People going to work on bikes.

[RootsBooster]

23 minutes ago, Magneteer said:

Ah you mean they are likely to take some form of revenge ? Don't think so.

 

 

No, that's not what I mean. 

If a motorist who takes less care in overtaking a cyclist is likely to 'come a cropper' who, out of the two, will come off worse from the incident?

Edited June 10, 2019 by RootsBooster

[Cyclone]

9 hours ago, makapaka said:

It’s just pedantry to pick on the word necessary.

 

very little other than say  maslows hierarchy of needs is necessary but to fulfil some of  those needs we use available tools - a car being one.

 

we could all live in tents because  a house isn’t necessary.

 

i could get to work via public transport but it would be so elongated, stressful and extend my working day to impractical levels - at the expense of my family life etc.

 

so is a car necessary in some instances - I would say so - it’s certainly convenient and allows people to fulfil other needs as as a consequence. 

It's absolutely key to what he said.

 

Say his sentence again with that word and it's entirely meaningless.

 

He said that cars are more necessary than bikes.  How can it possibly be pedantry to look at what that means...

6 hours ago, Magneteer said:

I cycle from malin bridge to Amrc at Catcliffe in about 40 minutes as opposed to 30 in the car. Yes I do use the pavement sometimes ( like cops on bikes) when I consider it neccessary and ( wait for the howls of anguish)  go through reds sometimes ie,  peds have all crossed the crossing, shall I sit here another 20 seconds till the lights change?  Think not.  Can't honestly see what all the fuss is about. 

I'd rather you wait, as a cyclists.  To avoid giving ammunition to people who can't help generalise and lump me in with you, and then use that as justification for driving dangerously around me.

6 hours ago, Magneteer said:

Ah you mean they are likely to take some form of revenge ? Don't think so.

 

 

No, he means less care in overtaking cyclists because they stereotype them as red light jumping law breakers who don't deserve to be given a safe overtake.

[Magneteer]

12 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

No, he means less care in overtaking cyclists because they stereotype them as red light jumping law breakers who don't deserve to be given a safe overtake.

mmm,   I think your'e over egging all this, the pair of you. In 20 years of commuter cycling I've never seen or experienced that style of overtaking, in fact I mainly witness drivers with cyclist empathy, although there are careless drivers out there i'm sure.

[WiseOwl182]

7 hours ago, Magneteer said:

shall I sit here another 20 seconds till the lights change?  Think not.  Can't honestly see what all the fuss is about. 

And there we have it in a nutshell! Why is it ok for you, as a cyclist, to not bother waiting for the lights to change to green, but not for me as a motorist?

54 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

 

He said that cars are more necessary than bikes.  

Because they are. Simple as that.

[RootsBooster]

48 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

And there we have it in a nutshell! Why is it ok for you, as a cyclist, to not bother waiting for the lights to change to green, but not for me as a motorist?

Using your in depth reasoning:

Because he can. Simple as that.

[WiseOwl182]

5 minutes ago, RootsBooster said:

Using your in depth reasoning:

Because he can. Simple as that.

This is becoming a circular argument. The fact that he can is because his chance of getting caught is so slim, which is what I was pointing out pages ago to Cyclone to show why his low speed limits for cyclists on pavements would never work. That comment sparked around 10 pages of debate.

[Cyclone]

11 hours ago, Magneteer said:

mmm,   I think your'e over egging all this, the pair of you. In 20 years of commuter cycling I've never seen or experienced that style of overtaking, in fact I mainly witness drivers with cyclist empathy, although there are careless drivers out there i'm sure.

You've never had someone overtake you too close?  I don't know what to say, it happens on a pretty much daily basis.

I've had two people turn left whilst overtaking me as well, and someone else run into the back of me and then drive off when I picked myself and my bike up out of the road.

10 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

This is becoming a circular argument. The fact that he can is because his chance of getting caught is so slim, which is what I was pointing out pages ago to Cyclone to show why his low speed limits for cyclists on pavements would never work. That comment sparked around 10 pages of debate.

No, it wasn't.  It was because you claimed that most cyclists did it.

 

Re: cycling on pavements, we already have shared pedestrian/cyclist spaces, and they seem to work okay.  They should be the default.

11 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

Because they are. Simple as that.

Well, look at your power of reasoning and debate, you've clearly got us there.  QED.

 

Feel free to come back anytime you have a real response to try to justify this one.

[Lockjaw]

22 hours ago, Magneteer said:

I cycle from malin bridge to Amrc at Catcliffe in about 40 minutes as opposed to 30 in the car. Yes I do use the pavement sometimes ( like cops on bikes) when I consider it neccessary and ( wait for the howls of anguish)  go through reds sometimes ie,  peds have all crossed the crossing, shall I sit here another 20 seconds till the lights change?  Think not.  Can't honestly see what all the fuss is about. 

The fuss, as others have posted, is that your ignoring of red lights contributes to the opinion of some motorists who delight in being presented with evidence to support their belief that cyclists are some sort of enemy. 

 

I experience the consequences of this almost every time I go out on  my bike. 

 

What really galls is the fact that I never ride on pavements and never go through red lights so I have contributed absolutely nothing to the mindset of these people and am being put in danger because of the actions of people like you.

 

HTH.

Edited June 11, 2019 by Lockjaw

[RootsBooster]

15 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

This is becoming a circular argument. The fact that he can is because his chance of getting caught is so slim, which is what I was pointing out pages ago to Cyclone to show why his low speed limits for cyclists on pavements would never work. That comment sparked around 10 pages of debate.

I was talking about the necessity of cars and bikes though.

Your simplistic assertion that cars are necessary and bikes are not, only applies to a limited demographic - see post #207

[WalkleyIan]

Getting back on topic, barriers to cycling to work.  

 

This could be a game changer, particularly in Sheffield where 51 % of commutes to work are under 5 km ,  77% are under 10km and hills are seen as an issue 

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-ushers-in-new-era-of-green-commutes-with-e-bike-cycle-to-work-scheme

 

 

More companies are giving up on workplace parking

 

https://road.cc/content/news/261595-hsbc-uk-cuts-90-cent-staff-car-parking-encourage-workers-bikes

 

And the under 25s are turning their back on car ownership and not even taking driving tests. Its no longer seen as a right of passage moment as it was for my generation 

 

The days of the single occupancy  private car with a driver and 80% unused seats are numbered