We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
If there was compulsory training for cyclists, would that put you off cycling?
Options
Comments
-
It makes sense for all, in every situation. Some motorists (presumably you when you were 'capable' of driving) choose to ignore the law and good advice and overtake inconsiderately closely. That's absolutely no better (worse re third party danger) than those cyclists (none of us here) who you and Tilt would denigrate for choosing to break the law for their own convenience.modsandmockers wrote: »I followed your link, and the video makes perfect sense for the perfect world of PC Plod and Postman Pat.
Double standards...
Irrelevant to the point. One understands - like most of the cyclists here. The other doesn't - like you.modsandmockers wrote: »But the video which immediately followed was this one - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvmU_egOZjU - please watch it right to the end…
Cyclists are expert pothole scanners. But they're often only viewable from within 15 to 20 metres, ie 2 to 4 seconds. That is often insufficient time to plan a gradual manoeuvre, especially if a car is bearing down quickly. The secondary position allows the cyclist a little more option to the nearside, while at the same time making an approaching motorist think a little more about the overtake. The primary position gives a cyclist a lot of opportunity to move safely through potholes, some of which can cover the entire lane.modsandmockers wrote: »Road edge debris and drain covers are indeed a specific hazard for cyclists, but it is usually easy to spot them early enough to be able to include them in your cycling plan.
I'm guessing from that comment that you consider even the secondary position to be too far out. The secondary position is the closest a cyclist can get to the kerb edge having given due consideration to the condition of the kerb edge and the riders view and visibility. You really do portray yourself as an inconsiderate muppet.modsandmockers wrote: »If a cyclist moves from primary position to secondary, but by doing so remains in the way of the faster moving traffic, then he/she might as well not have bothered - the half-arsed manoeuvre is likely to be interpreted as an invitation to pass too closely.
My recent ride out through the Lakes was punctuated at the top of Wrynose pass by a lad in a Touran who had pinched his two nearside tyres, having gone into a nearside pothole and hit a sharp rock with both tyres. He had no mobile signal. I phoned his specified recovery from the top of Hardknott pass. By the time I got home, he phoned to say his tyres had been replaced and he was on his way home. Needless to say, despite seeing hundreds of cyclists out, none of them were repairing their tyres. Anecdotal evidence I know, but car tyres are certainly not invincible.modsandmockers wrote: »Road edge debris which is not immediately visible creates a risk of puncture, but, as I have mentioned before, this is a problem for bicycle tyre manufacturers - motorists no longer have to include the risk of punctures in their calculations.Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.0 -
Norman_Castle wrote: »Its a video of a cyclist making questionable and unnecessary use of the primary position. Your point?.
The scariest bit of esuhl’s link was the comment from cyclist number 3 who chipped in briefly with the comment that ‘(cyclists) can do what they want’. What would be your response if one of the bus drivers had pulled up on the left and commented through his open window ‘(I’m a bus driver, and) I can do what I want’?I don't see how any of that is relevant to my previous video. I was in secondary position and it wasn't on a country lane. There is nothing in that snippet to suggest any obstructive wrongdoing on my part; in fact some would argue that I was wrong NOT to be in primary position there as there was not space for two abreast vehicles plus a bicycle.
There was plenty of space - but you didn’t allow it. If you had made eye contact with the driver and raised a hand to show a willingness to co-operate before moving to the left, then you would have been able to choose the moment and the driver would (probably) have waited - he would probably also have given you an exaggeratedly wide berth.I'm guessing from that comment that you consider even the secondary position to be too far out. The secondary position is the closest a cyclist can get to the kerb edge having given due consideration to the condition of the kerb edge and the riders view and visibility. You really do portray yourself as an inconsiderate muppet.
Given that motorists are much less susceptible to punctures than cyclists, it would be possible to construct a logical argument in favour of the idea that cyclists should move to the right from primary position in order to allow the faster-moving traffic to pass on the nearside and use, if necessary, the debris-strewn edge of the tarmac. It would be nice to think that most motorists would be less willing to force cyclists into the path of oncoming traffic than into the gutter.mad mocs - the pavement worrier0 -
There's only one cyclist in esuhl's link and he doesn't speak. You're referring to the least significant cyclist in the video you linked to who said "He is right, he's allowed to do what, he can do that" presumably meaning legally he can use the whole lane. Which is not as you've claimed, (cyclists) can do what they want.. The complaining cyclist replied "he can do what he wants" which is a response given to avoid arguing with that cyclist which you are misquoting. Are your blinkers so big you cannot (or don't want to) see the cyclist insisting the video cyclist was wrong?.modsandmockers wrote: »The scariest bit of esuhl’s link was the comment from cyclist number 3 who chipped in briefly with the comment that ‘(cyclists) can do what they want’. .
Your point in linking to that video?.0 -
No - what he meant was that, in his opinion, cyclists can do what they like.Norman_Castle wrote: »You're referring to the least significant cyclist in the video you linked to who presumably meant legally he can use the whole lanemad mocs - the pavement worrier0 -
modsandmockers wrote: »No - what he meant was that, in his opinion, cyclists can do what they like.
It's a funny opinion that being a vulnerable road user gives you super-powers to do whatever you like.
Surrounding yourself in a motorised metal box means you can get away with taking a lot more risks with other peoples' lives without having to worry about your own. Just look at this video of typically aggressive, criminally impatient drivers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1NnFml203o
So... QED, right? Cyclists win the argument cos this video says so. This thread can finally be laid to rest.
In fact... you don't see any pogo-stick jumpers running red lights, so they win too. Hurrah for logic! 
0 -
A couple of weeks ago, I shared a pedestrian crossing with a fast-moving teenager on roller skates wearing very loud clothing and a bright yellow set of ear’oles and chasing an electric toy car with his eyes down onto a hand-held radio control box. Now that’s what I call attitude!It's a funny opinion that being a vulnerable road user gives you super-powers to do whatever you like.mad mocs - the pavement worrier0 -
In your self serving opinion thats what he meant. He didn't say that did he.modsandmockers wrote: »No - what he meant was that, in his opinion, cyclists can do what they like.
Your point in linking to that video?.0 -
Norman_Castle wrote: »In your opinion thats what he meant.
Your point in linking to that video?.
Lack of anything better to do with his lifespan?0 -
Why did you feel a need to edit post 274 after I responded to it in post 275?Norman_Castle wrote: »In your self serving opinion thats what he meant. He didn't say that did he.
Your point in linking to that video?.mad mocs - the pavement worrier0 -
modsandmockers wrote: »A couple of weeks ago, I shared a pedestrian crossing with a fast-moving teenager on roller skates wearing very loud clothing and a bright yellow set of ear’oles and chasing an electric toy car with his eyes down onto a hand-held radio control box. Now that’s what I call attitude!
Gah! Those people who wear loud clothing! They're all the same -- chasing toy cars and "taking on" pedestrians! Maybe they need some training.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards