Suicidal Cyclist

Hanky_Panky

Please everyone - don't feed the troll. I fell for it for a while too.

Altarf

RichardD1970 wrote: »

Only if you have idiot drivers.

And do you have a magic wand to get rid of them.

Until then, cycle paths are safer.

andrewf75

Altarf wrote: »

So you are willing to place your safety in the hands of thousands of random motorists, and hope that they don't kill you.

Rather than use a cycle path, where you are in control of your destiny.

But you assume that there is the option of using cycle paths for an entire journey. That is virtually never the case.

If it was, then yes there would be clear extra risk in taking the road option, but since the cycle path option will almost certainly involve many road parts anyway, the increase in risk is really not huge.

I use cycle paths out of principle but I respect the right of those who don't.

Altarf

andrewf75 wrote: »

If it was, then yes there would be clear extra risk in taking the road option, but since the cycle path option will almost certainly involve many road parts anyway, the increase in risk is really not huge.

But the point of the thread, many, many pages ago, was if there was a long and good cycle path that goes where people want to go (like the one I pass every day), why do cyclists prefer to put their lives in danger on the road rather than use the safer cycle path.

And the answer seems to be "because I want to", rather than for any logical reason.

Idiophreak

Altarf wrote: »

But the point of the thread, many, many pages ago, was if there was a long and good cycle path that goes where people want to go (like the one I pass every day), why do cyclists prefer to put their lives in danger on the road rather than use the safer cycle path.

And the answer seems to be "because I want to", rather than for any logical reason.

I've given you plenty of logical reasons, surmised as "cycle paths are often pants, so I just don't bother with them"....the trouble is, you're just not interested in actually learning anything...

Altarf

Idiophreak wrote: »

I've given you plenty of logical reasons, surmised as "cycle paths are often pants, so I just don't bother with them"....the trouble is, you're just not interested in actually learning anything...

But for you it doesn't matter about the quality of the cycle path, so that is a false argument -

Idiophreak wrote: »

You could have the best, most shiney, perfect cycle path in the whole wide world (which you clearly do, well done) and I wouldn't use it

Idiophreak

Altarf wrote: »

But for you it doesn't matter about the quality of the cycle path, so that is a false argument -

No, it's not.

It doesn't matter about the quality of a *single* cycle path. The overall quality of cycle path provision is an entirely different issue.

If *all* the cycle paths in the country were amazing, shiny, got me places quicker, I'd use them.

If *most* of the cycle paths in the country were amazing, I'd probably use them.

As *most* of the cycle paths in the country are awful, I don't.

This really isn't rocket science.

Altarf

Idiophreak wrote: »

No, it's not.

It doesn't matter about the quality of a *single* cycle path. The overall quality of cycle path provision is an entirely different issue.

If *all* the cycle paths in the country were amazing, shiny, got me places quicker, I'd use them.

If *most* of the cycle paths in the country were amazing, I'd probably use them.

As *most* of the cycle paths in the country are awful, I don't.

This really isn't rocket science.

But if you came across one that was the "best, most shiney, perfect cycle path in the whole wide world" you still wouldn't use it.

You are right that sort of thinking isn't rocket science. It isn't even 1+1=2.

brat

Idiophreak wrote: »

I've given you plenty of logical reasons, surmised as "cycle paths are often pants, so I just don't bother with them"....the trouble is, you're just not interested in actually learning anything...

Altarf,
Despite trying to put some logical facade on your argument, Idiophreak's assessment is right. You don't want to listen or learn, instead it suits you to believe that cyclists have a mindless death wish.
In doing so you betray your inability to think about others' needs and interests.

And you still haven't answered why motorists travel faster than 10mph, given that any increase in speed increases their first and third party risk?

Idiophreak

Altarf wrote: »

But if you came across one that was the "best, most shiney, perfect cycle path in the whole wide world" you still wouldn't use it.

You are right that sort of thinking isn't rocket science. It isn't even 1+1=2.

I'm not psychic, how am I supposed to know what a cycle lane's like before I get on it? I can't. So I use a balance of probability. In this country, it's most likely that I'll be better off just staying on the road than trying the cycle path...So that's what I do.

Of course, it's possible that over time I might become aware that a certain cycle path might suit my needs better...so I'd give it a go...But I'm honestly yet to find a single piece of cycle path that is in any way an improvement on *just using the roads*....and with that in mind, using cycle paths doesn't even occur to me most of the time.

(the cycle bridge I mentioned a while ago is a great example...it is a bit of a diversion, but it saves me going over a major roundabout, so I gave it a go...and it sucked...so now I ignore it)