Suicidal Cyclist

Altarf

Idiophreak wrote: »

I'm not psychic, how am I supposed to know what a cycle lane's like before I get on it?

I assume that you have reasonable eyesight to look two feet to your left.

Retrogamer

Idiophreak wrote: »

I don't really understand the difference, here.

The difference is you're replying to someone with a very large biased towards motorists. They don't understand much about being a cyclist since they rarely seem to cycle, but despite this they seem to try and offer all sorts of terrible advice.
I wonder if they would take the all the advice from BRAKE as good, even though a lot of them aren't motorists.

Altarf wrote: »

You are confusing deaths per journey, rather than deaths per mile.

Cyclists when presented with two similar options for distance, seem to choose to use the more dangerous option as they seem to want to blame others when they are killed.

You should try and respond to the points raised, rather than invent your own then respond to them as if someone else had said it

More reading here
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Altarf wrote: »

And do you have a magic wand to get rid of them.
Until then, cycle paths are safer.

What about when they're not safer? I.e covered in wet, slimy leaves, frost, holes, broken glass bottles, sand etc?
Seems to be a common theme in some areas near me.

andrewf75

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.

again the answer is because our roads are generally so unfriendly to cyclists that the only people who do cycle are the types who are happy to speed along amongst traffic.
I use cycle paths (unless they are really ridiculous), but I am not a cycling enthusiast, I'm just a commuter using the quickest and cheapest mode of transport to get from A to B. Better cycle infrastructure would lead to many more like me, not more like idiophreak and brat.

Altarf

Retrogamer wrote: »

What about when they're not safer? I.e covered in wet, slimy leaves, frost, holes, broken glass bottles, sand etc?
Seems to be a common theme in some areas near me.

Not near me, they are the "best, most shiney, perfect cycle path in the whole wide world", and I am off to the station now, and guess how many cyclists dressed in black and with inadequate lights will be using the cycle path rather than the road (clue, the number will be zero).

BillyMansell

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Motorists do not pay to use the roads. They pay taxes as demanded by the government.

Altarf wrote: »

Not near me, they are the "best, most shiney, perfect cycle path in the whole wide world", and I am off to the station now, and guess how many cyclists dressed in black and with inadequate lights will be using the cycle path rather than the road (clue, the number will be zero).

One thing can be certain they'll be one !!!!!! motorist on their way to the station looking for other road users to label.:rotfl:

andrewf75

As a cyclist and a motorist I find it strange how people label others based on what mode of transport they are using.

Who's to say the idiot cycling with no lights isn't the very same idiot driver who cuts someone up and the same pedestrian who steps out without looking?

BillyMansell

andrewf75 wrote: »

As a cyclist and a motorist I find it strange how people label others based on what mode of transport they are using.

Indeed, it's absurd as labelling someone wholly based upon the colour of their skin or their sexuality.

Who's to say the idiot cycling with no lights isn't the very same idiot driver who cuts someone up and the same pedestrian who steps out without looking?

Indeed again. Said same idiots may also appear on message boards arguing black is white or trying to defend the indefensible.

Johno100

brat wrote: »

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?

Because hopefully you and your colleagues would be 'pulling them' and having a word about not making good progress and causing an obstruction.

Altarf

BillyMansell wrote: »

One thing can be certain they'll be one !!!!!! motorist on their way to the station looking for other road users to label.:rotfl:

Ah, but the !!!!!! motorists are in nice safe warm metal boxes, unlike the squishy !!!!!! cyclists who have chosen to use the road rather than a cycle path.

Tobster86

Altarf wrote: »

Ah, but the !!!!!! motorists are in nice safe warm metal boxes, unlike the squishy !!!!!! cyclists who have chosen to use the road rather than a cycle path.

Assuming both (and this is by far and away the most likely scenario for both) don't die on the roads, which one of these '!!!!!! road users' is most likely to die as a great big middle-aged fatty?