onewheeldave

Endcliffe park-

Except for those on benefits who don't use beer, cigarettes or Sky. ---------- Post added 14-07-2015 at 11:01 ---------- Here's a bit of evidence- actual stats from the DWP themselves, freedom of information request forcing them the admit the truth. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223287/foi_4383_2012.pdf showing that almost 1 in 5 of all benefits claiments where sanctioned between 2007-2012. Can anyone here really believe that 1 in 5 of all benefits claiments deserved sanctioning?

Link here- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8296971.stm

I never suggested otherwise- you're clearly intolerant of cyclists going through reds, which is why I pointed out that it was well observed that, unlike most of the knee-jerk 'cyclist going through reds is always evil' crew here, you could acknowledge that many cyclists go through reds in a rational and observant manner. ---------- Post added 02-07-2015 at 10:50 ---------- No, it's not OK- he/she is a motorist. Having said that, a bonnetless artic is clearly going to be able to observe far more than an equivalent car driver- for the same reasons that a cyclist can see much more than an equivalent car driver.

Very true. As an autistic individual I'll also point out that aversion to the 'different' is a classic trait of the neurotypicals who make up the majority of motorists.

A good observation. And, of course, cyclists are able to observe more than an equivalent motorist due to their riding position (high up and not limited by a bonnet- a car driver is always observing from further back than the cyclist).

Regular walking is very beneficial to health. Running is good for those who are built for it- it is also notorious for causing injuries to knees etc. Running when you're overweight is crazy, as it's much more likely to cause joint/knee damage.

That's why I'm talking about reducing cars parked ON the road. Which will make the roads capacity higher, and, facilitate the safe overtaking of cycles by cars.

With a bit of work, that elongated car park could be converted to a very usable bit of road. Given the crisis our roads are in at the moment, I think it's vital to, rather than misdirecting the blame for holdups onto cyclists, start to see the real source of the problem, which is that many of the blocked roads routinely have bumper to bumper parked cars, taking up space which could be used for moving cars, and, for passing cyclists. I'm not- you are. I've no idea of the history of where that parking space came from, and, it's not relevant to the point I'm making. Currently. The roads are only going to get more full, more jammed, more clogged, and, the only way change for the better can happen is if big changes are made, such as eliminating long lines of parked cars on main roads, as well as reducing car numbers in general.

Yes, the problem with having way more cars on the roads than the system can cope with has now got to the point where we're having to build car parks on the actual roads OK, so yes, you're right, that road isn't being half used up by parked cars on the side of the road, but, by the new car park built on the side of the road instead Same result though, half the usable road area taken up by cars, plus all the other narrowed lanes due to parked cars throughout the city, and, still, blind to all those parked cars that are the real reason for the hold ups, attention and blame gets directed towards the solitary cyclist. WAKE UP dudes- ALL your delays and hold ups are due to the simple fact that there are way, way too many cars on the roads, than the roads can cope with. That cyclist, who, from your limited perspective appears to be holding you up, is one less car on the roads at that time- he/she is, if you can get your brain and eyes functioning, part of the solution, not the problem. If every one of the motorists who left their car in the 'car park' taking up half the lane, had instead gone out on a bike, you'd have zero problems passing them, as you'd have all the lane space currently taken up by cars.

Here's a link to a long list of people, mainly disabled, now dead, mainly through suicide, as a result of their treatment at the hands of our benefit systems. http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2014/10/21/uk-welfare-reform-deaths-updated-list-october-21st-2014/ So no, we don't drive them out of the village, we drive them out of life, in their thousands- the vulnerable, ill weak and old, treated with such disrespect that they end their lives rather than endure it. And it's getting worse and worse, and will continue to do so, while, bizzarely, a huge portion of mainstream society believes we have an adequate set caring support systems in place.

I get migraine auras, and, while flashes/zig zags are common in migraine auras, mine only last around 25 minutes, and, I may be wrong, but I thought migraine auras in general tend to be similarly short in duration.

Plus, of course, the cyclist may be totally focused on getting up the hill and surviving the journey and all the perils posed to vulnerable cyclists by the mess on the roads caused entirely by the fact that there are way too many motor vehicles than the system can cope with. And, as as already been noted, it's not the cyclists problem. The problem is caused, again, by the solid line of parked motor vehicles which cuts the useable lane in half. TOO MANY CARS ON THE ROAD is the true cause of this problem- without that line of parked vehicles taking up half the lane, that cyclist could be passed, easily and safely.

The cause of the problem is clearly the long line of parked cars taking up 1/2 the lane- as is usually the case when a cyclist is being wrongly blamed for holding up traffic.

Accident figures increase whenever compulsory helmet laws are brought in for bicycles. Likely due to decreased numbers of cyclists, as greater numbers of cyclists on the roads is the best way to increase safety for cyclists. This is why every major cycling advocacy organisation opposes compulsory helmet laws for bikes.

A lie told by the bus driver who went back to check the cyclist? Why would the bus driver collude in that lie? I'd say the chances of a bus driver helping a cyclist with such a lie, is considerably lower than the chances of a brake cable snapping on a fixie. ---------- Post added 28-05-2015 at 18:50 ---------- Really? Your definition of 'red light jumping' is literally the act of passing through a red light for any reason, even if it's an unintentional act (such as a snapped brake cable on a fixie)? So if you got rammed from behind while waiting at a red, and you got pushed through the red by said ramming, you'd have 'jumped the red'?

The bus driver states the cable snapped- This is clearly not a case of 'red light jumping' at all- rider was on a fixie, his mistake was he was going too fast in wet conditions and couldn't stop when his brake failed. No experienced cyclist with functioning eyes and a brain could have failed to spot the bus and the total impossibility of avoiding the bus.

Can you point to any examples of anyone here claiming that "EVERY motorist speeds because I have seen one do it"?

Yes, it would have been OK for Tories to protest had Labour got 36% of the vote and won the election instead. Because it's OK to protest.

Yet the genuinely disabled and vulnerable are being denied their benefits, many committing suicide as a result- http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2014/10/21/uk-welfare-reform-deaths-updated-list-october-21st-2014/ The DWP are incapable of distinguishing the genuine from the fake, their procedures are inept and they are not fit for purpose. The govt does not care about this, their only focus is on cutting the benefits bill, and, when the genuinely vulnerable die as a result, it is not considered a problem. The consequences of the DWP and companies like ATOS ineptness (i.e. vulnerable people dying are well known and well documented.

I doubt they were protesting about the election results. I expect they were protesting about tory policies that hit the poor and attack the disabled and vulnerable.

It's on the right hand side of the road dude- fine if he was riding the other way, not much use for where he's going. If you want to help, consider answering the actual question i.e. what's your problem with cyclists uploading videos of actual occurances on the roads.

Not being critical of your decision to ride on the left of the tramlines Cyclone- I'm sure you've got your reasons for it. But, to any other cyclists who've watched that video, I'd like to point out that all that dangerous overtaking could have been prevented by simply taking primary position and cycling between the tramlines. And seeing how (in the video) some drivers behave when the cyclist is riding right next to the curb, it should be completely obvious why cyclists are advised, in certain road conditions, to take central postion- it's the only way to ensure you don't get overtaken dangerously. On the stretch of road in that video, even more so, as due to jutting out tram stops, it's not possible to stay on the left and you'd have to keep crossing the tramlines, which, again, is a major cause of many serious cycling accidents. ---------- Post added 15-05-2015 at 14:05 ---------- ???? Uploading actual evidence of what actually happens on the road- what exactly does that show them to be? What issue do you have with people uploading video that shows what happens in reality?

I'd say it's OK to cycle on the pavement, as long as it's done responsibly: I object as much as anyone when idiots whizz by in such a way that, had the pedestrian stepped to the side a second earlier, they would have been hit by the bike. I guess cycling sedately and responsibly on the pavement is illegal, however, so is speeding a few mph over the road limit in cars, so is using a phone, so are a multitude of other things people do routinely every day of their lives. Certainly, when it comes to the likes of driving while on the phone, the potential consequences in terms of people getting hurt are far greater than those of cycling sedately and responsibly on the pavement. (As previously mentioned, it's also illegal to pip your horn to express annoyance or objection to a cyclists actions- doesn't stop motorists doing so, in fact many are utterly unaware that it's illegal). Fact is, the roads are not safe for cyclists, however carefull and responsible they are- there are several incidents per year of cyclists killed by being run into the back of by innattentative motorists, and, many more due to bad passing etc. No surprise that they use the pavements.

'Freegan' and 'poor' are not equivalent. Lots of poor people don't go through bins, and, some freegans aren't going through bins cos they're poor- some are not at all poor but go through bins cos they can get free food that way, and, their personal philosophies place stock in acquiring free produce that, otherwise, they would have to engage with a financial system they disapprove of, to obtain.