I will knock you out ! BBCs Jeremy Vine films woman driver`s shocking road rage

Nessun_Dorma

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

Cycle paths are not designed for riding at speed, which is the point of a Sunday morning club ride. They had every right to be on the public highway, and the idiot in the car had no right to do what he did, and frankly should have his right to drive on the road removed pronto.

Utter tosh!

custardy

Nessun_Dorma wrote: »

Utter tosh!

What do you ride?

Johno100

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

Cycle paths are not designed for riding at speed, which is the point of a Sunday morning club ride. They had every right to be on the public highway, and the idiot in the car had no right to do what he did, and frankly should have his right to drive on the road removed pronto.

Mmm....well the driver had no difficulty getting up to speed on the path and overtaking the cyclists did he/she?

Obviously, there is more to that video than we see, there doesn't appear to be anything coming the other way, so why use the path? Perhaps to prove a point?

custardy

Johno100 wrote: »

Mmm....well the driver had no difficulty getting up to speed on the path and overtaking the cyclists did he/she?

Obviously, there is more to that video than we see, there doesn't appear to be anything coming the other way, so why use the path? Perhaps to prove a point?

Yes,I find a car can travel over rougher ground than a bike,or motorbike for that case.
Weird how wide wheels x 4 and suspension do that.

Nessun_Dorma

custardy wrote: »

What do you ride?

A bicycle.

I also drive a car, ride a motorcycle, I even walk. I sometimes use my son's scooter, I have also been known to take a bus; I even fly an aeroplane.

Keep_pedalling

Nessun_Dorma wrote: »

Utter tosh!

Most cycle paths are not that wide, are often strewn with rubbish and you have to stop at every side road which you are forced to cross. Riding those at 25 mph or faster is simply not possible or safe, especially for slower riders and pedestrians using those paths at the same time

What you appear to want is to ban cyclists from roads wher a cycle lane exists besides it, which bearing in mind the poor design and lack of maintenance of the vast majority of those paths in the UK is simply idiotic.

Johno100

custardy wrote: »

Yes,I find a car can travel over rougher ground than a bike,or motorbike for that case.
Weird how wide wheels x 4 and suspension do that.

That's another thing the lycra brethren seem unwilling/unable to accept. If I'm driving a £500k super low slung super car on residential roads with speed humps I'm likely to hear the sound of very expensive carbon fibre being scraped and damaged as I drive along, so I'd be a fool for doing so. But if I suggested to one of your TdF wannabe mates that a Utility Bike (or even a MTB) rather a Road Bike may be more suitable for UK roads and paths I can only imagine the reaction I'd get.

Reminds me of those idiots in Edinburgh, still falling off their bikes on the tram tracks because of their skinny wheels and not understanding they need to cross the tracks at right angles or thereabouts.

Nessun_Dorma

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

Most cycle paths are not that wide, are often strewn with rubbish and you have to stop at every side road which you are forced to cross. Riding those at 25 mph or faster is simply not possible or safe, especially for slower riders and pedestrians using those paths at the same time

What you appear to want is to ban cyclists from roads wher a cycle lane exists besides it, which bearing in mind the poor design and lack of maintenance of the vast majority of those paths in the UK is simply idiotic.

In which case, don't complain when you are confronted with fast moving traffic that has to drive closer to you than you feel comfortable with.

We have a similar issue here. The local cycling clubs and societies in the area campaigned for years, to have a cycle path installed between the two local villages. It cost the two parish councils close to three hundred thousand pounds (at the expense of the children's playground not being refurbished). However, most of them refuse to use it, because crosses side roads etc. Yet they continue to berate motorists as they drive at high speed on the road, or deliberately hold up traffic refusing to give way to faster traffic; all the while the segregated cycle path, the one that cost three hundred thousand pounds, built at their insistence, goes unused.

custardy

Johno100 wrote: »

That's another thing the lycra brethren seem unwilling/unable to accept. If I'm driving a £500k super low slung super car on residential roads with speed humps I'm likely to hear the sound of very expensive carbon fibre being scraped and damaged as I drive along, so I'd be a fool for doing so. But if I suggested to one of your TdF wannabe mates that a Utility Bike (or even a MTB) rather a Road Bike may be more suitable for UK roads and paths I can only imagine the reaction I'd get.

Reminds me of those idiots in Edinburgh, still falling off their bikes on the tram tracks because of their skinny wheels and not understanding they need to cross the tracks at right angles or thereabouts.

MTBs are inefficient commuters.
Hybrids are great with panniers etc.
However those in the clip arent commuting. They are likely cycling for fitness and stamina.
A road bike is best suited for such a journey.
By your own admission there was no oncoming traffic and the cyclists were 'holding up' nobody.

If you want to get into poor road design in Edinburgh Im more than happy to debate it. crossing a track at right angles with other traffic and a road design that makes this an awkward angle? seems a strange design.

custardy

Nessun_Dorma wrote: »

A bicycle.

I also drive a car, ride a motorcycle, I even walk. I sometimes use my son's scooter, I have also been known to take a bus; I even fly an aeroplane.

Cool,so how fast do you go on shared paths?