jezzyjj Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) And yet again, the cyclist uses the motorist as an excuse. No a justifiable reason, a quite different thing. Has you feel you have been bullied off the roads, do you not also see how you could be bullying the pedestrians off the footpaths? No? That doesn't surprise me. God you are a bigot. Why ignorantly and incorrectly assume I cycle as selfishly and aggressively as thugs in cars do? I am polite and courteous to other people, often stopping to let people pass on the rare occasion there is in fact anyone on the pavement. The reality being that times when there are pedestrians on said pavement is when it is shared use. I [and most cyclists] wouldn't want to go on a pavement if there were people on it anyway I also do not cycle quickly on the pavement as there is no need to. On the road minimising the difference in speed between yourself and other vehicles increases safety dramatically, therefore riding quickly is the sensible thing to do. On the pavement I can relax and cycle slowly. I think only one person has been killed on a pavement by a cyclist in the last decade or so and I seem to recall it was someone with mental health issues who was in the care of the community, i.e not looked after properly. In the same sort of time nearly 9,000 pedestrians were killed by vehicles. The number of pedestrians killed on pavements by cars is around 40 a year. Anyone thinking cyclists are the problem are quite frankly deluded Edited June 3, 2015 by jezzyjj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiseOwl182 Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Thinking being self employed is a cushy number is about as ignorant as ignorant as all of the bigoted nonsense on this thread about cyclists.. Not at all. Only self employed people who can still spend so much time posting 10s of thousands of (usually condescending) posts and staring out the window at car drivers all day can be considered on to a cushy number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jezzyjj Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 It's demonstrating the hypocrisy of the opinion they hold. People don't like being shown to be hypocrites though, so they get defensive about it. I'm sure motorists who are complaining about cyclists would prefer not to have their blatant hypocrisy pointed out to them. Tough. Those in glass houses... Indeed. ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Not at all. Only self employed people who can still spend so much time posting 10s of thousands of (usually condescending) posts and staring out the window at car drivers all day can be considered on to a cushy number. I guess you didn't notice the join date? You're finding enough time to post on here yourself... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jezzyjj Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Not at all. Only self employed people who can still spend so much time posting 10s of thousands of (usually condescending) posts and staring out the window at car drivers all day can be considered on to a cushy number.Showing people up for posting ignorant rubbish by using facts and not irrationality is not condescension. It's called being correct. That large number of posts has been accrued over an extremely long period it should be noted. Eleven years at 14 posts a day. Easily done doing a tea break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattleonard Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Except that I didn't, because I said several times that I don't cycle on the pavement. I also stop at red lights and don't go up one way streets the wrong way. Whoops - my bad. I misunderstood your posts, and realise that yes, you had made clear that you don't do this. Apologies ---------- Post added 03-06-2015 at 13:23 ---------- I clearly stated that I have been reading all the threads over the past week or so regarding cyclists, it just happens that I posted on this one. One point your missing is that the threads are about cyclists, not motorists so there shouldn't really be any need to mention which laws motorists break, that is for another thread. Have you read the thread title, or the OP? The subject of the thread is the animosity of motorists towards cyclists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jezzyjj Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Have you read the thread title, or the OP? The subject of the thread is the animosity of motorists towards cyclists.Bigots aren't interested in facts. They just want to hate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchemist Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 It's proven beyond any doubt that more cyclists on the road means all cyclists are safer. And it's proven that the slightest barrier to entry stops people cycling. It's also a really stupid idea because people learn to cycle when they are children. It's impossible to have a license before you learn, obviously, and it's not reasonable to expect children to take a CBT or have compulsory insurance or a registered number plate. It's all really, really stupid. It doesn't matter if you don't understand though, because these are just facts. And of course you can prove these "facts" by official studies and links to the same cant you? I imagine that it is perfectly possible for children to learn in a safe situation and gain thier certificae of competancy without going out on the road, or are you suggesting that they learn to ride on the road and the survivors get a certificate of survival? ---------- Post added 03-06-2015 at 13:35 ---------- Are you confused, do you not thing that official statements from the home secretary are statements from the government? They obviously were NOT official statements from the government otherwise they would have been backed up with a change in the law. They were merely personal opinions from admittidly senior memebers of gevernment, but not convincing enough to warrent a change in the law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jezzyjj Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 I imagine that it is perfectly possible for children to learn in a safe situation and gain thier certificae of competancy without going out on the road, or are you suggesting that they learn to ride on the road and the survivors get a certificate of survival? Well that is exactly what the bikeability scheme does, it teaches people how to ride safely on the road and does so surprise, surprise on the road. With traffic. And guess what, it's perfectly safe. There is no other way to do it. Also unlike driving you make sure kids are competent on their bike before starting on the road. Driving instruction should have to be be done similarly. You learn how to control a car correctly and only then should learners go out on the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchemist Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Actually Cyclone has stated the doesn't ride on pavements and I've seen him argue against it on a few occasions. But constantly and at every opportunity attempts to justify it by the opinions of 2 MPs who did not have the courage of thier covictions to change the law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts