Illegal parking in cycle lanes - name and shame

thelawnet

liam8282 wrote: »

Does not agree to what the author of cyclecraft has to say:

"Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles"

Your own comparison is just idiotic.

You've missed the point, quite spectacularly.

Bad driving is MUCH more serious than bad cycling.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1199644.stm

And half the time you are saying that Cyclecraft is just a book and people should follow the Highway Code, and now you are using it when it suits you?

FWIW, I agree that cyclists should behave much like a car should, but that doesn't mean I see ANY comparison between a motorist overtaking on a blind bend, risking my life, and a cyclist (maybe) risking his own.

I am not at all defensive and have not made any such remark or suggestion. Strawman?

You seem to be awfully defensive. Why have you appointed yourself defender of all drivers on this thread?

thread where cyclists are here for the sole purpose of complaining about everything that is driving.

You what????

Let's just look back over the thread.

Posts #1 - 12 - about parking in cycle lanes
Post #13-34 Some idiot motorist starts blathering on about 'road tax', this continues for some time, then:
Post #35 You say cyclists should have insurance, that we need an inconsiderate cyclists thread, that they should ride in single file, and that it's like the TdF near you on weekends.

And then it's continued from there

So a perfectly civil discussion on ONE specific issue relating to cycling, namely motor vehicles parking in them, has been hijacked by YOU, and you reckon this is a thread about cyclists complaining about all things driving? :rotfl::rotfl:

Nope, the reality is it's impossible to have a conversation about ANYTHING affecting cyclists in here without some motorist with a room temperature IQ saying something along the line of 'but cyclists do this' or 'cyclists should pay road tax/have insurance'.

rev_henry

Dave_C wrote: »

Please can we stay on-topic. The title of this thread is "Illegal parking in cycle lanes - name and shame".

As is usual with cycling threads, there is a lot of animosity shown from motorists to cyclists (and in some cases, vice versa) and it has degenerated into pointless arguments about semantics. This does nothing to getting motorists to understand the problems of cyclists and vice versa.

As a car driver and a cyclist I ask again, please stay on topic.

Dave

thelawnet wrote: »

Let's just look back over the thread.

Posts #1 - 12 - about parking in cycle lanes
Post #13-34 Some idiot motorist starts blathering on about 'road tax', this continues for some time, then:
Post #35 You say cyclists should have insurance, that we need an inconsiderate cyclists thread, that they should ride in single file, and that it's like the TdF near you on weekends.

And then it's continued from there

So a perfectly civil discussion on ONE specific issue relating to cycling, namely motor vehicles parking in them, has been hijacked by YOU, and you reckon this is a thread about cyclists complaining about all things driving? :rotfl::rotfl:

Nope, the reality is it's impossible to have a conversation about ANYTHING affecting cyclists in here without some motorist with a room temperature IQ saying something along the line of 'but cyclists do this' or 'cyclists should pay road tax/have insurance'.

Thank you :T

liam8282

thelawnet wrote: »

You've missed the point, quite spectacularly.

Bad driving is MUCH more serious than bad cycling.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1199644.stm

And half the time you are saying that Cyclecraft is just a book and people should follow the Highway Code, and now you are using it when it suits you?

FWIW, I agree that cyclists should behave much like a car should, but that doesn't mean I see ANY comparison between a motorist overtaking on a blind bend, risking my life, and a cyclist (maybe) risking his own.

No you would much rather make a comparison between a child and a 747 crashing into the sea. !!!!!!?

thelawnet wrote: »

You seem to be awfully defensive. Why have you appointed yourself defender of all drivers on this thread?

Again, I am not defensive. There are bad drivers, just as there are bad cyclists.

thelawnet wrote: »

You what????

Let's just look back over the thread.

Posts #1 - 12 - about parking in cycle lanes
Post #13-34 Some idiot motorist starts blathering on about 'road tax', this continues for some time, then:
Post #35 You say cyclists should have insurance, that we need an inconsiderate cyclists thread, that they should ride in single file, and that it's like the TdF near you on weekends.

And then it's continued from there

So a perfectly civil discussion on ONE specific issue relating to cycling, namely motor vehicles parking in them, has been hijacked by YOU, and you reckon this is a thread about cyclists complaining about all things driving? :rotfl::rotfl:

TYPING IN A LARGER FONT DOES NOT MAKE YOUR POINT ANYMORE RELEVANT.

Especially when you are doing exactly what you are complaining about. Ironic.

thelawnet wrote: »

Nope, the reality is it's impossible to have a conversation about ANYTHING affecting cyclists in here without some motorist with a room temperature IQ saying something along the line of 'but cyclists do this' or 'cyclists should pay road tax/have insurance'.

I made a brief remark that cyclists should have insurance. An honest off the cuff remark, and it has caused such a reaction.

So my nextdoor neighbour for example, hasn't ridden a bike since he was 7, he can go to Halfords buy a bike and call himself a cyclist. Doesn't know his handle bars from his seat. Doesn't know the first thing about riding a bike on the road.

Now are you still telling me that all cyclists are good?

You are just ignoring the basic point I have made over and over again, there are good and bad cyclists, there are good and bad drivers.

There is no argument from me. :A

Just aggression from defensive cyclists. :mad:

Dave_C_2

It appears that some posters have gone past pointless arguments about semantics and are now engaged in an equally pointless shouting match.:(

Please stay on topic.

Cue further discussions about this post being off-topic. :-)

Dave

gadgetmind

liam8282 wrote: »

Doesn't know his handle bars from his seat. Doesn't know the first thing about riding a bike on the road.

He still stands a good chance of knowing more about it than a few people around here ...

PrincessButtercup

liam8282 wrote: »

Yes, The Highway Code is all lies.

No - the Highway Code is a summary of various pieces of legislation pertaining to the roads and highways, and a mish-mash collection of advice and suggested practice. Many of the sections on cycling, for example, are populated with advice that has little, or no, bearing in law, and in some cases are bad practice.

liam8282 wrote: »

Each of these stories agree to what I said, The Highway Code are the rules, anything else is a guide, advice or a recommendation.

The Highway Code is a guide, advice or recommendation. It references the rules. Much as Cyclecraft references the rules. One of these publications, however, is based on research into best practice for cyclists.

liam8282

Princess buttercup - if you have ever read the highway code, which is a requirement for drivers if they want to pass their theory test, you will see that many of the points are in fact law under the RTA.

As their is no such requirement for cyclists to have any such knowledge before taking to the roads, I can understand why so many people on here object to my mention of it.

liam8282

Also, I wonder where the people who have posted pictures of people parked legally, then further pictures of their homes etc. would stand if these people found out and decided to take action against them, and even this website?

I mean google maps can't even post a picture without blurring all faces and numbers, yet this website now has pictures of people's cars, number plates, cars in their drives, even when they are parked legally.

gadgetmind

liam8282 wrote: »

if these people found out and decided to take action

What action would that be?

http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/government/constitutional_law/fundamental_rights/500284.html

liam8282

gadgetmind wrote: »

What action would that be?

http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/government/constitutional_law/fundamental_rights/500284.html

I am sure that if somebody is parked legally, yet people on this website have posted pictures of them stating they are parked illegally, and then went further to post pictures of this persons car on their drive, they would have some sort of case.

If you look at my comment it is a question, not a statement.

We will see what the site moderators think now this thread has been reported.

I wouldn't feel comfortable if I had posted information about a person saying they had done something illegal, when actually they hadn't. Or if that information was on my website too.

• All info is the opinion of posters – it’s not our view. We have an amazing forum with a huge wealth of helpful info. Yet remember it's open to all, and sometimes messages are posted that are misleading or downright wrong, most users are helpful but there are always a few bad apples. Don't rely on information being accurate or complete. If you do, it's at your own risk. Please do your own research before acting.
• We can be liable for what you post. This isn’t a ‘freedom of speech site’ as when you post something not only are you liable, but we can be liable too as the publisher once we have notice of it. So it's not a case of posting what you like – we can delete posts if needed - though of course our aim is to ensure legit info about saving money or fighting for consumer rights stays.