onewheeldave

I did read it- I was the one who posted the link, and quoted this from it- http://www.derbyshire.police.uk/Safety-advice/Road-Safety/Cyclists.aspx You're right that it doesn't mention bikes on the pavement- why would it?

Factors other than those that are part of homelessness? There are lots of factors that cause early death, for example, long term regular exposure to extreme cold- but that is part-and-parcel of homelessness (it's very rare for non-homeless people to suffer long term regular exposure to extreme cold). Could equally well be correlation, rather than causation. Not that it's that relevant in the first place whether a person is homeless as a result of substance abuse, mental illness or something else. Many homeless start to abuse substances after becoming homeless. Alcohol is used as a way to deal with the extreme cold.

How is that in any way relevant? Some who are homeless became so as a result of alcohol issues. Most who are homeless, if they didn't have an alcohol issue, will develop one as a direct result of being homeless, as alcohol is used to combat the relentless cold that accompanies sleeping rough. Even if a person could somehow endure long term homelessness without acquiring an alcohol issue, they are clearly going to have a lower life-span, due to the cold, poor diet, lack of access to basic medical care and depression caused by the social exclusion, amongst many other factors.

To you. Personally I dislike the sound of church bells as they sound like clattery metal things being rolled down stairs. In contrast, to me, the sound of the muslim call to prayer is quite appealing and has a strong feel of 'holiness' that, to me, bells lack (I'm not a muslim, by the way). It also doesn't go on for very long, unlike the bells, which can often be clanging away for hours.

And to any motorists who get to work on the horn on seeing such cyclists riding (legally and for reasons of safety) 2 abreast, here's some more police insight- you're breaking the law https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q406.htm

1832 Contemporary stuff If some motorists on here, especially those who bitch about cyclists riding 2 abreast, looked at some up to date advice from the Derbyshire police, they might get a shock, i.e. http://www.derbyshire.police.uk/Safety-advice/Road-Safety/Cyclists.aspx

Who cares? People with functioning brains who like to base their opinions on actual facts and reasons, rather than knee-jerk prejudice. So the fact that the percentage of deaths caused by cyclists is miniscule in comparison to deaths caused by motorists, would be very relevant to them, as, when it comes to demanding resources to address problems, they would want to prioritize tackling problems that cause large numbers of death, over problems that cause very, very, few deaths.

Glad you're out of it I hope you'll remember your experience of the DWPs ineptitude, stupidity and how they routinely treat their 'clients' as if they are scum. You're far from the only victim of this corrupt organisation, as I'm sure you're aware, your release was due to some sanity on the part of your mortgage company, that is increasingly rare these days. Hopefully you'll visit the frequent benefit related threads on this forum in future, where you'll notice a large number of posters who are apologists for the DWP/benefits system, who insist that the misfortunes of it's 'clients' are self caused. Please do contribute to said threads, as, unlike those apologists, you have actual experience of the DWP as it now is.

I've got more experience than you, as you've never had pets. And yes, I can state it factually as I've seen dogs eat all kinds of rubbish, including, on occasion, dog sh*t Personally, I've not seen homeless people with pedigrees, generally they have mongrels. If a homeless person did have a pedigree, that would be compatible with that homeless person previously having a home/job and thus being able to afford said pedigree, then falling into bad circumstances and losing the home/job, but, due to caring about their dog, keeping it. As for them being well fed, I do agree that most homeless people with dogs do seem to look after them well, but that doesn't surprise me in the slightest. I suspect that the majority of homeless people probably have a fairly low opinion of humanity in general- when people have seen the worst in humans, they often see a lot in animals, dogs in particular, as, unlike most humans, they are sincere, uncomplicated and loyal. Imagine if you'd been less fortunate, and found yourself rejected by society, let down by social support systems, and had to live, alone, on the streets, drinking alcohol as the only way to deal with the incessant cold at night. I think then you'd much better appreciate the value of a warm loyal dog that asks nothing of you other than some affection and a few scraps of waste food.

Your lad had the excuse of being primary school age? What's yours? Dogs will happily eat rotten meat and food out of bins- does your "if the dog comes at the expense of feeding oneself" imply that the owner should do the same? If not, then the dogs not coming at the expense of the owner feeding him/her self. Dogs can also attract a bit of extra sympathy from that small portion of the public who care about things other than themselves, so that extra cash could not only feed the dog, but leave a little left over for the owner.

Make sure you keep all this logged, and, hang on to any paperwork- it's all evidence. It sounds like they've gone to extremes with you, and, it's possible they're breaking the law (not at all unusual for the DWP). There are organisations out there with legal teams, if you keep the evidence, you may have an opportunity to hit back at the DWP, and, if so, you'd be performing a public service, cos a lot of what they're putting people through these days, is full on abuse. ---------- Post added 07-05-2015 at 22:36 ---------- The DWP is an organisation of leeches which consumes and wastes a vast amount of public money. It's ironic that it continues it's abuses in large part by portraying it's 'clients' (victims) i.e. the unemployed and/or disabled as leeches themselves.

No. A lot of these motorists with their narrow-minded opinions and false beliefs about road tax etc are sincere. Being a regular driver in rush hour traffic must be incredibly frustrating and stressfull. Add on being ripped off by ever increasing insurance, dealing with bizarre one way systems and cameras that catch you out if you deviate from Sheffields bizarre and ever changing traffic rules. Then there's the extortionate parking fines, etc, etc. When they're taking a hour to cover a journey that, were the roads not congested beyond belief, would take 10 minutes, it's human nature to look for a scapegoat. And, if the thing directly in front of your eyes is a cyclist, then the cyclist will be the scapegoat. However, not all motorists are completely thick- when it's pointed out that the true cause of the congestion is actually the solid rows of parked cars down both sides of the road, and the opposite lane being gridlocked with cars, some are going to be able to engage with that observation, and modify their previous knee-jerk scapegoating of the cyclist. Same goes for the knee-jerk blaming of all cyclists, on the basis of those few who ride irresponsibly. I refuse to believe that all motorists are incapable of reason, so, it's always going to be worth posting facts and reasoned argument on these threads, even if it only makes 2% of participating motorists see things differently.

Cyclists are in no way obliged to use cycle paths. They are very much entitled to use the roads. Many cycle paths are not safe to ride on. A prime part of safe cycling is taking 'primary position' in the center of the lane, when appropriate, not skulking next to the curb on the left where the cycle path is. This is very bad advice- only use the cycle path if it is safe to do so. (penistone road cycle path is actually quite decent, being completely removed from the main road)

It doesn't give all other cyclists a bad name. It can't. Extrapolating from one cyclist to all others is faulty logic- simple as that. I'm not saying people don't 'think': "that cyclist did something wrong, therefore all cyclists are the same"- they do. But it's got no basis in rationality- it is in fact prejudice.

You shouldn't be embarrassed about it dude, a lot of times it makes sense to stop at the reds

Similar here- in the last hour. Me heading down a quiet road with long line of parked cars on the left, and, heard car coming up behind. Sounded like he was revving a bit, and I'm not interested in being passed by impatient racer types, given that there's not that much room to pass. So I pull out into the middle of the remaining road. At which point he gets on the horn, which I completely ignore. Then, at the next junction, I carry on, pulling over to the left, as there's now no parked cars and so plenty of space for him to get by. But he heads off down the left road, whilst shouting something incoherent. The problem is, some motorists assume you pull into central for no reason other than to slow them down- they seem to have no understanding that you're doing it cos it's the safe and proper thing to do on a bike. That's why, IMO, every physically capable person should have to spend time on a bicycle and be tested on it, as part of the driving test. (as well as being educated into the facts that there's no such thing as road tax, and, that cyclists are not obliged to either ride in the cycle lane, or, wear a helmet )

No, there is nothing in place for that. You will constantly have to sign off, then make a new claim, then sign off, then make a new claim... The process is utterly inflexible, and, each time you're signed off JSA, your housing benefit and council tax benefit claim will also stop, and have to be re-applied for. Additionally, with housing benefit, due to silly rules concerning not getting paid for the first week of a claim, even if the reclaim process worked smoothly (it doesn't) you would be out of pocket.

as said here- Then lots of people would not have been forced out of homes they'd taken on totally within the rules at the time.

If people are successfully appealing, it shows the system is being judged as wrong.

I wouldn't bother trying to force everyone to have it, or necessarily prevent those who haven't had it from cycling (due to the beaurocracy, admin and costs that would be necessary). Instead make it a looked-forward to part of school life with a certificate (possibly make it part of the curriculum) and some incentive, such as a free bike for those who excell in the exam. Even if only 98% do the training, that's considerably better than the current situation where we have a high portion of motorists having passed their driving test with no real experience of cycling on roads and no cycling training whatsoever. ---------- Post added 29-04-2015 at 17:43 ---------- No- my suggestion is that it's part of school for all 12 year olds. It's not mandatory for adults, as, that would be a barrier to cycling.

I don't think anyone would object to cycle training for all 12 year olds, delivered free of charge as part of a government scheme. That way it wouldn't act as a barrier to cycling, and, would likely encourage cycling. It would also have the advantage of all future motorists having had some cycle training. It's worth noting that on the wiki page you mention, straight after the section on cycle training, is this- "Dutch motorists are also trained for interaction with cyclists as part of their driver training when going for their driving licence. For example, trainee motorists are trained to check and re-check their right-hand side for cyclists before making a turn to the right."

Obviously crossing them correctly (as close to 90 degrees as possible) is essential in minimizing a slip, but it's never going to be 100%. Cross wet lines, however 'correctly' and they'll occasionally send you over. A lot of cyclists have broken bones crossing them, some have died. The only way to guarantee not coming off when they're wet, is to not cross them i.e. stay bang in the middle of them. As everyone on this thread can agree, a small %-age of motorists are inept and dangerous to cyclists. They will squeeze by, regardless of the danger they put you in. As a cyclist, you'll be passed by hundreds of motorists every ride. That means, over time, you will be passed by one of the small number of murderously inept idiots. That's why, in situations where there's insufficent space for passing, a responsible, experienced cyclist, will always take the center of the lane and thus render passing attempts impossible. The reason that your cycling close to the curb "seems to encourage them to pass closer" is because it does encourage them to pass closer. They're in a metal box- they will not be killed or hurt if they hit you. They are sometimes in a rush. A small portion of them hate you, cos you're a cyclist, and cyclists get to go through reds/don't pay 'road tax' and all the other cliched rubbish we get on every thread like this. You're totally entitled to ride next to the curb if you choose. But, if safety is important to you, then it's the wrong position.

They most certainly are. Taking 'primary position' in certain circumstances is strongly recommended by cycling advocacy groups, essential in minimising risk of harm, and, most (experienced) cyclists will, when those circumstances arise, most definitely take the middle of the lane. Those circumstances include any where it is possible that a motorist behind could otherwise attempt to overtake when to do so, in the judgement of the cyclist, be dangerous. i.e. 'pinch points', when passing parked cars (in anticipation of possible opening doors) etc, etc. In Sheffield, it would also be recommended when on roads with tram lines on them, especially when wet, as it's dangerous to cross them (which is necessary when not in the middle of them, due to jutting out tram stops).

No- wasn't clear at all. I think looking at the actual quote it's easy to see how the misunderstanding arose. But, after a few posts back and forth, it must have been obvious to you that people were reading your words in a different way to which you intended. At which point, you could very easily have put it straight, instead of which we got a string of things like- why not just explain there'd been a misunderstanding, and, what it was. Debate is based on communication, after all. Still, I for one, am very glad that you do realise that cyclists passing on the left side is totally legal and OK, cos, I can assure you, there are drivers out there who think it's not. (Along with drivers who believe that cyclists must use an available cycle lane along with a host of other blatant untruths).

You also seem to be unable to read, as nothing in what I wrote suggested what you've accused me of. I have no problem with a person other than the one quoted responding (why would I?). My issue is with a person not actually reading the post (and any associated quotes) before replying to it. And I'll stand by that- it's my firm belief that when replying/commenting to/on a post, it's very important to read that post first.