Fine rogue cyclists, say conservationists (From Daily Echo)

rogue cyclists ? oh come on, is this a joke ? does it really matter if they road off route.

How ridiculous, what sort of damage does a great big cow do trundling along, or a group of ponies.This is just outright snobbery from the green welly brigade.

I walk and ride in the Forest and I am always amazed at the argument that bikes cause problems in the Forest. Walk down any unofficial path and its already been churned up by horses, cattle or some vehicle that the Forestry Commission need to use to maintain the Forest. I doubt that there is a single path anywhere that is solely damaged by bikes.

I recently rode in Swinley Forest and it was great. Walkers and cyclists enjoying the same space in harmony. Each cyclist was charged a nominal £2 for the day and it was great.

People like Maureen Holding have no concept of sharing. As to her problems with 'organised events'. If she took the time to look in to what most of these are about she would find that they tend to be sponsored rides on behalf of the British Heart Foundation, Marie Curie etc.

In the same way that Maureen and Eve are not anti cycling, I am not anti their organisations. I am just anti their type of busybody who just has to always find something to whinge about.

Hats off to the Forestry Commission who seem to be showing a consistent approach of trying to find some common ground that means everyone gets to share the same space.

I thought this was already in place. There are signs up saying it's a £500 max penaulty? Isnt there?

the footprint from a bike tyre is less than a horse,walker,dog.so is it now for the nimbys to use only ?.or is this just another bash the bike brigade rant.if the forest is for everyone then so it should be but to allow horses and dogs to roam free and where they like but a cyclist cant is not fair.now its time for the ''they dont pay road tax'' trolls to start ranting.

Its crazy. Bikes have very little impact on the forest. There a few if any off-road events in the forest. How would these fines be enforced?

I think that dogs should be banned from The New Forest, they crap all over the place and the mess ends up on peoples footwear or bicycle tyres.

I'm really confused about this. I enjoy walking in the forest, and I also enjoy cycling responsibly where allowed.

When I walk through the forest I see various tracks. Ramblers, horses, deer, and an occasional bike tyre.

I can see that the majority of the damage to the forest trails appears mostly caused by ramblers and horses. I'd love to swap my hiking boots for a bike, I'd see more of the forest and also cause less damage.

Even though cycling isn't currently allowed, I really don't understand why it shouldn't be. Responsible cyclists cause less damage than ramblers!

As "teamgreen says..." says, this really reads like another "bash the bike" rant.

Brite Spark wrote:
I think that dogs should be banned from The New Forest, they crap all over the place and the mess ends up on peoples footwear or bicycle tyres.

Bang on, dogs should be shot as vermin once their in the forest.

soma.richard wrote:
Its crazy. Bikes have very little impact on the forest. There a few if any off-road events in the forest. How would these fines be enforced?

It would be funny to see somebody try, one would just cycle off lauging in their face.

Forget the Forest. Fine the cyclists who break highway code rules. That will raise you millions!

After riding walking & riding all over the world for the last 20 years it always astounds me how narrow-minded, protective and quite frankly archaic the NFA & Verderers are. Lets get some perspective people !! Are existing trails being eroded beyond repair ? Where's the evidence ? If foothpaths are close to proteced fauna why aren't these closed off to everyone ?

I'm the first to agree riding across sensitive ground where a path didn't exist is foolish but this should come down to common sense & respect for the environment not laying down more rules.

I'm glad the FC and the likes of Mr Taylor are focusing on a more balanced approach.

Maine Lobster wrote:
Forget the Forest. Fine the cyclists who break highway code rules. That will raise you millions!

Catch and fine the motorists who break the rules - that'll raise even more ;-)

I've been told off by New Forest maintenance people before for cycling in non-designated areas. I obviously complied with their wishes, but in truth, it is very difficult to tell where the boundaries are as very few are adequately sign-posted. I don't feel particularly comfortable cycling through the forest now as I can not be sure if I am breaking rules or not. If they want to enforce this (which, in agreement with others above, I think is overkill), they need to delineate the areas more effectively.

Username :) wrote:

Maine Lobster wrote:
Forget the Forest. Fine the cyclists who break highway code rules. That will raise you millions!

Catch and fine the motorists who break the rules - that'll raise even more ;-)

I think the view on cyclists is that they can't afford a car so they can't afford to pay a fine. Cycling is still widely seen as transport for the less well off.

Torchie1 wrote:

Username :) wrote:

Maine Lobster wrote:
Forget the Forest. Fine the cyclists who break highway code rules. That will raise you millions!

Catch and fine the motorists who break the rules - that'll raise even more ;-)

I think the view on cyclists is that they can't afford a car so they can't afford to pay a fine. Cycling is still widely seen as transport for the less well off.

bearing in mind most cyclists own a car, I think that this view is a false perception that is wrongly viewed.

Other than children (whose parents own cars), I can't think of any cyclist I know who doesn't have a car.

Yes there are some out there, but they are balanced in the statistical count by people such as me (3 vehicles in a 2 person household).

We don't see this article being about ramblers causing damage to the forest do we? and how many ramblers don't own cars?

looks to me like "cyclists" are just the soft and easy target.

Username :) wrote:

Maine Lobster wrote: Forget the Forest. Fine the cyclists who break highway code rules. That will raise you millions!

Catch and fine the motorists who break the rules - that'll raise even more ;-)

They do get caught and do get fined. Not too many cylists on the fines list at the Magistrate's Court or in P.C. Plod's fine book though!;-)

teamgreen wrote:
the footprint from a bike tyre is less than a horse,walker,dog.so is it now for the nimbys to use only ?.or is this just another bash the bike brigade rant.if the forest is for everyone then so it should be but to allow horses and dogs to roam free and where they like but a cyclist cant is not fair.now its time for the ''they dont pay road tax'' trolls to start ranting.

Which mean's the bike plus riders weight point of contact loading on the surface of the ground is higher, thus more likely to disturb the surface and start erosion.

Maine Lobster wrote:

Username :) wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

Username :) wrote:

Maine Lobster wrote: Forget the Forest. Fine the cyclists who break highway code rules. That will raise you millions!

Catch and fine the motorists who break the rules - that'll raise even more ;-)

I think the view on cyclists is that they can't afford a car so they can't afford to pay a fine. Cycling is still widely seen as transport for the less well off.

bearing in mind most cyclists own a car, I think that this view is a false perception that is wrongly viewed. Other than children (whose parents own cars), I can't think of any cyclist I know who doesn't have a car. Yes there are some out there, but they are balanced in the statistical count by people such as me (3 vehicles in a 2 person household). We don't see this article being about ramblers causing damage to the forest do we? and how many ramblers don't own cars? looks to me like "cyclists" are just the soft and easy target.

Cyclists are not "a target" at all. They seem to have immunity from any prosecution or enforcement. No lights at night and ignoring traffic lights are common. I don't want to see anybody "targetted" but these rules of the road are there for the safety of all. Cyclists need to obey them just as a car driver or motorcyclist has to, or take the penalty.

the first bike hating troll is here folks,dont forget that car drivers never break the law just cyclists hahaha

Maine Lobster wrote:

Username :) wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

Username :) wrote:

Maine Lobster wrote: Forget the Forest. Fine the cyclists who break highway code rules. That will raise you millions!

Catch and fine the motorists who break the rules - that'll raise even more ;-)

I think the view on cyclists is that they can't afford a car so they can't afford to pay a fine. Cycling is still widely seen as transport for the less well off.

bearing in mind most cyclists own a car, I think that this view is a false perception that is wrongly viewed. Other than children (whose parents own cars), I can't think of any cyclist I know who doesn't have a car. Yes there are some out there, but they are balanced in the statistical count by people such as me (3 vehicles in a 2 person household). We don't see this article being about ramblers causing damage to the forest do we? and how many ramblers don't own cars? looks to me like "cyclists" are just the soft and easy target.

Cyclists are not "a target" at all. They seem to have immunity from any prosecution or enforcement. No lights at night and ignoring traffic lights are common. I don't want to see anybody "targetted" but these rules of the road are there for the safety of all. Cyclists need to obey them just as a car driver or motorcyclist has to, or take the penalty.

I'd suggest that it's actually the other way around re immunity from prosecution. Last two collisions I avoided were thanks to me watching the road and not trusting the lights - and thus not going under the wheels of the red-light jumping motorist.

Or... Sitting in court a few months ago, as key "witness" for CPS for the driver that hit me (a cyclist) head on while he was on wrong side of road passing parked cars - very disappointed to see driver let off without charge.

Or let's look at usual driver behaviour when clocks change and they forget to remember to turn their lights on when coming home from work....


I agree that the rules of the road should be complied with by all, but as a driver/motorcyclist/
cyclist when I actually look at the FACTS I don't see anything to justify the anti-cyclist rant always expressed in the press.

Niel wrote:

teamgreen wrote:
the footprint from a bike tyre is less than a horse,walker,dog.so is it now for the nimbys to use only ?.or is this just another bash the bike brigade rant.if the forest is for everyone then so it should be but to allow horses and dogs to roam free and where they like but a cyclist cant is not fair.now its time for the ''they dont pay road tax'' trolls to start ranting.

Which mean's the bike plus riders weight point of contact loading on the surface of the ground is higher, thus more likely to disturb the surface and start erosion.

Don't forget that a cyclist on loose ground just sits still while the wheels roll, whereas a walker/equestrian has to put force against the ground and churn it up ;-) ;-) ;-)

Much less damage from the responsible cyclist than from others.

teamgreen wrote:

Maine Lobster wrote:

Username :) wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

Username :) wrote:

Maine Lobster wrote: Forget the Forest. Fine the cyclists who break highway code rules. That will raise you millions!

Catch and fine the motorists who break the rules - that'll raise even more ;-)

I think the view on cyclists is that they can't afford a car so they can't afford to pay a fine. Cycling is still widely seen as transport for the less well off.

bearing in mind most cyclists own a car, I think that this view is a false perception that is wrongly viewed. Other than children (whose parents own cars), I can't think of any cyclist I know who doesn't have a car. Yes there are some out there, but they are balanced in the statistical count by people such as me (3 vehicles in a 2 person household). We don't see this article being about ramblers causing damage to the forest do we? and how many ramblers don't own cars? looks to me like "cyclists" are just the soft and easy target.

Cyclists are not "a target" at all. They seem to have immunity from any prosecution or enforcement. No lights at night and ignoring traffic lights are common. I don't want to see anybody "targetted" but these rules of the road are there for the safety of all. Cyclists need to obey them just as a car driver or motorcyclist has to, or take the penalty.

the first bike hating troll is here folks,dont forget that car drivers never break the law just cyclists hahaha

"Bike hating troll..." something of an over-reaction! I would just like cyclists to have equal treatment with motorists. Of course some motorists can threaten cyclists by poor driving but the reverse is also true,especially when they ride at night with no lights. Surely you can't excuse that?

Bring back Wyatt Earp and Batt Masterson to sort this out . Or ___how about these New Forest Rangers doing a Texas Rangers job on horseback.--should be interesting

Niel wrote:

teamgreen wrote:
the footprint from a bike tyre is less than a horse,walker,dog.so is it now for the nimbys to use only ?.or is this just another bash the bike brigade rant.if the forest is for everyone then so it should be but to allow horses and dogs to roam free and where they like but a cyclist cant is not fair.now its time for the ''they dont pay road tax'' trolls to start ranting.

Which mean's the bike plus riders weight point of contact loading on the surface of the ground is higher, thus more likely to disturb the surface and start erosion.

That's not true at all. In physics terms a bike rolls under gyroscopic motion, the force is presented from the pedals in all directions up, down, forward and backward.

Very little force actually goes up and down if the gears are used correctly and the cadence is high enough (eg 70-100 rpm)

Contact is continuous with bike tyres. With horses hooves and walkers it is intermittent and focussed on a small surface area. The average mountain bike has a larger surface area to weight ratio than a horse, and slightly less than a walker.

Maine Lobster wrote:

teamgreen wrote:

Maine Lobster wrote:

Username :) wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

Username :) wrote:

Maine Lobster wrote: Forget the Forest. Fine the cyclists who break highway code rules. That will raise you millions!

Catch and fine the motorists who break the rules - that'll raise even more ;-)

I think the view on cyclists is that they can't afford a car so they can't afford to pay a fine. Cycling is still widely seen as transport for the less well off.

bearing in mind most cyclists own a car, I think that this view is a false perception that is wrongly viewed. Other than children (whose parents own cars), I can't think of any cyclist I know who doesn't have a car. Yes there are some out there, but they are balanced in the statistical count by people such as me (3 vehicles in a 2 person household). We don't see this article being about ramblers causing damage to the forest do we? and how many ramblers don't own cars? looks to me like "cyclists" are just the soft and easy target.

Cyclists are not "a target" at all. They seem to have immunity from any prosecution or enforcement. No lights at night and ignoring traffic lights are common. I don't want to see anybody "targetted" but these rules of the road are there for the safety of all. Cyclists need to obey them just as a car driver or motorcyclist has to, or take the penalty.

the first bike hating troll is here folks,dont forget that car drivers never break the law just cyclists hahaha

"Bike hating troll..." something of an over-reaction! I would just like cyclists to have equal treatment with motorists. Of course some motorists can threaten cyclists by poor driving but the reverse is also true,especially when they ride at night with no lights. Surely you can't excuse that?

Have you actually looked at how many cyclists get fined or prosecuted each year?

You havent, have you.

How exactly can you have "equal treatment" when the numbers and priorities differ? The Police have to go for the highest risk to the public. Now lets also be clear that any fine or conviction can be avoided.

You sound as if you've been caught doing something naughty.

Why is it that as soon as anybody declares that a cyclist may be forced to obey the rules and the law of the land the cycling nazis get out of their prams and on their high horses(sic).
The rules of the forest are there to be obeyed,get over it and for once do as you are asked by the protectors of the forest.
As for the stupid idea that wheels do less damage than horses, may we remind you that horses are native to forests, bikes are not and never will be.
Stick to the designated paths and the rules

geoff51 wrote:
Why is it that as soon as anybody declares that a cyclist may be forced to obey the rules and the law of the land the cycling nazis get out of their prams and on their high horses(sic). The rules of the forest are there to be obeyed,get over it and for once do as you are asked by the protectors of the forest. As for the stupid idea that wheels do less damage than horses, may we remind you that horses are native to forests, bikes are not and never will be. Stick to the designated paths and the rules

Well I have no problem in keeping off any land for good and fair reason. If the rule is no one goes there, that’s fine. But I don't think it's fair to say yes to horse riders, but no to bicycles. A law is pointless if it cannot be enforced and detracts from the more important laws to stop the criminals and worse. Riding across the forest is not breaking a criminal law, so the police are as powerless as the foresters. If the byelaws were fairer they are more likely to be regarded. My feeling is that the majority of the general public don’t mind one bit about the cyclists on the forest and the friendliness of by far the majority the people I see both walking and on horseback reflects this. I like to see people out enjoying the open forest, whatever their pursuit. Without saying ‘Human Rights’, I do feel it is my right as a human to use with respect this wonderful space… be it on a bike, a horse or on foot.”
I read another interesting point on a cycling forum. The amount of ‘off track’ cyclists in the forest is probably currently nearing its peak anyway and unlikely to increase much in the future. This argument is based on the fact that the type of riders that want to get off the cycle paths are locals. This type of cyclist is not going to travel to the forest for the limited cycling the forest has to offer as if they have to drive, they may as well go somewhere with proper hills and mountains. The tourists drawn into the forest are families or touring cyclists who are largely not interested in going ‘off piste’.”

Just because you dont like a law does not mean you can ignore it,The much over used Yuman rights crap has nothing to do with it, just stop being a cycling nazis and stay on the paths!

geoff51 wrote:
Just because you dont like a law does not mean you can ignore it,The much over used Yuman rights crap has nothing to do with it, just stop being a cycling nazis and stay on the paths!

all paths in the forest should be for all to use not just for walkers etc as stated its not a law.get a grip on life get a bike and see the forest not just from a car window.

Rules are rules. Actually I see more of the forest on foot with my dogs than you ever will racing over heath and heather on a bike.
Also in my youth I saw even more on horse back without being harrassed by idiots on bikes breaking the rules

geoff51 wrote:
Just because you dont like a law does not mean you can ignore it,The much over used Yuman rights crap has nothing to do with it, just stop being a cycling nazis and stay on the paths!

Ahh Godwin's law, broken. I claim my £5.

I'm not a troll, but I do find cyclists to be a pain in the neck, to say the least.
Many of them ride at night with a small headlight that flashes really fast - it is very distracting, and very likely dangerous. I bet if I put one on a car I'd be stopped !
We know many of them have illegally taken over footpaths, often riding at more than 30 mph past people's front gates that are obscured by bushes and trees.
In towns many of them swap back and forth between cycle lane and road, weaving in and out, and being a dangerous nuisance.
I'l say little about the idiotic fancy dress so many of them wear !
Cyclists should have to pay road tax like any other road user, and carry number plates back and front so that offenders can be caught.
Do you remember that video clip of the arrogant cyclist who was deliberately knocked off his bike by an angry bus driver ? Well, although the driver's behaviour was unacceptable, I am certain many people found it funny, and felt they were seeing a cyclist get his just deserts.
Cyclists are all vunerable, many ride dangerously, and they should be banned until proper cycling laws are introduced to minimise their "nuisance factor".

BillyTheKid wrote:
I'm not a troll, but I do find cyclists to be a pain in the neck, to say the least.
Many of them ride at night with a small headlight that flashes really fast - it is very distracting, and very likely dangerous. I bet if I put one on a car I'd be stopped !
We know many of them have illegally taken over footpaths, often riding at more than 30 mph past people's front gates that are obscured by bushes and trees.
In towns many of them swap back and forth between cycle lane and road, weaving in and out, and being a dangerous nuisance.
I'l say little about the idiotic fancy dress so many of them wear !
Cyclists should have to pay road tax like any other road user, and carry number plates back and front so that offenders can be caught.
Do you remember that video clip of the arrogant cyclist who was deliberately knocked off his bike by an angry bus driver ? Well, although the driver's behaviour was unacceptable, I am certain many people found it funny, and felt they were seeing a cyclist get his just deserts.
Cyclists are all vunerable, many ride dangerously, and they should be banned until proper cycling laws are introduced to minimise their "nuisance factor".

BINGO!!

I claim my £5..!

BINGO ?? £5..?" What are you on about, downfader ? My guess is that somewhere in one of your interminable posts you have made some cynical remark about people who dislike cyclists.
Do you have Asperger's Syndrome ?

http://www.thetimes.
co.uk/tto/public/cyc
lesafety/article3311
131.ece

geoff51 wrote:
Why is it that as soon as anybody declares that a cyclist may be forced to obey the rules and the law of the land the cycling nazis get out of their prams and on their high horses(sic).
The rules of the forest are there to be obeyed,get over it and for once do as you are asked by the protectors of the forest.
As for the stupid idea that wheels do less damage than horses, may we remind you that horses are native to forests, bikes are not and never will be.
Stick to the designated paths and the rules

You just lost this argument - check out Godwin's Law:-

http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Godwin%27s_
law

BillyTheKid wrote:
BINGO ?? £5..?" What are you on about, downfader ? My guess is that somewhere in one of your interminable posts you have made some cynical remark about people who dislike cyclists.
Do you have Asperger's Syndrome ?

Unsubstantiated claim. CHECK!

Comparing cycling risk posed to driving risks posed. CHECK!

Pavements. CHECK!

Mentioned clothing. CHECK!

Oh look and "road tax". CHECK!

Shame you didnt go for the full house. I could be quids-in.

As for the Bristol Bus Rage. You say the cyclist was "arrogant". Under what evidence? Did you read ANY of the back story? And what possible benefit could it be to you to twist that sad and sickening story by refering to the victim as "arrogant" and justifying his attack?

And you wondered why you were called a troll.

downfader wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:
BINGO ?? £5..?" What are you on about, downfader ? My guess is that somewhere in one of your interminable posts you have made some cynical remark about people who dislike cyclists.
Do you have Asperger's Syndrome ?

Unsubstantiated claim. CHECK!

Comparing cycling risk posed to driving risks posed. CHECK!

Pavements. CHECK!

Mentioned clothing. CHECK!

Oh look and "road tax". CHECK!

Shame you didnt go for the full house. I could be quids-in.

As for the Bristol Bus Rage. You say the cyclist was "arrogant". Under what evidence? Did you read ANY of the back story? And what possible benefit could it be to you to twist that sad and sickening story by refering to the victim as "arrogant" and justifying his attack?

And you wondered why you were called a troll.

Oh.....just wondered.....

Bristol "bus rage" (ludicrous expression - would you call Twin Towers "plane rage" ?)....anyway, where was I? Yes, the bus incident. The pillock leant his bike against the front of the bus ! That was provocation, but it did not justify the bus driver's subsequent action. Personally, I'd have got out the bus, punctured the idiot's front tyre, and then thrown a tenner at him for the repair. The tenner is important to reinforce the deserved contempt.
Internet trolls attack individuals verbally with the sole intention of "dividing, upsetting, and putting down", all for warped personal satisfaction. I think you'll find my comments don't fit that criteria.
Cyclists are Luddites, simple as that.
Now you, downfader. You make wild, unsophisticated comments and allegations, show total disregard for the other forum users......which, I think, downfader, makes YOU a troll. Have a think about it, Nerdy ! !

BillyTheKid wrote:

downfader wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:
BINGO ?? £5..?" What are you on about, downfader ? My guess is that somewhere in one of your interminable posts you have made some cynical remark about people who dislike cyclists.
Do you have Asperger's Syndrome ?

Unsubstantiated claim. CHECK!

Comparing cycling risk posed to driving risks posed. CHECK!

Pavements. CHECK!

Mentioned clothing. CHECK!

Oh look and "road tax". CHECK!

Shame you didnt go for the full house. I could be quids-in.

As for the Bristol Bus Rage. You say the cyclist was "arrogant". Under what evidence? Did you read ANY of the back story? And what possible benefit could it be to you to twist that sad and sickening story by refering to the victim as "arrogant" and justifying his attack?

And you wondered why you were called a troll.

Oh.....just wondered.....

Bristol "bus rage" (ludicrous expression - would you call Twin Towers "plane rage" ?)....anyway, where was I? Yes, the bus incident. The pillock leant his bike against the front of the bus ! That was provocation, but it did not justify the bus driver's subsequent action. Personally, I'd have got out the bus, punctured the idiot's front tyre, and then thrown a tenner at him for the repair. The tenner is important to reinforce the deserved contempt.
Internet trolls attack individuals verbally with the sole intention of "dividing, upsetting, and putting down", all for warped personal satisfaction. I think you'll find my comments don't fit that criteria.
Cyclists are Luddites, simple as that.
Now you, downfader. You make wild, unsophisticated comments and allegations, show total disregard for the other forum users......which, I think, downfader, makes YOU a troll. Have a think about it, Nerdy ! !

And your spelling, grammar, and sentence structure need closer attention.

BillyTheKid wrote:

downfader wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:
BINGO ?? £5..?" What are you on about, downfader ? My guess is that somewhere in one of your interminable posts you have made some cynical remark about people who dislike cyclists.
Do you have Asperger's Syndrome ?

Unsubstantiated claim. CHECK!

Comparing cycling risk posed to driving risks posed. CHECK!

Pavements. CHECK!

Mentioned clothing. CHECK!

Oh look and "road tax". CHECK!

Shame you didnt go for the full house. I could be quids-in.

As for the Bristol Bus Rage. You say the cyclist was "arrogant". Under what evidence? Did you read ANY of the back story? And what possible benefit could it be to you to twist that sad and sickening story by refering to the victim as "arrogant" and justifying his attack?

And you wondered why you were called a troll.

Oh.....just wondered.....

Bristol "bus rage" (ludicrous expression - would you call Twin Towers "plane rage" ?)....anyway, where was I? Yes, the bus incident. The pillock leant his bike against the front of the bus ! That was provocation, but it did not justify the bus driver's subsequent action. Personally, I'd have got out the bus, punctured the idiot's front tyre, and then thrown a tenner at him for the repair. The tenner is important to reinforce the deserved contempt.
Internet trolls attack individuals verbally with the sole intention of "dividing, upsetting, and putting down", all for warped personal satisfaction. I think you'll find my comments don't fit that criteria.
Cyclists are Luddites, simple as that.
Now you, downfader. You make wild, unsophisticated comments and allegations, show total disregard for the other forum users......which, I think, downfader, makes YOU a troll. Have a think about it, Nerdy ! !

Hear Hear! At last someone else has discovered that Downfader is a biased Troll, I thought it was just me!

BillyTheKid wrote:

downfader wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:
BINGO ?? £5..?" What are you on about, downfader ? My guess is that somewhere in one of your interminable posts you have made some cynical remark about people who dislike cyclists.
Do you have Asperger's Syndrome ?

Unsubstantiated claim. CHECK!

Comparing cycling risk posed to driving risks posed. CHECK!

Pavements. CHECK!

Mentioned clothing. CHECK!

Oh look and "road tax". CHECK!

Shame you didnt go for the full house. I could be quids-in.

As for the Bristol Bus Rage. You say the cyclist was "arrogant". Under what evidence? Did you read ANY of the back story? And what possible benefit could it be to you to twist that sad and sickening story by refering to the victim as "arrogant" and justifying his attack?

And you wondered why you were called a troll.

Oh.....just wondered.....

Bristol "bus rage" (ludicrous expression - would you call Twin Towers "plane rage" ?)....anyway, where was I? Yes, the bus incident. The pillock leant his bike against the front of the bus ! That was provocation, but it did not justify the bus driver's subsequent action. Personally, I'd have got out the bus, punctured the idiot's front tyre, and then thrown a tenner at him for the repair. The tenner is important to reinforce the deserved contempt.
Internet trolls attack individuals verbally with the sole intention of "dividing, upsetting, and putting down", all for warped personal satisfaction. I think you'll find my comments don't fit that criteria.
Cyclists are Luddites, simple as that.
Now you, downfader. You make wild, unsophisticated comments and allegations, show total disregard for the other forum users......which, I think, downfader, makes YOU a troll. Have a think about it, Nerdy ! !

Oh dear, you are living in some cuckoo landscape..

If you think I've abused these forums then please click report. When I post I can back up with sources.. wheres your sources..? Oh thats right, you havent any, LMAO!

Grow up.

downfader wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

downfader wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:
BINGO ?? £5..?" What are you on about, downfader ? My guess is that somewhere in one of your interminable posts you have made some cynical remark about people who dislike cyclists.
Do you have Asperger's Syndrome ?

Unsubstantiated claim. CHECK!

Comparing cycling risk posed to driving risks posed. CHECK!

Pavements. CHECK!

Mentioned clothing. CHECK!

Oh look and "road tax". CHECK!

Shame you didnt go for the full house. I could be quids-in.

As for the Bristol Bus Rage. You say the cyclist was "arrogant". Under what evidence? Did you read ANY of the back story? And what possible benefit could it be to you to twist that sad and sickening story by refering to the victim as "arrogant" and justifying his attack?

And you wondered why you were called a troll.

Oh.....just wondered.....

Bristol "bus rage" (ludicrous expression - would you call Twin Towers "plane rage" ?)....anyway, where was I? Yes, the bus incident. The pillock leant his bike against the front of the bus ! That was provocation, but it did not justify the bus driver's subsequent action. Personally, I'd have got out the bus, punctured the idiot's front tyre, and then thrown a tenner at him for the repair. The tenner is important to reinforce the deserved contempt.
Internet trolls attack individuals verbally with the sole intention of "dividing, upsetting, and putting down", all for warped personal satisfaction. I think you'll find my comments don't fit that criteria.
Cyclists are Luddites, simple as that.
Now you, downfader. You make wild, unsophisticated comments and allegations, show total disregard for the other forum users......which, I think, downfader, makes YOU a troll. Have a think about it, Nerdy ! !

Oh dear, you are living in some cuckoo landscape..

If you think I've abused these forums then please click report. When I post I can back up with sources.. wheres your sources..? Oh thats right, you havent any, LMAO!

Grow up.

DO not resort to insults when you have lost a discuccion its the last bastion of a Troll

geoff51 wrote:

downfader wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

downfader wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:
BINGO ?? £5..?" What are you on about, downfader ? My guess is that somewhere in one of your interminable posts you have made some cynical remark about people who dislike cyclists.
Do you have Asperger's Syndrome ?

Unsubstantiated claim. CHECK!

Comparing cycling risk posed to driving risks posed. CHECK!

Pavements. CHECK!

Mentioned clothing. CHECK!

Oh look and "road tax". CHECK!

Shame you didnt go for the full house. I could be quids-in.

As for the Bristol Bus Rage. You say the cyclist was "arrogant". Under what evidence? Did you read ANY of the back story? And what possible benefit could it be to you to twist that sad and sickening story by refering to the victim as "arrogant" and justifying his attack?

And you wondered why you were called a troll.

Oh.....just wondered.....

Bristol "bus rage" (ludicrous expression - would you call Twin Towers "plane rage" ?)....anyway, where was I? Yes, the bus incident. The pillock leant his bike against the front of the bus ! That was provocation, but it did not justify the bus driver's subsequent action. Personally, I'd have got out the bus, punctured the idiot's front tyre, and then thrown a tenner at him for the repair. The tenner is important to reinforce the deserved contempt.
Internet trolls attack individuals verbally with the sole intention of "dividing, upsetting, and putting down", all for warped personal satisfaction. I think you'll find my comments don't fit that criteria.
Cyclists are Luddites, simple as that.
Now you, downfader. You make wild, unsophisticated comments and allegations, show total disregard for the other forum users......which, I think, downfader, makes YOU a troll. Have a think about it, Nerdy ! !

Oh dear, you are living in some cuckoo landscape..

If you think I've abused these forums then please click report. When I post I can back up with sources.. wheres your sources..? Oh thats right, you havent any, LMAO!

Grow up.

DO not resort to insults when you have lost a discuccion its the last bastion of a Troll

Hahahaha!!! Oh crikey.

Like I said before - trolling based on contrarism is both hilarious and pointless as you'll show yourself up.

And where exactly have I resorted to insults. Is "nazi" not an insult now, LOL! Point proven I believe.

downfader wrote:

geoff51 wrote:

downfader wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

downfader wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:
BINGO ?? £5..?" What are you on about, downfader ? My guess is that somewhere in one of your interminable posts you have made some cynical remark about people who dislike cyclists.
Do you have Asperger's Syndrome ?

Unsubstantiated claim. CHECK!

Comparing cycling risk posed to driving risks posed. CHECK!

Pavements. CHECK!

Mentioned clothing. CHECK!

Oh look and "road tax". CHECK!

Shame you didnt go for the full house. I could be quids-in.

As for the Bristol Bus Rage. You say the cyclist was "arrogant". Under what evidence? Did you read ANY of the back story? And what possible benefit could it be to you to twist that sad and sickening story by refering to the victim as "arrogant" and justifying his attack?

And you wondered why you were called a troll.

Oh.....just wondered.....

Bristol "bus rage" (ludicrous expression - would you call Twin Towers "plane rage" ?)....anyway, where was I? Yes, the bus incident. The pillock leant his bike against the front of the bus ! That was provocation, but it did not justify the bus driver's subsequent action. Personally, I'd have got out the bus, punctured the idiot's front tyre, and then thrown a tenner at him for the repair. The tenner is important to reinforce the deserved contempt.
Internet trolls attack individuals verbally with the sole intention of "dividing, upsetting, and putting down", all for warped personal satisfaction. I think you'll find my comments don't fit that criteria.
Cyclists are Luddites, simple as that.
Now you, downfader. You make wild, unsophisticated comments and allegations, show total disregard for the other forum users......which, I think, downfader, makes YOU a troll. Have a think about it, Nerdy ! !

Oh dear, you are living in some cuckoo landscape..

If you think I've abused these forums then please click report. When I post I can back up with sources.. wheres your sources..? Oh thats right, you havent any, LMAO!

Grow up.

DO not resort to insults when you have lost a discuccion its the last bastion of a Troll

Hahahaha!!! Oh crikey.

Like I said before - trolling based on contrarism is both hilarious and pointless as you'll show yourself up.

And where exactly have I resorted to insults. Is "nazi" not an insult now, LOL! Point proven I believe.

Nazi is someone who forces their opinion on others and is unable to accept that others may be right and not them, and will never give any leeway despite others showing them that they may be wrong.
this fits you and your buddies to a tee

BillyTheKid wrote:
Try reading downfader's posts quickly, in a mincing, girlish voice. Course, perhaps downfader IS female......just that downfader sounds like a male nickname.
By the way, I'm not homophobic. There are just as many irritating gays as there are annoying heteros.
Many gays have a passion and depth about them, but this downfader is just a girlish scatterbrain.

Is that REALLY the best you can come up with, hahaha!!

I'm making observations ABOUT you to share with others on this forum. Actually, come to think of it, adults wouldn't keep taking the bait as you have, nor feel compelled to make SOME kind of reply, no matter what. Well, you had me fooled for a while, but what you adult "wannabes" find challenging is sustaining the role. That only comes with age and experience.
Better turn the computer off now, brush your teeth and go to bed otherwise you'll be "all cross in the morning".

The name downfader intrigued me. Faders bring sound or light up or down - I wondered if there was some significance in that.......onto the net....Google....and there you are ! Downfader the cyclist, blogger and social commentator. We have something in common : guitar and photography.

Clearly, like me, you enjoy being a bit theatrical on this forum.

Seriously, I take back anything I have said that may have caused you offence, and apologise unreservedly. It is so easy to say just what "yer **** well please" when it's all anonymous, and we try to speak seriously with nicknames like "spoonwicket" or "dogbowl". I feel as though we are all on stage, in role.

I've changed my mind after watching some of your videos and listening to some of your music.
You are a victim of an education system that feels that everything each pupil says and does is of some value, no matter how small. In reports, only positive comments are allowed, "finds challenging" is substituted for "weak", and "working towards" replaces "poor".
The biggest problem is the "satisfactory" area, where people have produced reasonable but unspectacular work. I have seen many of those reports, and their positiveness coupled with a C grade makes them appear better than they are.
The English education system celebrates mediocrity, constantly heaping praise on very ordinary work in the hope that it will bring further improvement. Usually it does not. A pupil once showed me a drawing which they had produced out of interest. Everyone "at home" had been telling him how good he was. He was an excellent lad, the drawing was very competent, but it was essentially dull and uninspired. I told him so, which upset him greatly. I gave him some examples of quality work and asked him to study them. Many years later he told me how glad he was I had told him the truth, and saved him from wasting years under an illusion perpetrated by well-meaning friends and family.
You are obviously a decent person, but why do you publish every idea that comes into your head ? Why permanently enshrine such ordinary everyday banality ? I can assure you there is nothing in any of your work at present that is of more than conversational interest.
However, TECHNICALLY you are EXTREMELY TALENTED. You need inspiration. Tie 4 cameras to your bike. Record your voice commenting as you struggle up hills. Mix it all together. Make it INTERESTING, and EXCITING.
My opinion, for what it's worth, is you need to break free, psychologically, of a middle class ordinariness and strive for originality.