road standards. Those boxes are there to make things safer for cyclists who do the normal, sensible, legal thing - filter to the front of static queues of motor vehicles.

Box or not, only fucked up people would try to deliberately make things harder for more vulnerable road users, instead of enjoying their commute listening to the radio in their climate-controlled motorised armchairs whilst feeling good about the world...

 

[DaGaffer]

Whats that supposed to show? A rare cycle box? I think there are perhaps 2 in town...

Edit. But then we also have a decent cycle network...that cyclists refuse to use, because, reasons, whatever.

I think you're missing the point; if cycle boxes and advanced stop lines exist, by implication that means there's an expectation that cyclists ride to the front of the queue, they would be a waste of time otherwise. And because you can't necessarily see a cycle box or advanced stop line until you get to one, the obvious inference is that cyclists go to the front of all queues.

 

[Scouse]

He's not missing the point @DaGaffer. He's whining like a baby is all. He properly gets it. But a bit like @Job, who hates anything that isn't him, @Raven only really hates people who require him to shake himself out of his inner reverie for the time it takes to overtake on his 3-mile motorised commute.

Oh. And me. He hates me. But that feels good

 

[MYstIC G]

On tomorrow's commute, stand at a busy junction and count the number of motorists who jump red lights. It will be significantly more than you've ever noticed, because you'll actively be looking for them. Also count how many motorists pass the ASL on a junction containing a cycle box - which is exactly the same offence as running a red light. You'll be astounded at the number of drivers who completely disregard the law you appear to hold in such high regard.

Guess whose law-breaking has the most potential for serious injury or death?

Most cyclists obey red lights. You only notice those who don't - hence "most cyclists run red lights". Total bollocks.

It's not total bollocks. Turning to some of the bullshit in your post:

1. I drive in London, 99.9% of drivers to me are absolute batshit crazy idiots who don't obey the rules. I've never said they were somehow better / worse / equivalent to cyclists, that is a comparison you're making. If drivers weren't batshit crazy idiots there wouldn't always be some twat in a 4x4 in the yellow box junction holding up everyone. CGP Grey explains it better:
   View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHzzSao6ypE
   
   
2. Every day since I've posted I've seen cyclists go through red lights. This mornings example was a bird on a cycle near Westminster bridge who jumped three sets in a row. She was wearing a blue coat and an old school high visibility band (over shoulder and around waist). Let me know if you need a better description so you can determine if I actually saw her or not.
3. So if we grade law breaking by severity of injury or death, what would you classify as the "that's ok" speed for me to hit you at? 10mph? 5mph? 17mph? 57mph? Personally I'd suggest we all stick to the "potentially hitting other things is bad so lets not do it at all" system that we currently use.

He sees. Doesnt mean most do. But what he observes. He maybe in cycle bad hotspot. Your getting your tampon in a twist. Remove it and use a moon cup.

Huzah, someone who reads and understands instead of reads and rants.

 

[Scouse]

So if we grade law breaking by severity of injury or death, what would you classify as the "that's ok" speed for me to hit you at? 10mph? 5mph? 17mph? 57mph? Personally I'd suggest we all stick to the "potentially hitting other things is bad so lets not do it at all" system that we currently use.

We do grade law breaking by potential severity of injury or death. That's why West Midlands Police said:

Cyclists don’t cause us problems because they aren’t causing our communities problems

So they don't bother apprehending them for what is, on a bike, a minor infraction.

It's much more serious in a car for a number of reasons, the primary one being that if you hit people you're likely to kill or severely injure.

Now, before you get your knickers in a twist - I agree, we should stick to the "potentially hitting other things is bad" rules. I don't, personally, jump red lights. But saying there's an equivalence in a cyclist jumping a red light to a car is just nonsensical.

 

[Access Denied]

We do grade law breaking by potential severity of injury or death. That's why West Midlands Police said:

So they don't bother apprehending them for what is, on a bike, a minor infraction.

It's much more serious in a car for a number of reasons, the primary one being that if you hit people you're likely to kill or severely injure.

Now, before you get your knickers in a twist - I agree, we should stick to the "potentially hitting other things is bad" rules. I don't, personally, jump red lights. But saying there's an equivalence in a cyclist jumping a red light to a car is just nonsensical.

Doesn't matter though. It's double standards. If you're going to pull over a car for running a red light then you should be pulling over a cyclist too. Just because the risk of injury and collision is lower for cyclist/pedestrian then car/pedestrian doesn't make it any less illegal.

 

[fettoken]

That is just not true and very naive of you to think

 

[Moriath]

That is just not true and very naive of you to think

But it should be the case. Rules of the road apply to everyone equally. And should be enforced as such.

 

[CorNokZ]

I cross red lights on my bike 24/7 and have never been in an accident. Common sense, proper bike lanes and living in a city which accepts that bikes are everywhere and the main form of transportation for thousands of people helps.

 

[Scouse]

It's double standards.

No. It's *appropriate standards* based on the level of risk involved.

Doing 40 in a 30 or 90 in a 30 - speeding's speeding, right?

 

[Job]

Well we can disagree, not pissing everyone off and keeping my personal safety maxed out is my priority.
For some keeping up 25mph at all times is theirs.
To have lorries and half awake van drivers going past you 3ft away at 70mph just so I can go 5mph faster is lunacy to me , but hey..it's your life.

 

[Tom]

It's not total bollocks.

Yes, I'm afraid it is. People going about their business as expected tend not to get noticed. Those who don't, do - which is why you wrote that more cyclists ignore red lights than obey them. Obvious nonsense.

 

[Bodhi]

I cross red lights on my bike 24/7 and have never been in an accident. Common sense, proper bike lanes and living in a city which accepts that bikes are everywhere and the main form of transportation for thousands of people helps.

European cyclists being normal people and not lycra-clad Chris Boardman wannabes trying to shave 0.5s off their morning commute helps as well. I spent last weekend in Amsterdam and saw 2,345,876 people on bikes, and not one specimen of lycra. They were just normal people going about their business - most refreshing.

 

[Gwadien]

@Scouse before you were ranting about the 1 death per year from cyclists.

My point with your statistics is that you seem to be dismissive of the amount of cyclists that have died at their own fault.

Obviously I cant find evidence for cyclists who have been hit by a car whilst jumping red lights and then it being put down as a 'car caused death.'

Using one police forces quote doesn't really cut it for me either, perhaps if you had the Met saying something similar then I'd be more likely to sympathise, but at the moment it very much seems like your argument lacks any real logic (from someone that doesn't drive and occasionally cycles) this conversation seems to consist of the same old cyclist vs drivers argument with no logical points.

 

[Job]

The important statistic is the cyclist vs driver injuries in collisions.

 

[Job]

like this.


View: http://i.imgur.com/zn0HBfx.gifv

 

[gohan]

Job only hates because statistically cyclists are more likely to be Muslim and are riding to the front of the lights to steal his job!

Tbh I have noticed a trend, generally the anti cyclists are also the ones that have zero compassion for people that have had their entire families blown up. They may well not be racist at all. Just out and out equal opportunistic cunts

 

[georgie]

No. It's *appropriate standards* based on the level of risk involved.

Doing 40 in a 30 or 90 in a 30 - speeding's speeding, right?

I'd be amazed if I didn't get pulled over for both. The penalty afterwards might be different but they're both offences for which PC Plod will nab you.

 

[Scouse]

@Scouse before you were ranting about the 1 death per year from cyclists.

My point with your statistics is that you seem to be dismissive of the amount of cyclists that have died at their own fault.

Man. You can tell you studied history and not a science.

Go back and re-read. Specifically the point that directly refutes the 'own fault' thing you brought up that shows cyclists 'compare favourably' to other forms of transport...