If there was compulsory training for cyclists, would that put you off cycling?

Tilt

Rotor wrote: »

I imagine that could be quite a difficult prosecution. These guys are riding on closed roads with a police escort. They will have jumped literally dozens of red lights, ridden dangerously on the wrong side, etc etc etc, can't prosecute for all of those

No change there then!

Tilt

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Fixed that for you.

I have the up most respect for responsible cyclists... those who ride in compliance with the rules of the road that is. But yes, I don't like irresponsible and reckless cyclists just like I don't like the equivalent drivers.

That clear enough?

Tilt

kwmlondon wrote: »

I apologise for not ranting on in a pro-cyclist or anti-cyclist way - I understand that the normal way of posting on MSE is to get aggressive towards people who have a different point of view but I'm afraid I'm not in the mood to do that today. Sorry.

Fair play.

brat

Tilt wrote: »

No change there then!

They will not expect to be held up. As it happens the peloton regrouped so no great loss. But if you ride in a closed road race you don't expect to be held up, as with the Isle of Man TT or the Grand Prix at Monaco.

But cyclists are no more difficult to prosecute than motorists. Why do you think they are?

Marco_Panettone

Norman_Castle wrote: »

It needs a rule change. If part of a group is delayed those that cross should be slowed to allow the following group to catch up. Then there is no incentive to cross the tracks dangerously.

If you knew anything about pro cycling (or even watched the race!) then you'd realise there's no need to change anything - there's a long-standing convention not to attack in this sort of situation. The bunch that crossed before the barriers sat up and waited for the delayed riders.


Using professional sporting incidents to attack people using bikes for transport is pretty rich. Are you driving to the shops in flame-proof overalls and helmet?

Tilt

brat wrote: »

They will not expect to be held up. As it happens the peloton regrouped so no great loss. But if you ride in a closed road race you don't expect to be held up, as with the Isle of Man TT or the Grand Prix at Monaco.

But cyclists are no more difficult to prosecute than motorists. Why do you think they are?

Is that aimed at me or Rotor?

kwmlondon

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Quitter...

I've got an abscess. Once the amoxicyllin kicks in I'm sure I'll be back to MSE standards of abuse! For now I just don't have the oomph.

brat

Tilt wrote: »

Is that aimed at me or Rotor?

You.

I presumed your comment in reply to Rotor's post was a reply to the comment that the prosecution of these cyclists might be difficult. (the blue part of his post)

Rotor wrote: »

I imagine that could be quite a difficult prosecution. These guys are riding on closed roads with a police escort. They will have jumped literally dozens of red lights, ridden dangerously on the wrong side, etc etc etc, can't prosecute for all of those

I wouldn't have thought you would have wanted your anti-cycling bias to show out so obviously at the same time as you portray yourself as a paradigm of fairness to all, by implying (via your comment) that we cyclists all jump red lights and ride dangerously on the wrong side of the road...(the red part of his post)

brat

kwmlondon wrote: »

This goes way beyond just the behaviour of a few people on bicycles, it's down to our risk as human beings. Once you've started making decisions in your mind you'll discount any risk against it. Even pilots do it. This is one of the worst plane crashes in history when a pilot decided to take off without clearance because he was desperate to keep to the schedule:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenerife_airport_disaster#Probable_cause

He weighed up the risk of the deaths of everyone on-board against the need to get the allocated slot for the plane and made one of the worst decisions in aviation history and as a result procedures changed for all aeroplanes and pilots.

So, against this deadly human characteristic a group of cyclists hell-bent on winning would not even blink at the prospect of risking their own lives, it's what human beings do. We're very, very stupid and dangerous when we get totally single-minded about achieving something.

It's why drivers run red lights just to get through the junction, despite the risk of being hit by a lorry. It's stupid behaviour but our ability to get risks right goes haywire all too easily.

It's similar to what we refer to as 'red mist' in Roadcraft, defined as "A mental and physiological state which drivers experience when they are so determined to achieve some non-driving objective (such as pursuing a vehicle in front), that they are no longer capable of assessing driving risks realistically"

Tilt

brat wrote: »

You.

I presumed your comment in reply to Rotor's post was a reply to the comment that the prosecution of these cyclists might be difficult. (the blue part of his post)

I wouldn't have thought you would have wanted your anti-cycling bias to show out so obviously at the same time as you portray yourself as a paradigm of fairness to all, by implying (via your comment) that we cyclists all jump red lights and ride dangerously on the wrong side of the road...(the red part of his post)

I think we have been through this umpteen times before. And seeing as you apparently are a police officer, I would of thought you would have clocked it by now.

I have, on many many occasions, made it perfectly clear that I have no "anti-cycling bias". I am only "biased" (or critical) against irresponsible and reckless cyclists, the ones that "jump red lights and ride dangerously on the wrong side of the road" and the ones that ignore lights, barriers AND a police officer at a level crossing!