Increased Police Vigilance

[monkey104]

Pop this book on your Christmas list for next year:

http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/

 

Hmmm... Looks like a book written by cyclists for cyclist and critiqued by pro cycling associations.

I'm sure someone could point out a book written the same way about cars.

[1295galaxy]

There were loads of Police about Last Night,but Town was not so Busy Last Night

[gimp27]

The recommended width for cycle lanes is 2 metres. Many of those in Sheffield aren't even half that. Such narrow lanes are dangerous because they don't give cyclists room to manoeuvre (dodge debris, be blown sideways by crosswinds, etc,) and encourage motorists to think "well it must be safe to pass them that close otherwise they wouldn't have built them so narrow. A number of cyclists, me included, think no cycle lane is preferable to a too narrow one.

 

 

 

The vast majority of motorists and cyclists just want to get along fine. There are some misunderstandings by those who don't realise how their actions affect others and how the others are supposed to behave (e.g. some motorists think cyclists should ride near the kerb when cycle training courses teach that is dangerous). The hating bit applies to the extremists on both sides. That you think it's only one way says more about you than who does the hating.

 

Altus. Your bold shows only one thing, and forgive me for being blunt, but you are an arse. I have every respect for ALL road users, but its clear from reading the many threads that there is a devide on BOTH sides, with a sunstancial amount of anti-car rantings from the cyclists regarding space. If the powers that be thought that cyclists were getting a raw deal when being overtaken by motor vehicles, then a statute would be in place and cycle lanes would be the same width as normal road lanes, but of course they are not. If cyclists truly believe the motoring public are endangering their lives, then until the law changes, they should either plan less congested routes or leave the bike in the garage. Its not a question of who is more at danger, because its quite clearly the cyclist, but life is more precious than the need to risk life and limb on a cycle on todays heavily built up roads.

As far as your bold goes, then im afraid this pathetic response is what gives the impression that cyclists believe they are on a higher pecking order than the humble motorist. Grow up for heavens sake, and accept that these two forms of transport just dont always get on.

[Eater Sundae]

Altus. Your bold shows only one thing, and forgive me for being blunt, but you are an arse. I have every respect for ALL road users, but its clear from reading the many threads that there is a devide on BOTH sides, with a sunstancial amount of anti-car rantings from the cyclists regarding space. If the powers that be thought that cyclists were getting a raw deal when being overtaken by motor vehicles, then a statute would be in place and cycle lanes would be the same width as normal road lanes, but of course they are not. If cyclists truly believe the motoring public are endangering their lives, then until the law changes, they should either plan less congested routes or leave the bike in the garage. Its not a question of who is more at danger, because its quite clearly the cyclist, but life is more precious than the need to risk life and limb on a cycle on todays heavily built up roads.

As far as your bold goes, then im afraid this pathetic response is what gives the impression that cyclists believe they are on a higher pecking order than the humble motorist. Grow up for heavens sake, and accept that these two forms of transport just dont always get on.

 

Another safe response from cyclists would be to adopt the primary position in the "any vehicle" lane.

[gimp27]

Another safe response from cyclists would be to adopt the primary position in the "any vehicle" lane.

 

Absolutely, and would be the most safest move for the cyclist, because that would definately impede the flow of traffic from making a "too close" overtake, but of course in reality would be the catalyst for a really bad day for the cyclist as the tempers of the impeded motorists would have probably reached boiling point. :hihi:

[altus]

Altus. Your bold shows only one thing, and forgive me for being blunt, but you are an arse.

 

Other people can judge which of us is being an arse from the content of our posts.

 

I have every respect for ALL road users, but its clear from reading the many threads that there is a devide on BOTH sides,

 

If you think there is a divide on both sides then why did you put:

I dont think that motorists hate cyclists......I truly believe its the other way round.

 

You put that in a response to my post where I said:

The vast majority of motorists and cyclists just want to get along fine.

and

The hating bit applies to the extremists on both sides.

 

with a sunstancial amount of anti-car rantings from the cyclists regarding space. If the powers that be thought that cyclists were getting a raw deal when being overtaken by motor vehicles, then a statute would be in place and cycle lanes would be the same width as normal road lanes, but of course they are not.

The powers that be know there are problems - they don't have the budgets to do much about it. That's why we end up with half arsed solutions like dangerously narrow cycle lanes. The latest example of that I've noticed is on Abbeydale Road heading out of town where Woodseats Road joins it. There is a short section of cycle lane that is not only too narrow, it makes the lane next to it too narrow for larger cars (let alone buses and lorries) to fit into. It's of no benefit to anyone - motorists and cyclists alike.

 

If cyclists truly believe the motoring public are endangering their lives, then until the law changes, they should either plan less congested routes or leave the bike in the garage. Its not a question of who is more at danger, because its quite clearly the cyclist, but life is more precious than the need to risk life and limb on a cycle on todays heavily built up roads.

Now you're victim blaming. Maybe the minority of motorists who don't think they should have to drive safely around cyclists should give up driving instead. They are the ones who are causing the problem.

 

As far as your bold goes, then im afraid this pathetic response is what gives the impression that cyclists believe they are on a higher pecking order than the humble motorist. Grow up for heavens sake, and accept that these two forms of transport just dont always get on.

 

I called you out on your claim that it's only one sided and you've got all upset. I haven't said anything to indicate I think cyclists are higher on any pecking order than motorists - I just want them to be treated equally. Why can't all cyclists and all motorists get on with each other? The vast majority in both groups already do.

[gimp27]

Other people can judge which of us is being an arse from the content of our posts.

 

 

 

If you think there is a divide on both sides then why did you put:

 

You put that in a response to my post where I said:

and

 

 

 

The powers that be know there are problems - they don't have the budgets to do much about it. That's why we end up with half arsed solutions like dangerously narrow cycle lanes. The latest example of that I've noticed is on Abbeydale Road heading out of town where Woodseats Road joins it. There is a short section of cycle lane that is not only too narrow, it makes the lane next to it too narrow for larger cars (let alone buses and lorries) to fit into. It's of no benefit to anyone - motorists and cyclists alike.

 

 

Now you're victim blaming. Maybe the minority of motorists who don't think they should have to drive safely around cyclists should give up driving instead. They are the ones who are causing the problem.

 

 

 

I called you out on your claim that it's only one sided and you've got all upset. I haven't said anything to indicate I think cyclists are higher on any pecking order than motorists - I just want them to be treated equally. Why can't all cyclists and all motorists get on with each other? The vast majority in both groups already do.

 

I didnt get upset. You did old love. What was your content again, er......Victim blaming/whos post shows who is an arse/your claim this, your claim that/general wallyness etc etc. Yes yes yes, we have heard it all before and its still as boring as sin.

If you read your arse-icle, sorry article, you will notice that you are just plainly blaming the motorist and cyclists are just victims. Well boo hoo.

What you forget is that a motorist can be severely injured or even killed by other motorists because the roads are a dangerous place to be, no matter what form of transport you use, and the fact that some motorists should never have been given a driving licence in the first place. But when the mode of transport you choose is a cycle, your chances of surviving an encounter are pretty low.

Now, the reason I suggested you were a posterior is because no matter what people views on cyclists are, cyclists are always the victims. That is really sad, and causes a lot of heartache for loved ones, but it is a choice, made by the rider and no-one else. I suggested the roads were heavily congested, and that cycling was very dangerous during these times, and that maybe it would be better not to do it, especially when so many cyclist are complaining about motor vehicles. Nobody will win this arguement, but I know who will come off worse.

Oh, and this arse has been a cyclist for years, but gave up after too many close shaves with cars/trucks.

[altus]

I didnt get upset. You did old love. What was your content again, er......Victim blaming/whos post shows who is an arse/your claim this, your claim that/general wallyness etc etc. Yes yes yes, we have heard it all before and its still as boring as sin.

If you read your arse-icle, sorry article, you will notice that you are just plainly blaming the motorist and cyclists are just victims. Well boo hoo.

What you forget is that a motorist can be severely injured or even killed by other motorists because the roads are a dangerous place to be, no matter what form of transport you use, and the fact that some motorists should never have been given a driving licence in the first place. But when the mode of transport you choose is a cycle, your chances of surviving an encounter are pretty low.

Now, the reason I suggested you were a posterior is because no matter what people views on cyclists are, cyclists are always the victims. That is really sad, and causes a lot of heartache for loved ones, but it is a choice, made by the rider and no-one else. I suggested the roads were heavily congested, and that cycling was very dangerous during these times, and that maybe it would be better not to do it, especially when so many cyclist are complaining about motor vehicles. Nobody will win this arguement, but I know who will come off worse.

Oh, and this arse has been a cyclist for years, but gave up after too many close shaves with cars/trucks.

 

As I said "Other people can judge which of us is being an arse from the content of our posts."

[gimp27]

As I said "Other people can judge which of us is being an arse from the content of our posts."

 

Agreed.

[Cyclone]

Suggesting that cyclists shouldn't use the road because of the danger is a variation of victim blaming isn't it. Instead of addressing the problem, you avoid it by restricting the behaviour of others.

 

And of course you make it more congested, making it more dangerous, and you reduce the likelihood of seeing a cyclist whilst driving, making it even more dangerous for those who remain.

 

The more people who cycle, the safer cycling becomes (because drivers get used to driving safely around them), and the less congested it gets. It's a virtuous circle. Do all that you can to make cycling safer and to encourage it, not the opposite.