onewheeldave

Well, it's a bit of an early start, but £20 for a 13 hour course sounds like a right bargain

'Minority' is convenient, but, in this context, meaningless- it could be anything from 1%- 49%. Perhaps you could quantify it? Any experienced cyclist knows that whatever size it is, it's big enough to manifest on a regular basis in terms of abuse and being put in unecessary danger.

Yes it is- that's the root of it all. People spend large portions of their income on these machines which promise freedom, speed and style; then lose a significant portion of their life everyday, sat in slow moving rush hour jams, as cyclists whizz past them. Hence the road rage and the frequent attacks on cyclists, ranging from verbal to physical. We'll disagree on that one too- simply reading the cycling threads on sheffield forum indicates the level of hatred some drivers bear towards cyclists.

It's a bit confusing- it sounds like he wasn't looking properly doesn't it? If you're a cyclist going through a red, it's very important that there's no cars coming, you really do need to be 100% sure it's totally clear. TBH cyclists who don't put a lot of focus on looking are liable to come a cropper even when they're nowhere near a red light. Yes. In some circumstances, it is safer to go through the red. And red lights aren't there just for safety reasons- their main purposes these days is regulating the grossly excessive numbers of motor vehicles that clog up the road system. In particular, when there's a large build up of revving cars/taxis/vans/lorries, one/several of which have taken up the front position box which is supposed to be reserved for cyclists to enable them to take off from the front and enhance their survival prospects when the lights go green. If that box is occupied by a motor vehicle, the cyclist ends up at the left, vulnerable to any motorist who turns left without noticing the cyclist. Sometimes, there may be space for the cyclist to get in front of the offending vehicle, but, as the driver clearly has an attitude issue to be occupying the box in the first place, there's a danger that their fragile ego may be unable to handle the fact that the cyclist got in front anyway, with risk of road rage etc. Also, it's generally difficult when in front of a car in the box to see the traffic lights- in fact it's probably in that very situation that, like me, a few cyclists have realised that, if there's no actual traffic coming the other way, that, rather than stay in this potentially dangerous situation, they can just nip across and not have to worry about 1. being abused by Mr/Mrs ego/attitude box stealer & 2, being mown down by Mr/Mrs non looking left turner. So, for those motorists who get really angry at seeing a cyclist go through a red, bear in mind that when you occupy the box reserved for cyclists, it can well encourage them to start thinking for themselves and doing what's necessary for their own safey. If there is, I'll see them. And, in the unlikely event I'm either careless or unobservant enough to not spot them, then I'll get hit. But, if I'm going to get hit, I'd prefer it to be due to my mistake, rather than be run over from behind by an idiot driver, or, wiped out by a left turner who can't be bothered to look before they go.

Never said it did. Fact is, that of all the maimings, carnage and killings that happen on the roads, the vast majority are down to motor vehicles, and it's time something serious was done to end the madness. A big step forward would be a genuine large scale effort to encourage cycling, make roads safe for cyclists and have proper sentencing for motorists who run cyclists down through proven negligence or malice. Until that day, it's down to us cyclists to do what's necessary, in our judgement, to maximise our own safety. Obviously, some of us think that, in some circumstances, passing through a red is safer for us, others think the opposite. I happen to be in the former camp i.e. due to my experiences on the roads over many years, I genuinely believe that, in some circumstances, passing through a red is safer for me, and, I will ride in the way that I believe maximises my safety. Other experienced cyclists, have the opposite opinion, but, you know what, much as they're entitled to their opinion, it would be bizarre/perverse of me, to ride according to opinions I don't hold As for the opinions of motorists who don't themselves cycle on our insane road system, but who insist on whining and attacking cyclists who go through reds- they've got no right to talk about what's safe or not safe. If they get their lazy asses out of their boxes, and, spend some serious time out on a bike, dealing with idiots in boxes with no accountability, then, it'll be time to listen to their opinions.

Not if I'm turning left after 50 yards. Given that you believe it's routine for some motorists to deliberately pull a dangerous manouver purely because a cyclist just passed through a red light, maybe you can start to see why I cycle with the focus on me being safe. ---------- Post added 02-10-2014 at 18:05 ---------- So he didn't get hit??? I know. I just don't care You can't know. But, averaged out over several journeys, there will be some. Any cyclist who wants to maximise safety, must ride as if motorists are blind/idiotic/hasty, cos it's inevitable you're going to encounter some. ---------- Post added 02-10-2014 at 18:08 ---------- Well put sir :thumbsup: ---------- Post added 02-10-2014 at 18:16 ---------- Here's an excerpt- although I didn't realise we were talking about pedestrian crossings, which are totally different scenarios to road junction red lights.

And it would have been his fault. Going through a red when there's cars coming through way means he was either stupid or extremely unobservant. The time for a cyclist to go through reds is when there's no traffic coming through the other way, and, to do so is safer than launching on green with a pack of hasty, unobservant motor vehicles.

No, it's often because it is safer. The arguments for that POV are well known and I've posted them elsewhere. One reason it can seem that most cyclists don't ever go through reds, is that they tend to be really vocal and shout insistently that "no, no, no...there's never any justification for going through reds and any cyclist who just is just lazy, arrogant, evil etc, etc". The vast majority of cyclist who die under cars, weren't running reds, they were killed by an ++shole in a metal box, and though drivers like that are in a minority, there are plenty out there. If I can be 100 yards out of their way when they rev off in the impatient pack, then that's where I'll be, cos my safety is my priority when out riding

Fact remains, that in the judgement of many cyclists, in some circumstances it is safer to go through reds than wait while a bunch of impatient motorists build up behind.

No it's not. Just as in most other physical activites, taping up the ear to prevent injuries is very reasonable- why are the school not allowing it?

Here's a scenario- school does a proper risk assessment and insists that participants with piercings tape them up to prevent injuries. Paricipant doesn't have to cope with petty prejudices, school doesn't get sued- sorted. ---------- Post added 23-09-2014 at 15:01 ---------- As a few people have had a go at that statement, I'd just like to assure Cat70 that not everyone 'thinks' like that Makes perfect sense to me and I feel a bit sorry for those who can't understand it. ---------- Post added 23-09-2014 at 15:04 ---------- What counts as PE? Would circus skills count? A lot of kids who aren't enjoying trad PE tend to get on well with circus skills, and, Sheffields got quite a lot of provision.

Might be rare for you dude- clearly it's not rare for others travelling on different buses. But, don't answer the question if the fact that it relates to people who aren't you makes it difficult Sounds like you've got a tougher one by the amount of malice you're putting out. Hope things improve for you.

Are you aware that you're moaning about the moaners? You've done quite a lot of moaning on this thread yourself. You didn't answer my question-

That's unreasonable, they should let her tape them up. However, being practical, if the piercings are 5 years old, taking them out for a couple of hours and putting them back should be straightforward and I can't see why there'd be an infection risk?

Just to clarify then, cos no-ones saying that drivers should have to deal with £50 notes (or £20/£10's for that matter)- would you agree that it's reasonable to expect to get, for example, 50p change for a £1.50 fare when a person has only got pound coins to give to the driver? and that it's cash, not some type of voucher. Cos that's the kind of situation we're talking about here, and, it's not uncommon for drivers to not be able to deal with that on Sheffield buses.

That's a very good question. and that's a very bad answer it's a bit late to find out what the fare is by the time you're on the bus if you're wanting to bring the correct change! Unless, like many, memorising figures ain't a strong point. What about non-regulars? Cos their customer service is so great and you're guaranteed not to be spending 10 minutes in an automated queue listening to 'music' and messages about their website. And the person you speak to will know the answer and not have to transfer you multiple times to different departments each with it's own user friendly queue system Then gooling with the terms, 'mainline sheffield buses fares' would surely take us quickly to a page with fares on then? https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&q=mainline%20sheffield%20buses%20fares http://www.firstgroup.com/ukbus/south_yorkshire/tickets/ No, not looking good No, in the past dude, we didn't have this b*llsh*t: sanity prevailed and buses carried change

If you make helmets compulsory at skate parks, then most of the kids will be skating elsewhere i.e. in the streets. Skaters tend to be very anti-helmet, it's a cultural thing. Anyone got any stats/evidence that head injuries in skate parks actually occur with any frequency?

What are those measures? If people knew there existed measures that were of genuine use, they'd be far more likely to trigger them.

What proportion of the children you work with sustained their head injury in skateparks? (as compared to those who sustained their injury elsewhere e.g. car accidents etc). I was under the impression that head injuries in skateparks were fairly rare.

No, more green space is good. We certainly have way too much tarmac, roads and cars at the moment.

A phrase which, however, is coherent, well defined, and used by plenty of people who aren't 'David Icke truth seekers-: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance Ironically, you may be displaying signs of being afflicted with it yourself

It's not due to £50 notes. Often drivers can't deal with a £5 note. On a couple of occasions, I've had 2 £1 coins refused cos the fare was £1.50 I've got things to do with my life over than wander around hunting down, collecting and reading documentation showing fares for each bus I may need to get on in the future. I do generally ensure I've got extra change if I'm planning to use a bus, it's not always practical or possible though.

True. But a lot of us UK cyclists like to use our eyes when out on the bikes, and, when we spot a pothole, simply steer around it You're right, Sheffield's not a safe place for cycling, and, in the main, it's due to the volume of cars, and the fact that many drivers hold cyclists in real contempt here. I love getting out on the bike, but I try and stick to times/days when traffic is less, and, when I see youtube clips of countries that have a more sane view of cycling, like the Netherlands, I feel quite jealous.

Plus- every country that has introduced compulsory helmet laws for cyclists, has seen a rise in cycling injuries proportionate to the number of cyclists. Generally considered to be a result of the fact that where helmet laws exist, less people cycle, and, less cyclists on the roads leads to more accidents (proportionate to the numbers of cyclists on the roads). Helmet wear is a personal choice, and not wearing one in no way means a cyclist is being irresponsible or lax about their safety.

Who wants it built? Why would anyone, other than those associated with Tesco, want it built? It's not as if the area isn't full of mini-supermarkets and shops.