Illegal parking in cycle lanes - name and shame

liam8282

custardy wrote: »

and if you can't listen to the voice of experience.

Who is to say that I do not have experience?

custardy wrote: »

repeat the same rubbish.

They are valid points, because they differ to your view point, does not make them rubbish.

custardy wrote: »

should I be adding a wiki link here?

Add any link you want if it supports what you are saying.

Then again, you are not actually making a point, you are just arguing for the sake of it.

gadgetmind

liam8282 wrote: »

Point out the typo, because you would rather argue about a typo than accept the points made.

Out of interest, does your mind operate on some kind of weird level where you think you're covering yourself in glory in this thread?

You've had your ignorance of the use of primary/secondary road positions exposed, your ignorance of safe passing distances exposed, and I now strongly suspect that you're lying about having read a book that you don't seem to be able to remember the name of.

You really do need to stop digging.

custardy

liam8282 wrote: »

Then again, you are not actually making a point, you are just arguing for the sake of it.

I did,as I said not worth educating. Therefore no point trying to reason with you or expect you to realise theory over experience.
I'll leave you to roll around in circles with little or no knowledge.

liam8282

gadgetmind wrote: »

Out of interest, does your mind operate on some kind of weird level where you think you're covering yourself in glory in this thread?

Exactly what I was thinking about yourself. Sort of a knight in shining armour for cyclists, who can do no wrong as soon as they set off on two wheels.

gadgetmind wrote: »

You've had your ignorance of the use of primary/secondary road positions exposed, your ignorance of safe passing distances exposed, and I now strongly suspect that you're lying about having read a book that you don't seem to be able to remember the name of.

So you cannot actually find a post where I have "attempted to give advice to cyclists on how to ride safely and considerately". So you descend into name calling. Calling me ignorant for giving an EXAMPLE of a passing distance, because there is no ACTUAL passing distance. Calling me a liar, just because you refuse to believe that somebody who has read cyclecraft and has cycled, could actually have the nerve to suggest that there are bad cyclists about.

You are trying to argue with me on points which I have already said I agree with you on.

If this thread is going round in circles, it is only because I am following you.

gadgetmind wrote: »

You really do need to stop digging.

I am not digging, my points haven't changed.

It seems that you are obviously a person who must have the last word, so please take it, no doubt with an insulting side note from one of your little buddies.

gadgetmind

Calling me ignorant for giving an EXAMPLE of a passing distance, because there is no ACTUAL passing distance.

I called you ignorant on that and other subjects because you showed ignorance. It's as simple as that.

Calling me a liar, just because you refuse to believe that somebody who has read cyclecraft and has cycled

That's because things have got to the stage where I don't believe a single word you type.

It seems that you are obviously a person who must have the last word, so please take it

" "

rev_henry

liam8282 wrote: »

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.

Are you talking about the facebook page? There are certainly no photos of people's homes or cars on driveways there. All photos taken in public places where anyone can photograph anything.

e999sam

liam8282 wrote: »

All along I have always maintained there are good cyclists and bad cyclists. There are good drivers and bad drivers.

Accept it and move on.

Unfortunately there are a lot more bad drivers on the roads than bad cyclists and bad drivers often kill or seriously injure other road uses where as bad cyclists are more likely to injure themselves.

Today in Nottinghamshire during a road side check the police stopped a driver every 3 minutes for either driving without a seat belt or using a mobile phone.

forgotmyname

Except cyclists do injure and even known to kill people when ridden without due care.

Sit at a set of lights in london i bet you could stop a cyclist every 2 minutes that failed to stop at the lights.

johnfarquhar74

liam8282 wrote: »

Is there a requirement for ANY cyclist currently on the road to read cyclecraft, even The Highway Code, or even to have the faintest idea about road safety or the RTA?

see below>>>

liam8282 wrote: »

Every driver HAS had to read The Highway Code,

Is that FACT or opinion?

I only ask as I sat my driving test in '92 with no reference to the highway code. My driving instructor spent 5 minutes each lesson going over some points, types of road sign, braking distances etc.
Back then there was only a practical, I passed.

Fast forward a few years and I sat my motorcycle license(A1), I trained with a school in Edinburgh, again, no reference to the highway code. They ran 'workshops' every Thursday where someone would stand at a white board and go over road positioning, scenarios. Sometimes they clarified the difference between mandatory signage, advisory etc. Then we would play on the PC with some 'hazard perception' software.
I sat the theory test, 100%, hazard perception, 58/75 and practical. Again, passed.

If I'm honest, I've referred more to the highway code when reading these posts than when I sat my tests, just to confirm my understanding!

johnfarquhar74

forgotmyname wrote: »

Except cyclists do injure and even known to kill people when ridden without due care.

Sit at a set of lights in london i bet you could stop a cyclist every 2 minutes that failed to stop at the lights.

I think you're being generous with 2 minutes, I'd suggest every cycle of the lights!
However, that is London. I'm sure a couple of years back some cycling fraternity were trying to legalise the passing of red lights by cyclists, apparently it was deemed safer? Regardless, maybe all that talk created a confusion.
The rest of the UK is nowhere near as bad as London.