Cycling vs walkers in country parks

Altarf

Retrogamer wrote: »

You've a cheek to call anyone an idiot

Really? You passed that test when you admitted you would deliberately cycle into pedestrians on a footpath.

As a reminder

Retrogamer wrote:

I'd keep cycling at a slow pace without stopping. If they want to walk into me, that's their choice.

Retrogamer

Altarf wrote: »

Really? You passed that test when you admitted you would deliberately cycle into pedestrians on a footpath.

As a reminder

I wouldn't deliberately cycle into anyone.

You even quoted the part where i said, it's their choice. :rotfl:

I'd stay to the side of the shared path and cycle slowly and make sure they know i'm there.

They can walk into me or move. If they decide not to move they'll be walking into me regardless if i'm cycling, walking or standing still so me cycling or walking at 1-2mph isn't going to change the outcome or the options they have available.

Not sure if you're capable of understanding that though

Norman_Castle

Altarf wrote: »

As a reminder

I suspect this path isn't as perfect as you claim it is

Where is it?

I have mentioned before a wanabee organ donor I pass in the mornings who instead of riding down a perfectly designed £2.5 million cyclepath requested by Sustrans and designed by them, instead takes a longer route down a busy A road (and doesn't bother with high viz either).

RichardD1970

Retrogamer wrote: »

I wouldn't deliberately cycle into anyone.

You even quoted the part where i said, it's their choice. :rotfl:

I'd stay to the side of the shared path and cycle slowly and make sure they know i'm there.

They can walk into me or move. If they decide not to move they'll be walking into me regardless if i'm cycling, walking or standing still so me cycling or walking at 1-2mph isn't going to change the outcome or the options they have available.

Not sure if you're capable of understanding that though

No, you see you have it totally wrong.

You are a cyclist, so should dismount and leave the shared path completely until the pedestrians have safely passed, even going as far as doffing you cap and saying "thank you, sirs" for allowing a mere cyclist like me to share your space.

silverwhistle

Norman_Castle wrote: »

I suspect this path isn't as perfect as you claim it is

Where is it?

Hasn't he replied yet? He's been asked politely a number of times.

Altarf

Retrogamer wrote: »

You even quoted the part where i said, it's their choice. :rotfl:

I'd stay to the side of the shared path and cycle slowly and make sure they know i'm there.

So you would cycle into them.

Norman_Castle

silverwhistle wrote: »

Hasn't he replied yet? He's been asked politely a number of times.

He won't reply because he knows he's wrong.

brat

Norman_Castle wrote: »

He won't reply because he knows he's wrong.

It's the clearest message that he makes it up as he goes along in an attempt to shore up his prejudices.
That's why we need Altarf to continue posting in threads like this. Almost every post he makes screams prejudice and bigotry,

He's the weakest of foes.

Altarf

brat wrote: »

It's the clearest message that he makes it up as he goes along in an attempt to shore up his prejudices.

Make up things?

Why would I need to when there is one person posting here who does cycle into pedestrians on purpose and one who would like to.

Richard53

silverwhistle wrote: »

Joking aside, one approach I've used, including on local country roads going past horses is to give a cheery "coming through". The alternative is to have an old bike that goes clunk, clunk, clunk...

Shouting 'ding ding!' gives the best of both worlds and rarely offends.