onewheeldave

https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/static/hc/hc_rule_163_give_vulnerable_road_users_at_least_as_much_space_as_you_would_a_car.jpg For anyone who needs a picture

I just don't believe it dude. I refuse to accept that people like that are using any kind of reasoning going from 'that cyclist just went through a red' to 'I'm going to deliberately mow down a cyclist'. What I do believe is that there are some seriously f***ed up mentally twisted sickos who, due to their messed up mentalities, take pleasure in the fact that when they're in their sad little metal boxes, they can take out their pain on someone who isn't in a metal box. And you'll never know which of the metal boxes revving up around you contain such an individual. So, if I judge that I can be safely through the red, down the road for 50 yards, then off up a side street and avoid them entirely, then you'll have to excuse me for doing what I see as necessary to maximise my chances of getting home uncrushed. And if you cannot see that, then carry on classing us all as 'irresponsible', putting us all in the same comfy little box and, basically giving credence to the 'reasoning' of sickos like the above- but, you are deluded. ---------- Post added 30-12-2014 at 19:34 ---------- Take note of this people. This is the mentality of those who routinely put the lives of cyclists at risk with utter impunity, presumably cos they know that when they're in their metal boxes, they're not being put at risk of being crushed to death. Despite whining about red light crossing cyclists 'breaking the law', they'll happily themselves dismiss the highway codes rules for passing a cyclist. And then, bizzarely, imply by the tone of their post that they're conveying some kind of intellectual superiority.

Just to re-state: the cyclists here, myself included, only go through reds in the many scenarios where they is no danger to them. Because they are entering a clear stretch of road where there are no cars. Like we've said, the motivation is because, in our judgement, it's safer to go through the red, than launch on the green with a pack of hasty car drivers jockying for position. I'm happy to admit that some other cyclists do launch themselves into real danger through bad judgement or impatience- but that's irrelevant to the case I've made. And, for those who do put themselves in that danger- that's their choice, as are the consequences. Almost certainly they'll be the ones to get hurt, as when car hits bike, it's amost alwys the cyclist who gets maimed/killed. Cylists do not impede- you simply have to overtake them leaving the proper amount of room. If you can't, it's cos the opposite lane is full of cars, or, because the side of the roads are occupied by large numbers of parked cars. If the roads weren't clogged to the absolute max and beyond, with ludicrous amounts of cars, you'd be able to overtake. Use your eyes, open your mind, see the real cause. Every cyclist on the road is one less car, and one less car is one less vehicle clogging the road system. ---------- Post added 30-12-2014 at 19:09 ---------- Highway code disagrees- "give motorcyclists, cyclists and horse riders at least as much room as you would when overtaking a car" says 'at least', implying that you need to give them more than you would a car (wider object). ---------- Post added 30-12-2014 at 19:20 ---------- I just don't believe it dude. quote= ]Emma Way, 22, clipped cyclist Toby Hockley with her car in Norfolk in May. She then tweeted: "Definitely knocked a cyclist off his bike earlier. I have right of way - he doesn't even pay road tax! #Bloodycyclists." Norwich magistrates convicted her of failing to stop after an accident and failing to report it, which she denied. Way, of Watton, was acquitted of driving without due care and attention. She was ordered to pay a £337 fine, £300 in costs and was given seven points on her licence. I refuse to accept that people like that are using any kind of reasoning going from 'that cyclist just went through a red' to 'I'm going to deliberately mow down a cyclist'. What I do believe is that there are some seriously f***ed up mentally twisted sickos who, due to their messed up mentalities, take pleasure in the fact that when they're in their sad little metal boxes, they can take out their pain on someone who isn't in a metal box. And you'll never know which of the metal boxes revving up around you contain such an individual. So, if I judge that I can be safely through the red, down the road for 50 yards, then off up a side street and avoid them entirely, then you'll have to excuse me for doing what I see as necessary to maximise my chances of getting home uncrushed. And if you cannot see that, then carry on classing us all as 'irresponsible', putting us all in the same comfy little box and, basically giving credence to the 'reasoning' of sickos like the above- but, you are deluded.

Should you? It's against the law for sure- no ones saying otherwise. But illegal acts are not equal- there's a scale of consequences, and there's a scale of enforcement reaction when those laws are broken. Thus, being caught smoking a joint, is generally seen as, and treated as, fairly trivial, Dropping a TV from height into a crowd of people is seen as, and treated as, very, very serious. (Indeed, it is fairly likely that some of those on threads like this, ranting that cyclists shouldn't go through reds on the grounds of safety, purely because 'it's illegal and that's the end of it...' themselves routinely break the law themselves, by, for example, their cannabis usage. If so, they should re-assess their 'argument'). Similarly, a cycle going through a red, is seen as, and treated as, trivial in comparison to going through in a large metal four wheeled box, as the consequences of the former, both hypothetically and in terms of actual statistics, are considerably less likely to result in severe injury/death. You may note that that isn't rocket science either.

Like I pointed out above, there is no hypocrisy or inequality- you or anyone else can get on a bike, go through a red, and be reasonably sure of not getting in trouble. Conversely, any cyclist can go out in a car, run reds, and reasonably expect the law to get heavily involved (due to the fact that it's much, much more likely to lead to innocent deaths than a cyclist going through a red).

Well, we know it's against the law- no-one's disputing that. Is that really the reason why it's annoying. (note that many people routinely break laws they personally feel are not good laws, eg, anyone who smokes the odd bit of cannabis). ---------- Post added 30-12-2014 at 12:50 ---------- Bit of a strawman there, as I asked for the reason why it's annoying. Your statement above is circular as it's basically saying 'it's annoying cos people find it annoying, and, those annoyed people then go on to be hostile to all cyclists. Incidently, to conclude anything about all cyclists from the actions of some (a minority , in this case), is really bad logic, and, the source of any negative consequences arising is clearly a consequence of that bad reasoning.

And why is that? Why do some of you car drivers find it so annoying that a cyclist goes through a red sometimes? Can you actually come up with the reasons why? I'm genuinely interested in knowing why you people find it so annoying, I'm interested in knowing if you know why you find it annoying. And I mean the real reasons, not the usual rubbish along the lines of 'if they can do it why can't I...' (rubbish because, of course, you can do what they do i.e. get on a bike (along with all the negatvies it entails, such as being at risk of being mown down by that small percentage of motorists who are a real danger to cyclist on the road) and, on encountering a red, decide to go through it. So, what's the rasoning being your annoyance?

Hi Monkey- thanks for that I understand you're involved with space4cycling, so we've probably been on a ride together at one of the events. Just wondering, if you know many of the people involved with the project quite well, what's the general consensus (if there is one) on this issue of going through reds with the motivation of maximising personal safety? Is it a fairly common thing amongst riders involved with spaceforcycling, or, like on this forum, do the majority see it as wrong and irresponsible? Also, are you aware of any local cycling groups that are involved with some form of activist approach in improving cycling safety? (for example working to get video evidence of stuff that's really dangerous for cyclists, such as motorists using mobile phones while driving, then submitting it to the police, and, taking it higher when/if the police don't follow it up?

I can relate to that- I used to be well into weight training, bits of cardio, and generally pushing myself. At 47 though, I've had to switch priorities. Constant tendon issues and symptoms suggesting overtraining made it quite clear to me that extreme fitness, and, health, are not necessarily good bedfellows. A drastic change of diet (eliminating pretty much all processed 'foods') and focusing training on actual health (as opposed to pursuing fitness achievements) has got me back on track. The good news is that, once I started eating properly and lost almost 2 stone, it became apparent just how little training is necessary to be in really good shape. Currently doing mainly callisthenics, with very small amounts of weights incorporated, varying from 2 to 3, 30 minute sessions/week. Along with a fair bit of (chilled) walking and cycling (I don't drive). I don't bother with cardio, as, once I got rid of the excess fat, I found I could breathe way better. Also, I'm aware of the large amounts of evidence indicating that extreme amounts of cardio training damages health. My advice to you would be to avoid running anything like 40 miles a week. If health is your priority, a few chilled 20 minute runs a week will suffice; plus, a bit of callisthenics to keep the muscles toned.

Actually, plenty of people would, and do, object to assisted suicide. Sadly, we live in a world where people like that are listened to and, laws put in place so they can have their 'viewpoints' inflicted on others. The problem you're having in this thread is that a lot of people that if it's a rule, or a law, it must be followed, even if it's an absurd one, or, one that in some circumstances, is absurd. As an aspergic, I've come to the conclusion that this mindset of putting rules at a higher priority than logic/reason, is one of the hindrences of the neurotypical mentality. Certainly, when looked at purely rationally, it's clear that our road system is a joke, as is the way our society lets cyclists be treated, in that all cyclists are at risk of being mown down by motorists, often due to their ineptitude, fact that they're on a mobile, and, a host of other reasons. And, when a cyclist is killed by a motorists ineptitude, chances are they will get away with it. The fact that car drivers will rage about being slowed by a cyclist, when logic shows that the delays are actually due to a gross excess of cars on the road, not cycles is another example of the absolute lack of rationality on this issue. And when cyclists who find tactics to lower the risk to them, such as, in some circumstances, passing through a red light when the way ahead is blatantly clear and safe, and, to remain in front of a pack of irate, tense and rushed drivers in their protective metal boxes (at least a percentage of whom are demonstrably not safe to be anywhere near a cyclist), is clearly putting said cyclist at risk: doesn't matter, cos a rules a rule, a laws a law, and must be obeyed. So, respect to you for vocalising and arguing your point- I know for a fact there's far more cyclists out there who routinely in some circumstances go through reds on the grounds of safety, than is apparent in threads like this. I suspect this is due mainly to them feeling outnumbered by the 'rule-bounds' and fearing being verbally attacked on these threads. I'd suggest they, instead, take the opportunity to speak out here, and we'd probably find the true proportions aren't so much in the favour of the 'rulebounds' as they like to think. And, the thing about 'rule-bounds', is that if it starts to look like they're not in a big majority, they tend to be a lot less vocal.

Suggestion noted and duly dismissed, as cyclists have every right to be on the roads- arguably, more so than motorists.

No one here is talking about cyclists running pedestrian crossing lights. That's out of order, as the danger to a pedestrian being hit by a fast moving cyclist is akin to the danger of a cyclist being hit by a car. The red lights being discussed here are the ones well away from pedestrian crossings, that hold back large packs of, often impatient/annoyed, motorists, who can present a real danger to any cyclists as they all set off together when the lights change. So much so, that some experienced cyclists, if it's obvious that the way ahead is clear (as it often is), will, if they feel under threat, go through the red, so they are well out of the way of the accelerating pack of frustrated/aggressive motorists as the lights change.

I agree. Are you under the impression that I've told someone to shut up?

Oh, you can (go wrong). You could for example, go for a 'free' one, that involves paying £99/month admin costs for 6 months Here's a free plan that' guaranteed to remove excess weight and improve health- simply cease to eat processed 'food' and, instead, buy and eat unlimited quantities of fruit and vegetables (plus, if you wish, small amounts of meat/animal produce). Learn to cook the food like your granny used to. I know it seems radical at first, eating actual real food, but, a few months in when you've ceased to be obese and ill, you'll marvel that you ever tried to live off processed/packaged 'food'.

I had a Dahon- it's 7 speed deraileurs handled most hills, certainly there were no 'no go' areas other than ridiculously steep hills like Blake st. I totally dispute any that say it's got to be a Brompton- not only because of the extreme price tag, but also cos many experienced folder riders do not like 16" wheels and prefer the 20" size that many Dahons have. Also, Bromptons use hub gears- a 3 speed is not good in sheffield (unless you're prepared to have 'no-go' routes) and, while they have the advantage of low maintenance, many riders prefer deraileurs because they can be self-maintained, and, repaired. Bromptons can come with higher numbers of gears, but, the extra expense is considerable, and, you'll either end up with an internal hub with more than 3 gears (and consequent reliability issues), or, both hub gears and deraileurs, it which case a strong case can be made for just getting a bike with deraileurs in the first place. I'm not disputing that the Brommies got the best and most compact fold- it has. Just pointing out that it's not the default go-to choice once other factors are taken into consideration. And, that Dahons, though towards the budget end of things, are good bikes and well thought of by many users.

Try riding around post midnight- I've encountered several such non-changing lights, and, the total absence of motor vehicles means nothings going to trigger it. ---------- Post added 25-12-2014 at 13:44 ---------- Merry christmas Denlin It's not a war, it's a discussion.

We clearly disagree entirely with you. If you want to go through life disregarding perfectly coherent and logical reasons why many experienced cyclists go through reds for the sake of their own safety, and, believe, instead, that it's always about convenience/laziness, then so be it. But you're wrong buddy. As you'd quickly come to realise if you actually tried to engage with the arguments, rather than just insisting that all such cyclists are deluded/lying. No. Angry drivers are angry purely because cyclists are allowed on the roads and they see the roads as being for cars only. They get angry if a cyclist is riding down the middle of a tight lane (due to the cyclist wanting to avoid being maimed/killed when another car driver parked up at the side randomly opens their door), completely oblivious to the fact that the lane is narrow due to the 2 solid lines of parked cars at either side. They get angry cos they pay 2/3/4 £K a year in tax, MOT, fuel, parking fines to finance their speed machines and deeply resent being passed during rush hours by bicycles, while they are trapped in the slow moving mush of cars on a road system that is way past broken (and broken soley due to the absurd numbers of cars on it).

That's kind of the point, as it's the 'odd driver' who ends up killing you. Even if 99% of all drivers give you the space required for safety when bunched up at the red light, it only takes that 1% to, one day, end your life.

I used to have a fixie. But, @ 47 yrs old combined with the extreme hill situation in Sheffield, after a few months riding I flipped the wheel over to make it single speed freewheel, and , a bit after, changed the cog to lower the gear, then, finally, sold it. I do often see, fixies though, usually student age riders with knees that aren't trashed Usually on their own as opposed to groups, so, probably no 'scene' as such, but definitly some fixies around in sheffield. Having said that, I do still ride the one wheel fixie- it's very low gear so hills aren't a problem- here's a clip, I'm one the left. Recomend the one wheel fixies highly- very low maintenance

This is the value of legal action- it brings about change. The NHS is grossly mismanaged, and, like all such organisations, it's often not productive to stick to their 'official routes of complaints' system (in house). Lack of action to tackle problems will always be justified (in their eyes) by lack of funds. Successful legal action and compensation makes it apparent that tackling the (usually, long standing) problem will be cheaper than being sued again. Legal action benefits the NHS by making it clear that, in the long term, it's in the NHS's interests to correct it's faults.

Do you know what tree is the most dangerous tree in the world? ---------- Post added 21-11-2014 at 18:02 ---------- It's the Minnis tree (of defence)

Hardly- the title of it i.e. the "Million Mask March" contains a clue as to the reason they were wearing masks

Planes blowing up are very rare proportionate to the number of plane flights- the proportions are not so favourable for Virgin Galactic spaceship flights.

Not all- they difficult to find but there are toothpastes that do not contain flouride- Holland and Barretts had a couple in stock last time I went there. Flouride free toothpastes cater for that small minority of consumers who prefer evidence-based health care, and who are aware that there is zero evidence that flouride benefits teeth, and/or are concerned about the fact that there is evidence suggesting flouride is fairly toxic.

When it comes to martial arts, wing chun is second only to tai chi in not requiring fitness (of the cardiovascular variety).