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

Norman_Castle

Edited to make more sense. Feel free to comment on the edited post.

Your point in linking to that video?.

modsandmockers

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Edited to make more sense. Feel free to comment on the edited post

No - you edited it because you knew my comment on your original post was correct, and you hoped that no-one would notice your cheating

Norman_Castle

Quote:
Originally Posted by Norman Castle
You're referring to the least significant cyclist in the video you linked to who presumably meant legally he can use the whole lane

No - what he meant was that, in his opinion, cyclists can do what they like.

Editing the post had nothing to do with your comment. It just added facts. Specifically, what was actually said, which you were misquoting.. Your comment on my original post is incorrect. Feel free to comment on the edited or the original post. The inference in both is the same.

Your point in linking to that video?.

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

Given that motorists are much less susceptible to punctures than cyclists, it would be possible to construct a logical argument...

Whoa! Mods and logic are diametrically opposed concepts are they not? Let's wait and see what logic he is proposing...

modsandmockers wrote: »

...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...

Hahaha!! Just lunatic!

modsandmockers wrote: »

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.

Once again this sentence carries the disgusting inference that there is a degree of acceptability in forcing cyclists into the gutter.

Mods, by now you must have had your fun. You must have run out of idiotic notions. There is no purpose to your posting other than to annoy and irritate a group of people whose vitality and ability you obviously envy.

Find the maturity that you've recently lost via your comments, and disappear quietly from threads on topics that embarrassingly display your anti cyclist credentials to any who read them.

I'm sure that behind this facade of stupidity and closed mindedness, there is a kindly old grandfather who someone might want to spend more time with.

Tobster86

modsandmockers wrote: »

There was plenty of space - but you didn’t allow it.

That statement doesn't even require a counter argument as it's quite clearly incorrect. The video again for anyone else's benefit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhJgx9C_fpI

modsandmockers wrote: »

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,

How would you propose eye contact should have been made? Should I have turned my body through 180° and glared at him as he approached the narrow gap he was charging for at about 50mph?

modsandmockers wrote: »

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 think you've missed the whole point of the video and scenario. It simply demonstrates this driver's very poor attitude to cyclists. The only position I could have assumed which would have facilitated his progress at inappropriate speed (and thus negating his apparent need to aggressively use the horn) would have been on the pavement.

modsandmockers

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Your point in linking to that video?.

I posted the link to the video because I thought the contrast between real-life and the make-believe world of the training video was very striking and highly significant. It was also as if somebody had deliberately set up an ‘enactment’ of the argument which has been raging on this thread for some considerable time.

If we ignore the fact the the guy playing the part of Brat/Tobster gave two different reasons for not using the cycle lane (neither of which was valid), then, if we apply the Brat/Tobster theory, he was riding in ‘text-book’ fashion. Additionally, he was applying the mad-mocs theory that, if you’re going to hog the lane, then you need to be very aware of what is happening behind - he was even communicating with the following bus driver by using hand signals. This may not have made the bus driver particularly happy, but at least he/she knew that the cyclist was trying to apply some kind of method to the madness.

The mad-mocs character simply said what I have been saying all along, but less politely. There was nothing illegal in what the cyclist did, but it was not really to anybody’s advantage.

The Esuhl/NormanCastle character behaved in character by offering no real insight, and relying on mockery to try to silence any opinion other than Big Brother Brat’s.

Tobster86

modsandmockers wrote: »

the guy playing the part of Brat/Tobster

Where have either of us made any comment on that video other than to state that it wasn't relevant to the argument?

Norman_Castle

modsandmockers wrote: »

The mad-mocs character simply said what I have been saying all along, but less politely.
.

Personally I would cast mad mocs as the odball eccentric. Flapping his arm and trying to force a point others don't agree with, or to him, just don't understand.

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

I posted the link to the video because I thought the contrast between real-life and the make-believe world of the training video was very striking and highly significant. It was also as if somebody had deliberately set up an ‘enactment’ of the argument which has been raging on this thread for some considerable time.

Mods. There is no argument, no debate. Yours and Tilt's comments (mostly yours) are a tangled, poorly formed frame of ignorance, stupidity and bias on which the rest of us hang the wisdom and understanding that your contributions so sadly lack.
But you know this already. You're a troll, so your contributions are designed to be pointless.

If we ignore the fact the the guy playing the part of Brat/Tobster gave two different reasons for not using the cycle lane (neither of which was valid), then, if we apply the Brat/Tobster theory, he was riding in ‘text-book’ fashion. Additionally, he was applying the mad-mocs theory that, if you’re going to hog the lane, then you need to be very aware of what is happening behind - he was even communicating with the following bus driver by using hand signals. This may not have made the bus driver particularly happy, but at least he/she knew that the cyclist was trying to apply some kind of method to the madness.

The simple fact is that any motorist needs to deal courteously and carefully with whatever he faces, whether he likes what he is faced with or not. That is what he signed up to when he acquired his licence. When it comes to their behaviour around cyclists, whether they're the 'mad moc' gutter hogger or the assertive safe cyclist that the rest of us try to be, the motorist is guided to pass us with plenty of room.
It's true that some motorists, ignorant of the need for cyclists to manage their own safety, will get irked by the perceived obstruction caused by the cyclist, and exact some retribution. That action will always be careless/inconsiderate, and potentially punishable, but in truth this idiot's behaviour is usually safer than being passed by Mr or Mrs Miggins with about 6 inches to spare when riding in a gutter cyclepath.

The mad-mocs character simply said what I have been saying all along, but less politely. There was nothing illegal in what the cyclist did, but it was not really to anybody’s advantage.

The mad mocs cyclist was just wrong. He might feel more comfortable cycling in the gutter, but it's certainly not the safest place for any cyclist, so he's wrong to try to advise another cyclist accordingly. He, and you, have stuff to learn, but despite being counselled by more than one person who actually practice the skill and reap the benefits, he (and you) have no interest in learning.

Marco_Panettone

And once again, high-quality, integrated, protected cycle infrastructure would prevent the conflict in the first place.