Charity hopes Wiggo effect will boost number of cyclists (From Daily Echo)

Living on a very narrow busy country road, more cyclists is just what is NOT needed. Ever seen a queue of 20 cars behind a cyclist as he weaves at less than 10 mph up an incline with no one able to pass and then forced to take risks in attempting to pass at the few opportunities? Ever seen motorists have to swerve as he encounters a cyclist around a blind bend narrowly avoiding oncoming vehicles? or being one of those oncoming motorists? More cycling is a laudable ambition, both from a sustainability and health perspective but the routes they use should be suitable and safe. I don't blame cyclists, and I don't blame motorists, both have a place, both cause problems, and sometimes both are the problem. However even more cyclists on main routes and busy routes fills me with utter dread.

Family Man wrote:
Living on a very narrow busy country road, more cyclists is just what is NOT needed. Ever seen a queue of 20 cars behind a cyclist as he weaves at less than 10 mph up an incline with no one able to pass and then forced to take risks in attempting to pass at the few opportunities? Ever seen motorists have to swerve as he encounters a cyclist around a blind bend narrowly avoiding oncoming vehicles? or being one of those oncoming motorists? More cycling is a laudable ambition, both from a sustainability and health perspective but the routes they use should be suitable and safe. I don't blame cyclists, and I don't blame motorists, both have a place, both cause problems, and sometimes both are the problem. However even more cyclists on main routes and busy routes fills me with utter dread.

Family man if when I rode my bike I could see I was holding up traffic I would get off the road until the backlog was cleared.
But I've lost friends to cars Lorry's clipping them when they had plenty of room to pass

Family Man wrote:
Living on a very narrow busy country road, more cyclists is just what is NOT needed. Ever seen a queue of 20 cars behind a cyclist as he weaves at less than 10 mph up an incline with no one able to pass and then forced to take risks in attempting to pass at the few opportunities? Ever seen motorists have to swerve as he encounters a cyclist around a blind bend narrowly avoiding oncoming vehicles? or being one of those oncoming motorists? More cycling is a laudable ambition, both from a sustainability and health perspective but the routes they use should be suitable and safe. I don't blame cyclists, and I don't blame motorists, both have a place, both cause problems, and sometimes both are the problem. However even more cyclists on main routes and busy routes fills me with utter dread.

What is the real danger here..?

Is it the cyclist - going about their law abiding right to use the road?

Or is it the driver who thinks its his right to drive too fast, overtake inappropriately with little space, speed into corners like Jeremy on Top Gear?

As the vehicle operator behind you have obligations to act in a considerate and safe manner. From your description it doesnt sound as if you do.

downfader wrote:

Family Man wrote:
Living on a very narrow busy country road, more cyclists is just what is NOT needed. Ever seen a queue of 20 cars behind a cyclist as he weaves at less than 10 mph up an incline with no one able to pass and then forced to take risks in attempting to pass at the few opportunities? Ever seen motorists have to swerve as he encounters a cyclist around a blind bend narrowly avoiding oncoming vehicles? or being one of those oncoming motorists? More cycling is a laudable ambition, both from a sustainability and health perspective but the routes they use should be suitable and safe. I don't blame cyclists, and I don't blame motorists, both have a place, both cause problems, and sometimes both are the problem. However even more cyclists on main routes and busy routes fills me with utter dread.

What is the real danger here..?

Is it the cyclist - going about their law abiding right to use the road?

Or is it the driver who thinks its his right to drive too fast, overtake inappropriately with little space, speed into corners like Jeremy on Top Gear?

As the vehicle operator behind you have obligations to act in a considerate and safe manner. From your description it doesnt sound as if you do.

'I'm special, don't come anywhere near me'

Yeah, every evening on local traffic bulletins, it's always cyclists causing the queues and added journey times. And nobody is 'forcing' anyone to make dangerous manoeuvres. If anybody can't react to an object around a blind bend, ponies being a good local example, they are driving too dangerously.

However, I do agree that routes should be suitable and safe which is why both cyclists and non-cyclists get frustrated at the money wasted on inappropriate cycle lanes that often aren't built in consultation with the people who are meant to use them and are frequently designed in a failed attempt to make the lives of motorists easier, not cyclists.

I also agree that staying safe on the road in a number of circumstances, including cycling, should be re-introduced to schools, potentially as part of physical activity in the national curriculum.

Who goes flat out round a blind bend,did you even have driving lessons,says it all really.

I have teased Downfader, and what Geoff 57 calls the "cycle Nazis" mercilessly in the past. I suppose you could call me a hypocrite, because, like most kids, I loved cycling as a child, but of course there was a lot less traffic back in the 50's. Plenty of room for everyone.

As I got older, and started work as a teacher, I needed to take a lot of books and stuff around with me each day, so the bicycle was not a practical option, particularly when available time was an issue.
The road, today, is essential for business and commercial purposes, and that is what it is used for, primarily. As we all have seen, it is nose to tail with lorries, buses, and commuter traffic for most of the day, even on country roads. Setting aside those who drive 5 miles alone to work with only their laptop and sandwiches to carry, the vast majority of road users could not carry out their daily tasks as efficiently, effectively, and as quickly if they were to substitute their motorised vehicles for bicycles. I think that fact is fairly obvious to most people, so I won't waste time proving the point.

No matter who is to blame, and no matter how much "right" cyclists have to be on the road, a great increase in the number of bicycles will result in a lot more fatal accidents.

At the olympics, we did very well in the tennis, the boxing, and the shooting. But most people will not be going to buy a tennis racquet, organize neighbourhood punch-ups, or buy a gun. Why should they feel obliged to buy a bicycle ?

Family Man wrote:
Living on a very narrow busy country road, more cyclists is just what is NOT needed. Ever seen a queue of 20 cars behind a cyclist as he weaves at less than 10 mph up an incline with no one able to pass and then forced to take risks in attempting to pass at the few opportunities? Ever seen motorists have to swerve as he encounters a cyclist around a blind bend narrowly avoiding oncoming vehicles? or being one of those oncoming motorists? More cycling is a laudable ambition, both from a sustainability and health perspective but the routes they use should be suitable and safe. I don't blame cyclists, and I don't blame motorists, both have a place, both cause problems, and sometimes both are the problem. However even more cyclists on main routes and busy routes fills me with utter dread.

Are you saying motorists should have priority???

Family Man wrote:
Living on a very narrow busy country road, more cyclists is just what is NOT needed. Ever seen a queue of 20 cars behind a cyclist as he weaves at less than 10 mph up an incline with no one able to pass and then forced to take risks in attempting to pass at the few opportunities? Ever seen motorists have to swerve as he encounters a cyclist around a blind bend narrowly avoiding oncoming vehicles? or being one of those oncoming motorists? More cycling is a laudable ambition, both from a sustainability and health perspective but the routes they use should be suitable and safe. I don't blame cyclists, and I don't blame motorists, both have a place, both cause problems, and sometimes both are the problem. However even more cyclists on main routes and busy routes fills me with utter dread.

First, more cyclists is what's needed to stop this supposedly fair country from getting as fat as the yanks, secondly, would you complain or take those risks if it was a large truck or even a tractor that can't go very fast uphill due to their weight, third, if you're coming up to a blind corner, don't go flat out round it, going too fast is what causes you to swerve as you can't react fast enough, if you follow a cyclist round then don't overtake on the bend, wait until you can see further down the road and wait until it's safe to overtake and use the whole road to do so, fourth, all cycling routes are safe, it's planks who can't drive that make them dangerous, fifth, yes, that place is the roads, get over it, sixth, cyclists cause less problems than drivers, more cars on the roads means more traffic jams and tailbacks and lastly more cyclists on main routes fills me with joy because people would finally be getting off their lardy arses and exercising rather than adding to the lard by sitting and not doing much for miles and miles.

bigfella777 wrote:
Who goes flat out round a blind bend,did you even have driving lessons,says it all really.

Don't know, even I wouldn't do it on my bike, it would be suicide.

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

Family Man wrote:
Living on a very narrow busy country road, more cyclists is just what is NOT needed. Ever seen a queue of 20 cars behind a cyclist as he weaves at less than 10 mph up an incline with no one able to pass and then forced to take risks in attempting to pass at the few opportunities? Ever seen motorists have to swerve as he encounters a cyclist around a blind bend narrowly avoiding oncoming vehicles? or being one of those oncoming motorists? More cycling is a laudable ambition, both from a sustainability and health perspective but the routes they use should be suitable and safe. I don't blame cyclists, and I don't blame motorists, both have a place, both cause problems, and sometimes both are the problem. However even more cyclists on main routes and busy routes fills me with utter dread.

First, more cyclists is what's needed to stop this supposedly fair country from getting as fat as the yanks, secondly, would you complain or take those risks if it was a large truck or even a tractor that can't go very fast uphill due to their weight, third, if you're coming up to a blind corner, don't go flat out round it, going too fast is what causes you to swerve as you can't react fast enough, if you follow a cyclist round then don't overtake on the bend, wait until you can see further down the road and wait until it's safe to overtake and use the whole road to do so, fourth, all cycling routes are safe, it's planks who can't drive that make them dangerous, fifth, yes, that place is the roads, get over it, sixth, cyclists cause less problems than drivers, more cars on the roads means more traffic jams and tailbacks and lastly more cyclists on main routes fills me with joy because people would finally be getting off their lardy arses and exercising rather than adding to the lard by sitting and not doing much for miles and miles.

It would be interesting to see you put the points over in a diplomatic fashion, weighing up both sides of the argument in the light of what our world needs from the road system.

What you have given us is a very biased, bad-tempered, unrealistic rant in one long, confusing, ill-considered 195-word sentence.

Lets hope your cycling skills are not on the same level as your communication skills.

BillyTheKid wrote:

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

Family Man wrote:
Living on a very narrow busy country road, more cyclists is just what is NOT needed. Ever seen a queue of 20 cars behind a cyclist as he weaves at less than 10 mph up an incline with no one able to pass and then forced to take risks in attempting to pass at the few opportunities? Ever seen motorists have to swerve as he encounters a cyclist around a blind bend narrowly avoiding oncoming vehicles? or being one of those oncoming motorists? More cycling is a laudable ambition, both from a sustainability and health perspective but the routes they use should be suitable and safe. I don't blame cyclists, and I don't blame motorists, both have a place, both cause problems, and sometimes both are the problem. However even more cyclists on main routes and busy routes fills me with utter dread.

First, more cyclists is what's needed to stop this supposedly fair country from getting as fat as the yanks, secondly, would you complain or take those risks if it was a large truck or even a tractor that can't go very fast uphill due to their weight, third, if you're coming up to a blind corner, don't go flat out round it, going too fast is what causes you to swerve as you can't react fast enough, if you follow a cyclist round then don't overtake on the bend, wait until you can see further down the road and wait until it's safe to overtake and use the whole road to do so, fourth, all cycling routes are safe, it's planks who can't drive that make them dangerous, fifth, yes, that place is the roads, get over it, sixth, cyclists cause less problems than drivers, more cars on the roads means more traffic jams and tailbacks and lastly more cyclists on main routes fills me with joy because people would finally be getting off their lardy arses and exercising rather than adding to the lard by sitting and not doing much for miles and miles.

It would be interesting to see you put the points over in a diplomatic fashion, weighing up both sides of the argument in the light of what our world needs from the road system.

What you have given us is a very biased, bad-tempered, unrealistic rant in one long, confusing, ill-considered 195-word sentence.

Lets hope your cycling skills are not on the same level as your communication skills.

My cat is the traditional black and white type.
When he was a kitten, he was cute like the one in the felix advert.
Now he is older, he looks like a badger.
He rarely stays in the house all night, particularly in the warmer weather.

We hear constantly from people on these sights how they can't afford to feed their families & go to food banks or they moan about the price of fuel.
For around town & short distances get a bike no petrol needed.no pollution & fitter people.
more money in you're pockets & I do remember a time when almost every worker rode a bike to work.

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

Family Man wrote:
Living on a very narrow busy country road, more cyclists is just what is NOT needed. Ever seen a queue of 20 cars behind a cyclist as he weaves at less than 10 mph up an incline with no one able to pass and then forced to take risks in attempting to pass at the few opportunities? Ever seen motorists have to swerve as he encounters a cyclist around a blind bend narrowly avoiding oncoming vehicles? or being one of those oncoming motorists? More cycling is a laudable ambition, both from a sustainability and health perspective but the routes they use should be suitable and safe. I don't blame cyclists, and I don't blame motorists, both have a place, both cause problems, and sometimes both are the problem. However even more cyclists on main routes and busy routes fills me with utter dread.

First, more cyclists is what's needed to stop this supposedly fair country from getting as fat as the yanks, secondly, would you complain or take those risks if it was a large truck or even a tractor that can't go very fast uphill due to their weight, third, if you're coming up to a blind corner, don't go flat out round it, going too fast is what causes you to swerve as you can't react fast enough, if you follow a cyclist round then don't overtake on the bend, wait until you can see further down the road and wait until it's safe to overtake and use the whole road to do so, fourth, all cycling routes are safe, it's planks who can't drive that make them dangerous, fifth, yes, that place is the roads, get over it, sixth, cyclists cause less problems than drivers, more cars on the roads means more traffic jams and tailbacks and lastly more cyclists on main routes fills me with joy because people would finally be getting off their lardy arses and exercising rather than adding to the lard by sitting and not doing much for miles and miles.

I think it may be the plank that's so devoted to his bicycle that he isn't aware of places like gyms or the many sports demonstrated in the recent Olympic Games that can be just as energetic as pedaling down to the paper shop for a copy of The Sun.

BillyTheKid wrote:
I have teased Downfader, and what Geoff 57 calls the "cycle Nazis" mercilessly in the past. I suppose you could call me a hypocrite, because, like most kids, I loved cycling as a child, but of course there was a lot less traffic back in the 50's. Plenty of room for everyone.

As I got older, and started work as a teacher, I needed to take a lot of books and stuff around with me each day, so the bicycle was not a practical option, particularly when available time was an issue.
The road, today, is essential for business and commercial purposes, and that is what it is used for, primarily. As we all have seen, it is nose to tail with lorries, buses, and commuter traffic for most of the day, even on country roads. Setting aside those who drive 5 miles alone to work with only their laptop and sandwiches to carry, the vast majority of road users could not carry out their daily tasks as efficiently, effectively, and as quickly if they were to substitute their motorised vehicles for bicycles. I think that fact is fairly obvious to most people, so I won't waste time proving the point.

No matter who is to blame, and no matter how much "right" cyclists have to be on the road, a great increase in the number of bicycles will result in a lot more fatal accidents.

At the olympics, we did very well in the tennis, the boxing, and the shooting. But most people will not be going to buy a tennis racquet, organize neighbourhood punch-ups, or buy a gun. Why should they feel obliged to buy a bicycle ?

Teased..? Dont honour yourself, LMAO!!!

I had a teacher when I was a lad who rode his bike everywhere. This was the early 90s, nobody rode like they do now, just a few kids to school, etc.

But he managed. He came from the other side of Totton iirc, down to the Weston area to teach. Two pannier bags filled with books, most of what he needed he left at work.

A rise in cyclists doesnt have to mean a rise in KSIs. If you really are a teacher you'd understand how raising awareness works. The amount of times we had to sit down as kids and watch safety videos about the roads, the railway once, even stranger danger.

Do kids not get this now..? If not why not.

Nobody feels obliged to buy a bike. People are seeing how fat they're getting, how every big mac is a nail in the coffin of their kids, their relatives and themselves. How ever can of coke downed is an extra millimetre on the waist. They're seeing an alternative and beneficial lifestyle despite the diatribes of the likes of yourself and Geoff.

loosehead wrote:
We hear constantly from people on these sights how they can't afford to feed their families & go to food banks or they moan about the price of fuel.
For around town & short distances get a bike no petrol needed.no pollution & fitter people.
more money in you're pockets & I do remember a time when almost every worker rode a bike to work.

meant to add they all have cars but can't afford food?

Torchie1 wrote:

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

Family Man wrote:
Living on a very narrow busy country road, more cyclists is just what is NOT needed. Ever seen a queue of 20 cars behind a cyclist as he weaves at less than 10 mph up an incline with no one able to pass and then forced to take risks in attempting to pass at the few opportunities? Ever seen motorists have to swerve as he encounters a cyclist around a blind bend narrowly avoiding oncoming vehicles? or being one of those oncoming motorists? More cycling is a laudable ambition, both from a sustainability and health perspective but the routes they use should be suitable and safe. I don't blame cyclists, and I don't blame motorists, both have a place, both cause problems, and sometimes both are the problem. However even more cyclists on main routes and busy routes fills me with utter dread.

First, more cyclists is what's needed to stop this supposedly fair country from getting as fat as the yanks, secondly, would you complain or take those risks if it was a large truck or even a tractor that can't go very fast uphill due to their weight, third, if you're coming up to a blind corner, don't go flat out round it, going too fast is what causes you to swerve as you can't react fast enough, if you follow a cyclist round then don't overtake on the bend, wait until you can see further down the road and wait until it's safe to overtake and use the whole road to do so, fourth, all cycling routes are safe, it's planks who can't drive that make them dangerous, fifth, yes, that place is the roads, get over it, sixth, cyclists cause less problems than drivers, more cars on the roads means more traffic jams and tailbacks and lastly more cyclists on main routes fills me with joy because people would finally be getting off their lardy arses and exercising rather than adding to the lard by sitting and not doing much for miles and miles.

I think it may be the plank that's so devoted to his bicycle that he isn't aware of places like gyms or the many sports demonstrated in the recent Olympic Games that can be just as energetic as pedaling down to the paper shop for a copy of The Sun.

Gyms cost money. My Brother uses a weights room, £300 minimum a year. Mind you I bought a load of my weights from a charity shop for about £15.

A £150 bike will get you just as fit and its a one-off cost.

downfader wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:
I have teased Downfader, and what Geoff 57 calls the "cycle Nazis" mercilessly in the past. I suppose you could call me a hypocrite, because, like most kids, I loved cycling as a child, but of course there was a lot less traffic back in the 50's. Plenty of room for everyone.

As I got older, and started work as a teacher, I needed to take a lot of books and stuff around with me each day, so the bicycle was not a practical option, particularly when available time was an issue.
The road, today, is essential for business and commercial purposes, and that is what it is used for, primarily. As we all have seen, it is nose to tail with lorries, buses, and commuter traffic for most of the day, even on country roads. Setting aside those who drive 5 miles alone to work with only their laptop and sandwiches to carry, the vast majority of road users could not carry out their daily tasks as efficiently, effectively, and as quickly if they were to substitute their motorised vehicles for bicycles. I think that fact is fairly obvious to most people, so I won't waste time proving the point.

No matter who is to blame, and no matter how much "right" cyclists have to be on the road, a great increase in the number of bicycles will result in a lot more fatal accidents.

At the olympics, we did very well in the tennis, the boxing, and the shooting. But most people will not be going to buy a tennis racquet, organize neighbourhood punch-ups, or buy a gun. Why should they feel obliged to buy a bicycle ?

Teased..? Dont honour yourself, LMAO!!!

I had a teacher when I was a lad who rode his bike everywhere. This was the early 90s, nobody rode like they do now, just a few kids to school, etc.

But he managed. He came from the other side of Totton iirc, down to the Weston area to teach. Two pannier bags filled with books, most of what he needed he left at work.

A rise in cyclists doesnt have to mean a rise in KSIs. If you really are a teacher you'd understand how raising awareness works. The amount of times we had to sit down as kids and watch safety videos about the roads, the railway once, even stranger danger.

Do kids not get this now..? If not why not.

Nobody feels obliged to buy a bike. People are seeing how fat they're getting, how every big mac is a nail in the coffin of their kids, their relatives and themselves. How ever can of coke downed is an extra millimetre on the waist. They're seeing an alternative and beneficial lifestyle despite the diatribes of the likes of yourself and Geoff.

When I was young & went to Bellemoor you either rode a bike or walked to school I can't remember parents driving from a 5 minute walk from there house to park up & walk for two to five minutes to drop off their children.
I've seen this at Fairisle school & Oasis
then they say they don't want to do sports I wonder why?
Get them a bike especially around Lordshill as there's plenty of places to ride to school where there are no vehicles at all

Downfader has the other great british disease -
Couldabeen
Wouldabeen
Shouldabeen

Go on my son - you can be the best. Well, if you could get away from the pool-table that is........

Torchie1 wrote:

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

Family Man wrote:
Living on a very narrow busy country road, more cyclists is just what is NOT needed. Ever seen a queue of 20 cars behind a cyclist as he weaves at less than 10 mph up an incline with no one able to pass and then forced to take risks in attempting to pass at the few opportunities? Ever seen motorists have to swerve as he encounters a cyclist around a blind bend narrowly avoiding oncoming vehicles? or being one of those oncoming motorists? More cycling is a laudable ambition, both from a sustainability and health perspective but the routes they use should be suitable and safe. I don't blame cyclists, and I don't blame motorists, both have a place, both cause problems, and sometimes both are the problem. However even more cyclists on main routes and busy routes fills me with utter dread.

First, more cyclists is what's needed to stop this supposedly fair country from getting as fat as the yanks, secondly, would you complain or take those risks if it was a large truck or even a tractor that can't go very fast uphill due to their weight, third, if you're coming up to a blind corner, don't go flat out round it, going too fast is what causes you to swerve as you can't react fast enough, if you follow a cyclist round then don't overtake on the bend, wait until you can see further down the road and wait until it's safe to overtake and use the whole road to do so, fourth, all cycling routes are safe, it's planks who can't drive that make them dangerous, fifth, yes, that place is the roads, get over it, sixth, cyclists cause less problems than drivers, more cars on the roads means more traffic jams and tailbacks and lastly more cyclists on main routes fills me with joy because people would finally be getting off their lardy arses and exercising rather than adding to the lard by sitting and not doing much for miles and miles.

I think it may be the plank that's so devoted to his bicycle that he isn't aware of places like gyms or the many sports demonstrated in the recent Olympic Games that can be just as energetic as pedaling down to the paper shop for a copy of The Sun.

Sadly for you, you are totally wrong, I do know of gyms and no, I don't pedal to the paper shop to buy the sun, the only paper I buy is the angling times, the crap stuff I can just find on here, along with crappier people who comment on articles... Oh wait, that's people like you and geoff.

BillyTheKid wrote:

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

Family Man wrote:
Living on a very narrow busy country road, more cyclists is just what is NOT needed. Ever seen a queue of 20 cars behind a cyclist as he weaves at less than 10 mph up an incline with no one able to pass and then forced to take risks in attempting to pass at the few opportunities? Ever seen motorists have to swerve as he encounters a cyclist around a blind bend narrowly avoiding oncoming vehicles? or being one of those oncoming motorists? More cycling is a laudable ambition, both from a sustainability and health perspective but the routes they use should be suitable and safe. I don't blame cyclists, and I don't blame motorists, both have a place, both cause problems, and sometimes both are the problem. However even more cyclists on main routes and busy routes fills me with utter dread.

First, more cyclists is what's needed to stop this supposedly fair country from getting as fat as the yanks, secondly, would you complain or take those risks if it was a large truck or even a tractor that can't go very fast uphill due to their weight, third, if you're coming up to a blind corner, don't go flat out round it, going too fast is what causes you to swerve as you can't react fast enough, if you follow a cyclist round then don't overtake on the bend, wait until you can see further down the road and wait until it's safe to overtake and use the whole road to do so, fourth, all cycling routes are safe, it's planks who can't drive that make them dangerous, fifth, yes, that place is the roads, get over it, sixth, cyclists cause less problems than drivers, more cars on the roads means more traffic jams and tailbacks and lastly more cyclists on main routes fills me with joy because people would finally be getting off their lardy arses and exercising rather than adding to the lard by sitting and not doing much for miles and miles.

It would be interesting to see you put the points over in a diplomatic fashion, weighing up both sides of the argument in the light of what our world needs from the road system.

What you have given us is a very biased, bad-tempered, unrealistic rant in one long, confusing, ill-considered 195-word sentence.

Lets hope your cycling skills are not on the same level as your communication skills.

Oh yeah because cyclists must ALWAYS hold up traffic, so it MUST have been me holding up the traffic going through northam from town side and not the 50 odd cars in front of me who were stuck at the lights, oh what should I ever do? People want me to get a car even though I can do the same journey quicker than them. Get a life and yes, my cycling skills are perfect, I stop at traffic lights, I don't ride on the pavement unless it's a shared use path and it would be quicker, if I HAVE to get on the pavement then I will get off and walk along the pavement, I signal clearly, I control the lane through pinch points and on approach to traffic lights, I can read signs, I can use multi-lane roads confidently, I can even use roundabouts properly, I also filter only when safe to do so and NEVER down the left side of HGV's, so yes, my cycling skills are impeccable, if I went to do the bikeability courses, they'd hand me the badges with my money back and send me home, that's how good I am at riding my bike.

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

Family Man wrote:
Living on a very narrow busy country road, more cyclists is just what is NOT needed. Ever seen a queue of 20 cars behind a cyclist as he weaves at less than 10 mph up an incline with no one able to pass and then forced to take risks in attempting to pass at the few opportunities? Ever seen motorists have to swerve as he encounters a cyclist around a blind bend narrowly avoiding oncoming vehicles? or being one of those oncoming motorists? More cycling is a laudable ambition, both from a sustainability and health perspective but the routes they use should be suitable and safe. I don't blame cyclists, and I don't blame motorists, both have a place, both cause problems, and sometimes both are the problem. However even more cyclists on main routes and busy routes fills me with utter dread.

First, more cyclists is what's needed to stop this supposedly fair country from getting as fat as the yanks, secondly, would you complain or take those risks if it was a large truck or even a tractor that can't go very fast uphill due to their weight, third, if you're coming up to a blind corner, don't go flat out round it, going too fast is what causes you to swerve as you can't react fast enough, if you follow a cyclist round then don't overtake on the bend, wait until you can see further down the road and wait until it's safe to overtake and use the whole road to do so, fourth, all cycling routes are safe, it's planks who can't drive that make them dangerous, fifth, yes, that place is the roads, get over it, sixth, cyclists cause less problems than drivers, more cars on the roads means more traffic jams and tailbacks and lastly more cyclists on main routes fills me with joy because people would finally be getting off their lardy arses and exercising rather than adding to the lard by sitting and not doing much for miles and miles.

It would be interesting to see you put the points over in a diplomatic fashion, weighing up both sides of the argument in the light of what our world needs from the road system.

What you have given us is a very biased, bad-tempered, unrealistic rant in one long, confusing, ill-considered 195-word sentence.

Lets hope your cycling skills are not on the same level as your communication skills.

Oh yeah because cyclists must ALWAYS hold up traffic, so it MUST have been me holding up the traffic going through northam from town side and not the 50 odd cars in front of me who were stuck at the lights, oh what should I ever do? People want me to get a car even though I can do the same journey quicker than them. Get a life and yes, my cycling skills are perfect, I stop at traffic lights, I don't ride on the pavement unless it's a shared use path and it would be quicker, if I HAVE to get on the pavement then I will get off and walk along the pavement, I signal clearly, I control the lane through pinch points and on approach to traffic lights, I can read signs, I can use multi-lane roads confidently, I can even use roundabouts properly, I also filter only when safe to do so and NEVER down the left side of HGV's, so yes, my cycling skills are impeccable, if I went to do the bikeability courses, they'd hand me the badges with my money back and send me home, that's how good I am at riding my bike.

It's all relative to your benchmark paradigm of perfection. Don't get all worked-up, use that argumentative energy to do some GOOD for once.

downfader wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:
I have teased Downfader, and what Geoff 57 calls the "cycle Nazis" mercilessly in the past. I suppose you could call me a hypocrite, because, like most kids, I loved cycling as a child, but of course there was a lot less traffic back in the 50's. Plenty of room for everyone.

As I got older, and started work as a teacher, I needed to take a lot of books and stuff around with me each day, so the bicycle was not a practical option, particularly when available time was an issue.
The road, today, is essential for business and commercial purposes, and that is what it is used for, primarily. As we all have seen, it is nose to tail with lorries, buses, and commuter traffic for most of the day, even on country roads. Setting aside those who drive 5 miles alone to work with only their laptop and sandwiches to carry, the vast majority of road users could not carry out their daily tasks as efficiently, effectively, and as quickly if they were to substitute their motorised vehicles for bicycles. I think that fact is fairly obvious to most people, so I won't waste time proving the point.

No matter who is to blame, and no matter how much "right" cyclists have to be on the road, a great increase in the number of bicycles will result in a lot more fatal accidents.

At the olympics, we did very well in the tennis, the boxing, and the shooting. But most people will not be going to buy a tennis racquet, organize neighbourhood punch-ups, or buy a gun. Why should they feel obliged to buy a bicycle ?

Teased..? Dont honour yourself, LMAO!!!

I had a teacher when I was a lad who rode his bike everywhere. This was the early 90s, nobody rode like they do now, just a few kids to school, etc.

But he managed. He came from the other side of Totton iirc, down to the Weston area to teach. Two pannier bags filled with books, most of what he needed he left at work.

A rise in cyclists doesnt have to mean a rise in KSIs. If you really are a teacher you'd understand how raising awareness works. The amount of times we had to sit down as kids and watch safety videos about the roads, the railway once, even stranger danger.

Do kids not get this now..? If not why not.

Nobody feels obliged to buy a bike. People are seeing how fat they're getting, how every big mac is a nail in the coffin of their kids, their relatives and themselves. How ever can of coke downed is an extra millimetre on the waist. They're seeing an alternative and beneficial lifestyle despite the diatribes of the likes of yourself and Geoff.

I also had several teachers who rode to school, all of them on roadies with panniers and in full lycra, not a pleasant sight when one of them was old and wrinkly but I also had a lecturer at college who rode to sparsholt college from Shirley on a hybrid... Now that guy was nuts.

J.P.M wrote:

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

Family Man wrote:
Living on a very narrow busy country road, more cyclists is just what is NOT needed. Ever seen a queue of 20 cars behind a cyclist as he weaves at less than 10 mph up an incline with no one able to pass and then forced to take risks in attempting to pass at the few opportunities? Ever seen motorists have to swerve as he encounters a cyclist around a blind bend narrowly avoiding oncoming vehicles? or being one of those oncoming motorists? More cycling is a laudable ambition, both from a sustainability and health perspective but the routes they use should be suitable and safe. I don't blame cyclists, and I don't blame motorists, both have a place, both cause problems, and sometimes both are the problem. However even more cyclists on main routes and busy routes fills me with utter dread.

First, more cyclists is what's needed to stop this supposedly fair country from getting as fat as the yanks, secondly, would you complain or take those risks if it was a large truck or even a tractor that can't go very fast uphill due to their weight, third, if you're coming up to a blind corner, don't go flat out round it, going too fast is what causes you to swerve as you can't react fast enough, if you follow a cyclist round then don't overtake on the bend, wait until you can see further down the road and wait until it's safe to overtake and use the whole road to do so, fourth, all cycling routes are safe, it's planks who can't drive that make them dangerous, fifth, yes, that place is the roads, get over it, sixth, cyclists cause less problems than drivers, more cars on the roads means more traffic jams and tailbacks and lastly more cyclists on main routes fills me with joy because people would finally be getting off their lardy arses and exercising rather than adding to the lard by sitting and not doing much for miles and miles.

It would be interesting to see you put the points over in a diplomatic fashion, weighing up both sides of the argument in the light of what our world needs from the road system.

What you have given us is a very biased, bad-tempered, unrealistic rant in one long, confusing, ill-considered 195-word sentence.

Lets hope your cycling skills are not on the same level as your communication skills.

Oh yeah because cyclists must ALWAYS hold up traffic, so it MUST have been me holding up the traffic going through northam from town side and not the 50 odd cars in front of me who were stuck at the lights, oh what should I ever do? People want me to get a car even though I can do the same journey quicker than them. Get a life and yes, my cycling skills are perfect, I stop at traffic lights, I don't ride on the pavement unless it's a shared use path and it would be quicker, if I HAVE to get on the pavement then I will get off and walk along the pavement, I signal clearly, I control the lane through pinch points and on approach to traffic lights, I can read signs, I can use multi-lane roads confidently, I can even use roundabouts properly, I also filter only when safe to do so and NEVER down the left side of HGV's, so yes, my cycling skills are impeccable, if I went to do the bikeability courses, they'd hand me the badges with my money back and send me home, that's how good I am at riding my bike.

It's all relative to your benchmark paradigm of perfection. Don't get all worked-up, use that argumentative energy to do some GOOD for once.

Like increase my skills base to increase my chances to get a job? Already on it, besides, some of that was sarcasm, mainly the bit about holding up traffic.

downfader wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:
I have teased Downfader, and what Geoff 57 calls the "cycle Nazis" mercilessly in the past. I suppose you could call me a hypocrite, because, like most kids, I loved cycling as a child, but of course there was a lot less traffic back in the 50's. Plenty of room for everyone.

As I got older, and started work as a teacher, I needed to take a lot of books and stuff around with me each day, so the bicycle was not a practical option, particularly when available time was an issue.
The road, today, is essential for business and commercial purposes, and that is what it is used for, primarily. As we all have seen, it is nose to tail with lorries, buses, and commuter traffic for most of the day, even on country roads. Setting aside those who drive 5 miles alone to work with only their laptop and sandwiches to carry, the vast majority of road users could not carry out their daily tasks as efficiently, effectively, and as quickly if they were to substitute their motorised vehicles for bicycles. I think that fact is fairly obvious to most people, so I won't waste time proving the point.

No matter who is to blame, and no matter how much "right" cyclists have to be on the road, a great increase in the number of bicycles will result in a lot more fatal accidents.

At the olympics, we did very well in the tennis, the boxing, and the shooting. But most people will not be going to buy a tennis racquet, organize neighbourhood punch-ups, or buy a gun. Why should they feel obliged to buy a bicycle ?

Teased..? Dont honour yourself, LMAO!!!

I had a teacher when I was a lad who rode his bike everywhere. This was the early 90s, nobody rode like they do now, just a few kids to school, etc.

But he managed. He came from the other side of Totton iirc, down to the Weston area to teach. Two pannier bags filled with books, most of what he needed he left at work.

A rise in cyclists doesnt have to mean a rise in KSIs. If you really are a teacher you'd understand how raising awareness works. The amount of times we had to sit down as kids and watch safety videos about the roads, the railway once, even stranger danger.

Do kids not get this now..? If not why not.

Nobody feels obliged to buy a bike. People are seeing how fat they're getting, how every big mac is a nail in the coffin of their kids, their relatives and themselves. How ever can of coke downed is an extra millimetre on the waist. They're seeing an alternative and beneficial lifestyle despite the diatribes of the likes of yourself and Geoff.

It is a pity that you allow arrogant and narrow-minded posturing to lead you to say such foolish things.

Simply because ONE teacher was able to discharge his duties effectively with a bike and paniers does not mean ALL teachers can do so. Art, music, and drama teachers have a great deal of equipment and visual aids that even a team of cyclists could not get to and from school on a daily basis.

My comments were based on what I see and know about other people and the real world. Your comments are based on your own personal life, and reflect only what you want.

I think much of what you say deserves a response of "shut up and mind your own business".

J.P.M wrote:

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

Family Man wrote:
Living on a very narrow busy country road, more cyclists is just what is NOT needed. Ever seen a queue of 20 cars behind a cyclist as he weaves at less than 10 mph up an incline with no one able to pass and then forced to take risks in attempting to pass at the few opportunities? Ever seen motorists have to swerve as he encounters a cyclist around a blind bend narrowly avoiding oncoming vehicles? or being one of those oncoming motorists? More cycling is a laudable ambition, both from a sustainability and health perspective but the routes they use should be suitable and safe. I don't blame cyclists, and I don't blame motorists, both have a place, both cause problems, and sometimes both are the problem. However even more cyclists on main routes and busy routes fills me with utter dread.

First, more cyclists is what's needed to stop this supposedly fair country from getting as fat as the yanks, secondly, would you complain or take those risks if it was a large truck or even a tractor that can't go very fast uphill due to their weight, third, if you're coming up to a blind corner, don't go flat out round it, going too fast is what causes you to swerve as you can't react fast enough, if you follow a cyclist round then don't overtake on the bend, wait until you can see further down the road and wait until it's safe to overtake and use the whole road to do so, fourth, all cycling routes are safe, it's planks who can't drive that make them dangerous, fifth, yes, that place is the roads, get over it, sixth, cyclists cause less problems than drivers, more cars on the roads means more traffic jams and tailbacks and lastly more cyclists on main routes fills me with joy because people would finally be getting off their lardy arses and exercising rather than adding to the lard by sitting and not doing much for miles and miles.

It would be interesting to see you put the points over in a diplomatic fashion, weighing up both sides of the argument in the light of what our world needs from the road system.

What you have given us is a very biased, bad-tempered, unrealistic rant in one long, confusing, ill-considered 195-word sentence.

Lets hope your cycling skills are not on the same level as your communication skills.

Oh yeah because cyclists must ALWAYS hold up traffic, so it MUST have been me holding up the traffic going through northam from town side and not the 50 odd cars in front of me who were stuck at the lights, oh what should I ever do? People want me to get a car even though I can do the same journey quicker than them. Get a life and yes, my cycling skills are perfect, I stop at traffic lights, I don't ride on the pavement unless it's a shared use path and it would be quicker, if I HAVE to get on the pavement then I will get off and walk along the pavement, I signal clearly, I control the lane through pinch points and on approach to traffic lights, I can read signs, I can use multi-lane roads confidently, I can even use roundabouts properly, I also filter only when safe to do so and NEVER down the left side of HGV's, so yes, my cycling skills are impeccable, if I went to do the bikeability courses, they'd hand me the badges with my money back and send me home, that's how good I am at riding my bike.

It's all relative to your benchmark paradigm of perfection. Don't get all worked-up, use that argumentative energy to do some GOOD for once.

Have you anything constructive to add yourself, JPM?

loosehead wrote:

downfader wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:
I have teased Downfader, and what Geoff 57 calls the "cycle Nazis" mercilessly in the past. I suppose you could call me a hypocrite, because, like most kids, I loved cycling as a child, but of course there was a lot less traffic back in the 50's. Plenty of room for everyone.

As I got older, and started work as a teacher, I needed to take a lot of books and stuff around with me each day, so the bicycle was not a practical option, particularly when available time was an issue.
The road, today, is essential for business and commercial purposes, and that is what it is used for, primarily. As we all have seen, it is nose to tail with lorries, buses, and commuter traffic for most of the day, even on country roads. Setting aside those who drive 5 miles alone to work with only their laptop and sandwiches to carry, the vast majority of road users could not carry out their daily tasks as efficiently, effectively, and as quickly if they were to substitute their motorised vehicles for bicycles. I think that fact is fairly obvious to most people, so I won't waste time proving the point.

No matter who is to blame, and no matter how much "right" cyclists have to be on the road, a great increase in the number of bicycles will result in a lot more fatal accidents.

At the olympics, we did very well in the tennis, the boxing, and the shooting. But most people will not be going to buy a tennis racquet, organize neighbourhood punch-ups, or buy a gun. Why should they feel obliged to buy a bicycle ?

Teased..? Dont honour yourself, LMAO!!!

I had a teacher when I was a lad who rode his bike everywhere. This was the early 90s, nobody rode like they do now, just a few kids to school, etc.

But he managed. He came from the other side of Totton iirc, down to the Weston area to teach. Two pannier bags filled with books, most of what he needed he left at work.

A rise in cyclists doesnt have to mean a rise in KSIs. If you really are a teacher you'd understand how raising awareness works. The amount of times we had to sit down as kids and watch safety videos about the roads, the railway once, even stranger danger.

Do kids not get this now..? If not why not.

Nobody feels obliged to buy a bike. People are seeing how fat they're getting, how every big mac is a nail in the coffin of their kids, their relatives and themselves. How ever can of coke downed is an extra millimetre on the waist. They're seeing an alternative and beneficial lifestyle despite the diatribes of the likes of yourself and Geoff.

When I was young & went to Bellemoor you either rode a bike or walked to school I can't remember parents driving from a 5 minute walk from there house to park up & walk for two to five minutes to drop off their children.
I've seen this at Fairisle school & Oasis
then they say they don't want to do sports I wonder why?
Get them a bike especially around Lordshill as there's plenty of places to ride to school where there are no vehicles at all

Get them a bike no matter what and then make cycle training a compulsory subject in schools, that includes learning how to fix and maintain a bike.

downfader wrote:

J.P.M wrote:

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

Family Man wrote:
Living on a very narrow busy country road, more cyclists is just what is NOT needed. Ever seen a queue of 20 cars behind a cyclist as he weaves at less than 10 mph up an incline with no one able to pass and then forced to take risks in attempting to pass at the few opportunities? Ever seen motorists have to swerve as he encounters a cyclist around a blind bend narrowly avoiding oncoming vehicles? or being one of those oncoming motorists? More cycling is a laudable ambition, both from a sustainability and health perspective but the routes they use should be suitable and safe. I don't blame cyclists, and I don't blame motorists, both have a place, both cause problems, and sometimes both are the problem. However even more cyclists on main routes and busy routes fills me with utter dread.

First, more cyclists is what's needed to stop this supposedly fair country from getting as fat as the yanks, secondly, would you complain or take those risks if it was a large truck or even a tractor that can't go very fast uphill due to their weight, third, if you're coming up to a blind corner, don't go flat out round it, going too fast is what causes you to swerve as you can't react fast enough, if you follow a cyclist round then don't overtake on the bend, wait until you can see further down the road and wait until it's safe to overtake and use the whole road to do so, fourth, all cycling routes are safe, it's planks who can't drive that make them dangerous, fifth, yes, that place is the roads, get over it, sixth, cyclists cause less problems than drivers, more cars on the roads means more traffic jams and tailbacks and lastly more cyclists on main routes fills me with joy because people would finally be getting off their lardy arses and exercising rather than adding to the lard by sitting and not doing much for miles and miles.

It would be interesting to see you put the points over in a diplomatic fashion, weighing up both sides of the argument in the light of what our world needs from the road system.

What you have given us is a very biased, bad-tempered, unrealistic rant in one long, confusing, ill-considered 195-word sentence.

Lets hope your cycling skills are not on the same level as your communication skills.

Oh yeah because cyclists must ALWAYS hold up traffic, so it MUST have been me holding up the traffic going through northam from town side and not the 50 odd cars in front of me who were stuck at the lights, oh what should I ever do? People want me to get a car even though I can do the same journey quicker than them. Get a life and yes, my cycling skills are perfect, I stop at traffic lights, I don't ride on the pavement unless it's a shared use path and it would be quicker, if I HAVE to get on the pavement then I will get off and walk along the pavement, I signal clearly, I control the lane through pinch points and on approach to traffic lights, I can read signs, I can use multi-lane roads confidently, I can even use roundabouts properly, I also filter only when safe to do so and NEVER down the left side of HGV's, so yes, my cycling skills are impeccable, if I went to do the bikeability courses, they'd hand me the badges with my money back and send me home, that's how good I am at riding my bike.

It's all relative to your benchmark paradigm of perfection. Don't get all worked-up, use that argumentative energy to do some GOOD for once.

Have you anything constructive to add yourself, JPM?

Yes
I am so bored with reading the "I could've done better" from those who have never been outside of Hampshire

downfader wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

Family Man wrote:
Living on a very narrow busy country road, more cyclists is just what is NOT needed. Ever seen a queue of 20 cars behind a cyclist as he weaves at less than 10 mph up an incline with no one able to pass and then forced to take risks in attempting to pass at the few opportunities? Ever seen motorists have to swerve as he encounters a cyclist around a blind bend narrowly avoiding oncoming vehicles? or being one of those oncoming motorists? More cycling is a laudable ambition, both from a sustainability and health perspective but the routes they use should be suitable and safe. I don't blame cyclists, and I don't blame motorists, both have a place, both cause problems, and sometimes both are the problem. However even more cyclists on main routes and busy routes fills me with utter dread.

First, more cyclists is what's needed to stop this supposedly fair country from getting as fat as the yanks, secondly, would you complain or take those risks if it was a large truck or even a tractor that can't go very fast uphill due to their weight, third, if you're coming up to a blind corner, don't go flat out round it, going too fast is what causes you to swerve as you can't react fast enough, if you follow a cyclist round then don't overtake on the bend, wait until you can see further down the road and wait until it's safe to overtake and use the whole road to do so, fourth, all cycling routes are safe, it's planks who can't drive that make them dangerous, fifth, yes, that place is the roads, get over it, sixth, cyclists cause less problems than drivers, more cars on the roads means more traffic jams and tailbacks and lastly more cyclists on main routes fills me with joy because people would finally be getting off their lardy arses and exercising rather than adding to the lard by sitting and not doing much for miles and miles.

I think it may be the plank that's so devoted to his bicycle that he isn't aware of places like gyms or the many sports demonstrated in the recent Olympic Games that can be just as energetic as pedaling down to the paper shop for a copy of The Sun.

Gyms cost money. My Brother uses a weights room, £300 minimum a year. Mind you I bought a load of my weights from a charity shop for about £15.

A £150 bike will get you just as fit and its a one-off cost.

The bike I'm looking at will cost £350 but the great thing is that if I look after it really well, I could probably keep it on the road for 20 years with minimal costs of maintaining it... Definitely makes that gym membership sound less appealing to me.

J.P.M wrote:

downfader wrote:

J.P.M wrote:

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

Family Man wrote:
Living on a very narrow busy country road, more cyclists is just what is NOT needed. Ever seen a queue of 20 cars behind a cyclist as he weaves at less than 10 mph up an incline with no one able to pass and then forced to take risks in attempting to pass at the few opportunities? Ever seen motorists have to swerve as he encounters a cyclist around a blind bend narrowly avoiding oncoming vehicles? or being one of those oncoming motorists? More cycling is a laudable ambition, both from a sustainability and health perspective but the routes they use should be suitable and safe. I don't blame cyclists, and I don't blame motorists, both have a place, both cause problems, and sometimes both are the problem. However even more cyclists on main routes and busy routes fills me with utter dread.

First, more cyclists is what's needed to stop this supposedly fair country from getting as fat as the yanks, secondly, would you complain or take those risks if it was a large truck or even a tractor that can't go very fast uphill due to their weight, third, if you're coming up to a blind corner, don't go flat out round it, going too fast is what causes you to swerve as you can't react fast enough, if you follow a cyclist round then don't overtake on the bend, wait until you can see further down the road and wait until it's safe to overtake and use the whole road to do so, fourth, all cycling routes are safe, it's planks who can't drive that make them dangerous, fifth, yes, that place is the roads, get over it, sixth, cyclists cause less problems than drivers, more cars on the roads means more traffic jams and tailbacks and lastly more cyclists on main routes fills me with joy because people would finally be getting off their lardy arses and exercising rather than adding to the lard by sitting and not doing much for miles and miles.

It would be interesting to see you put the points over in a diplomatic fashion, weighing up both sides of the argument in the light of what our world needs from the road system.

What you have given us is a very biased, bad-tempered, unrealistic rant in one long, confusing, ill-considered 195-word sentence.

Lets hope your cycling skills are not on the same level as your communication skills.

Oh yeah because cyclists must ALWAYS hold up traffic, so it MUST have been me holding up the traffic going through northam from town side and not the 50 odd cars in front of me who were stuck at the lights, oh what should I ever do? People want me to get a car even though I can do the same journey quicker than them. Get a life and yes, my cycling skills are perfect, I stop at traffic lights, I don't ride on the pavement unless it's a shared use path and it would be quicker, if I HAVE to get on the pavement then I will get off and walk along the pavement, I signal clearly, I control the lane through pinch points and on approach to traffic lights, I can read signs, I can use multi-lane roads confidently, I can even use roundabouts properly, I also filter only when safe to do so and NEVER down the left side of HGV's, so yes, my cycling skills are impeccable, if I went to do the bikeability courses, they'd hand me the badges with my money back and send me home, that's how good I am at riding my bike.

It's all relative to your benchmark paradigm of perfection. Don't get all worked-up, use that argumentative energy to do some GOOD for once.

Have you anything constructive to add yourself, JPM?

Yes
I am so bored with reading the "I could've done better" from those who have never been outside of Hampshire

Easy solution, stop reading them, Oh but WHAT would we ever do with our self appointed, self opinionated, unofficial moderator?

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

J.P.M wrote:

downfader wrote:

J.P.M wrote:

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

Family Man wrote:
Living on a very narrow busy country road, more cyclists is just what is NOT needed. Ever seen a queue of 20 cars behind a cyclist as he weaves at less than 10 mph up an incline with no one able to pass and then forced to take risks in attempting to pass at the few opportunities? Ever seen motorists have to swerve as he encounters a cyclist around a blind bend narrowly avoiding oncoming vehicles? or being one of those oncoming motorists? More cycling is a laudable ambition, both from a sustainability and health perspective but the routes they use should be suitable and safe. I don't blame cyclists, and I don't blame motorists, both have a place, both cause problems, and sometimes both are the problem. However even more cyclists on main routes and busy routes fills me with utter dread.

First, more cyclists is what's needed to stop this supposedly fair country from getting as fat as the yanks, secondly, would you complain or take those risks if it was a large truck or even a tractor that can't go very fast uphill due to their weight, third, if you're coming up to a blind corner, don't go flat out round it, going too fast is what causes you to swerve as you can't react fast enough, if you follow a cyclist round then don't overtake on the bend, wait until you can see further down the road and wait until it's safe to overtake and use the whole road to do so, fourth, all cycling routes are safe, it's planks who can't drive that make them dangerous, fifth, yes, that place is the roads, get over it, sixth, cyclists cause less problems than drivers, more cars on the roads means more traffic jams and tailbacks and lastly more cyclists on main routes fills me with joy because people would finally be getting off their lardy arses and exercising rather than adding to the lard by sitting and not doing much for miles and miles.

It would be interesting to see you put the points over in a diplomatic fashion, weighing up both sides of the argument in the light of what our world needs from the road system.

What you have given us is a very biased, bad-tempered, unrealistic rant in one long, confusing, ill-considered 195-word sentence.

Lets hope your cycling skills are not on the same level as your communication skills.

Oh yeah because cyclists must ALWAYS hold up traffic, so it MUST have been me holding up the traffic going through northam from town side and not the 50 odd cars in front of me who were stuck at the lights, oh what should I ever do? People want me to get a car even though I can do the same journey quicker than them. Get a life and yes, my cycling skills are perfect, I stop at traffic lights, I don't ride on the pavement unless it's a shared use path and it would be quicker, if I HAVE to get on the pavement then I will get off and walk along the pavement, I signal clearly, I control the lane through pinch points and on approach to traffic lights, I can read signs, I can use multi-lane roads confidently, I can even use roundabouts properly, I also filter only when safe to do so and NEVER down the left side of HGV's, so yes, my cycling skills are impeccable, if I went to do the bikeability courses, they'd hand me the badges with my money back and send me home, that's how good I am at riding my bike.

It's all relative to your benchmark paradigm of perfection. Don't get all worked-up, use that argumentative energy to do some GOOD for once.

Have you anything constructive to add yourself, JPM?

Yes
I am so bored with reading the "I could've done better" from those who have never been outside of Hampshire

Easy solution, stop reading them, Oh but WHAT would we ever do with our self appointed, self opinionated, unofficial moderator?

*without
Oops, wasn't concentrating on my spelling.

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

downfader wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

Family Man wrote:
Living on a very narrow busy country road, more cyclists is just what is NOT needed. Ever seen a queue of 20 cars behind a cyclist as he weaves at less than 10 mph up an incline with no one able to pass and then forced to take risks in attempting to pass at the few opportunities? Ever seen motorists have to swerve as he encounters a cyclist around a blind bend narrowly avoiding oncoming vehicles? or being one of those oncoming motorists? More cycling is a laudable ambition, both from a sustainability and health perspective but the routes they use should be suitable and safe. I don't blame cyclists, and I don't blame motorists, both have a place, both cause problems, and sometimes both are the problem. However even more cyclists on main routes and busy routes fills me with utter dread.

First, more cyclists is what's needed to stop this supposedly fair country from getting as fat as the yanks, secondly, would you complain or take those risks if it was a large truck or even a tractor that can't go very fast uphill due to their weight, third, if you're coming up to a blind corner, don't go flat out round it, going too fast is what causes you to swerve as you can't react fast enough, if you follow a cyclist round then don't overtake on the bend, wait until you can see further down the road and wait until it's safe to overtake and use the whole road to do so, fourth, all cycling routes are safe, it's planks who can't drive that make them dangerous, fifth, yes, that place is the roads, get over it, sixth, cyclists cause less problems than drivers, more cars on the roads means more traffic jams and tailbacks and lastly more cyclists on main routes fills me with joy because people would finally be getting off their lardy arses and exercising rather than adding to the lard by sitting and not doing much for miles and miles.

I think it may be the plank that's so devoted to his bicycle that he isn't aware of places like gyms or the many sports demonstrated in the recent Olympic Games that can be just as energetic as pedaling down to the paper shop for a copy of The Sun.

Gyms cost money. My Brother uses a weights room, £300 minimum a year. Mind you I bought a load of my weights from a charity shop for about £15.

A £150 bike will get you just as fit and its a one-off cost.

The bike I'm looking at will cost £350 but the great thing is that if I look after it really well, I could probably keep it on the road for 20 years with minimal costs of maintaining it... Definitely makes that gym membership sound less appealing to me.

My "nice" bike was over £2k. My old basher when I was a kid was a budget Raleigh hybrid. I used that from 14 years of age until I was about 23.

Its still in use. My Uncle owns it. Over the years the wheels have been changed, the BB swapped out, stem changed to a BMX one after the old one wore out. Probably had hundred of brake pad changes.

downfader wrote:

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

downfader wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

Family Man wrote:
Living on a very narrow busy country road, more cyclists is just what is NOT needed. Ever seen a queue of 20 cars behind a cyclist as he weaves at less than 10 mph up an incline with no one able to pass and then forced to take risks in attempting to pass at the few opportunities? Ever seen motorists have to swerve as he encounters a cyclist around a blind bend narrowly avoiding oncoming vehicles? or being one of those oncoming motorists? More cycling is a laudable ambition, both from a sustainability and health perspective but the routes they use should be suitable and safe. I don't blame cyclists, and I don't blame motorists, both have a place, both cause problems, and sometimes both are the problem. However even more cyclists on main routes and busy routes fills me with utter dread.

First, more cyclists is what's needed to stop this supposedly fair country from getting as fat as the yanks, secondly, would you complain or take those risks if it was a large truck or even a tractor that can't go very fast uphill due to their weight, third, if you're coming up to a blind corner, don't go flat out round it, going too fast is what causes you to swerve as you can't react fast enough, if you follow a cyclist round then don't overtake on the bend, wait until you can see further down the road and wait until it's safe to overtake and use the whole road to do so, fourth, all cycling routes are safe, it's planks who can't drive that make them dangerous, fifth, yes, that place is the roads, get over it, sixth, cyclists cause less problems than drivers, more cars on the roads means more traffic jams and tailbacks and lastly more cyclists on main routes fills me with joy because people would finally be getting off their lardy arses and exercising rather than adding to the lard by sitting and not doing much for miles and miles.

I think it may be the plank that's so devoted to his bicycle that he isn't aware of places like gyms or the many sports demonstrated in the recent Olympic Games that can be just as energetic as pedaling down to the paper shop for a copy of The Sun.

Gyms cost money. My Brother uses a weights room, £300 minimum a year. Mind you I bought a load of my weights from a charity shop for about £15.

A £150 bike will get you just as fit and its a one-off cost.

The bike I'm looking at will cost £350 but the great thing is that if I look after it really well, I could probably keep it on the road for 20 years with minimal costs of maintaining it... Definitely makes that gym membership sound less appealing to me.

My "nice" bike was over £2k. My old basher when I was a kid was a budget Raleigh hybrid. I used that from 14 years of age until I was about 23.

Its still in use. My Uncle owns it. Over the years the wheels have been changed, the BB swapped out, stem changed to a BMX one after the old one wore out. Probably had hundred of brake pad changes.

Wow, now that's what you call putting it to the test of time, that bike I mentioned is also a hybrid made by diamond back, has 700c wheels with hydraulic disc brakes and 27 speed.

BillyTheKid wrote:
I have teased Downfader, and what Geoff 57 calls the "cycle Nazis" mercilessly in the past. I suppose you could call me a hypocrite, because, like most kids, I loved cycling as a child, but of course there was a lot less traffic back in the 50's. Plenty of room for everyone. As I got older, and started work as a teacher, I needed to take a lot of books and stuff around with me each day, so the bicycle was not a practical option, particularly when available time was an issue. The road, today, is essential for business and commercial purposes, and that is what it is used for, primarily. As we all have seen, it is nose to tail with lorries, buses, and commuter traffic for most of the day, even on country roads. Setting aside those who drive 5 miles alone to work with only their laptop and sandwiches to carry, the vast majority of road users could not carry out their daily tasks as efficiently, effectively, and as quickly if they were to substitute their motorised vehicles for bicycles. I think that fact is fairly obvious to most people, so I won't waste time proving the point. No matter who is to blame, and no matter how much "right" cyclists have to be on the road, a great increase in the number of bicycles will result in a lot more fatal accidents. At the olympics, we did very well in the tennis, the boxing, and the shooting. But most people will not be going to buy a tennis racquet, organize neighbourhood punch-ups, or buy a gun. Why should they feel obliged to buy a bicycle ?

"Most people" won't be buying cycles either. However, cycling is different, quite obviously and evidently so, I would have thought. Cycling can open up a whole new world, so-to-speak, to people, who otherwise might only get to (bother to!) experience anything much of e.g. the countryside from a car, bus or train. But it is something the whole family can enjoy - as quite obviously many do - together. I visited the new Hargroves cycle store in Totton last week and it was absolutely jam-packed with all ages looking for bikes to buy. The cycle business scene in Britain is going to prosper considerable from our great cycling successes in the recent Olympics. They just need a steady spell of (reasonably) dry weather to nurture it along!

Scrutinizer wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:
I have teased Downfader, and what Geoff 57 calls the "cycle Nazis" mercilessly in the past. I suppose you could call me a hypocrite, because, like most kids, I loved cycling as a child, but of course there was a lot less traffic back in the 50's. Plenty of room for everyone. As I got older, and started work as a teacher, I needed to take a lot of books and stuff around with me each day, so the bicycle was not a practical option, particularly when available time was an issue. The road, today, is essential for business and commercial purposes, and that is what it is used for, primarily. As we all have seen, it is nose to tail with lorries, buses, and commuter traffic for most of the day, even on country roads. Setting aside those who drive 5 miles alone to work with only their laptop and sandwiches to carry, the vast majority of road users could not carry out their daily tasks as efficiently, effectively, and as quickly if they were to substitute their motorised vehicles for bicycles. I think that fact is fairly obvious to most people, so I won't waste time proving the point. No matter who is to blame, and no matter how much "right" cyclists have to be on the road, a great increase in the number of bicycles will result in a lot more fatal accidents. At the olympics, we did very well in the tennis, the boxing, and the shooting. But most people will not be going to buy a tennis racquet, organize neighbourhood punch-ups, or buy a gun. Why should they feel obliged to buy a bicycle ?

"Most people" won't be buying cycles either. However, cycling is different, quite obviously and evidently so, I would have thought. Cycling can open up a whole new world, so-to-speak, to people, who otherwise might only get to (bother to!) experience anything much of e.g. the countryside from a car, bus or train. But it is something the whole family can enjoy - as quite obviously many do - together. I visited the new Hargroves cycle store in Totton last week and it was absolutely jam-packed with all ages looking for bikes to buy. The cycle business scene in Britain is going to prosper considerable from our great cycling successes in the recent Olympics. They just need a steady spell of (reasonably) dry weather to nurture it along!

Oh nice, I should get a pedal on and go have a look, also, why does Southampton not have a dedicated point of contact for dangerous driving like london has with roadsafe?

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

Scrutinizer wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:
I have teased Downfader, and what Geoff 57 calls the "cycle Nazis" mercilessly in the past. I suppose you could call me a hypocrite, because, like most kids, I loved cycling as a child, but of course there was a lot less traffic back in the 50's. Plenty of room for everyone. As I got older, and started work as a teacher, I needed to take a lot of books and stuff around with me each day, so the bicycle was not a practical option, particularly when available time was an issue. The road, today, is essential for business and commercial purposes, and that is what it is used for, primarily. As we all have seen, it is nose to tail with lorries, buses, and commuter traffic for most of the day, even on country roads. Setting aside those who drive 5 miles alone to work with only their laptop and sandwiches to carry, the vast majority of road users could not carry out their daily tasks as efficiently, effectively, and as quickly if they were to substitute their motorised vehicles for bicycles. I think that fact is fairly obvious to most people, so I won't waste time proving the point. No matter who is to blame, and no matter how much "right" cyclists have to be on the road, a great increase in the number of bicycles will result in a lot more fatal accidents. At the olympics, we did very well in the tennis, the boxing, and the shooting. But most people will not be going to buy a tennis racquet, organize neighbourhood punch-ups, or buy a gun. Why should they feel obliged to buy a bicycle ?

"Most people" won't be buying cycles either. However, cycling is different, quite obviously and evidently so, I would have thought. Cycling can open up a whole new world, so-to-speak, to people, who otherwise might only get to (bother to!) experience anything much of e.g. the countryside from a car, bus or train. But it is something the whole family can enjoy - as quite obviously many do - together. I visited the new Hargroves cycle store in Totton last week and it was absolutely jam-packed with all ages looking for bikes to buy. The cycle business scene in Britain is going to prosper considerable from our great cycling successes in the recent Olympics. They just need a steady spell of (reasonably) dry weather to nurture it along!

Oh nice, I should get a pedal on and go have a look, also, why does Southampton not have a dedicated point of contact for dangerous driving like london has with roadsafe?

Will we be hearing so much from you after the school holidays end?

Torchie1 wrote:

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

Scrutinizer wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:
I have teased Downfader, and what Geoff 57 calls the "cycle Nazis" mercilessly in the past. I suppose you could call me a hypocrite, because, like most kids, I loved cycling as a child, but of course there was a lot less traffic back in the 50's. Plenty of room for everyone. As I got older, and started work as a teacher, I needed to take a lot of books and stuff around with me each day, so the bicycle was not a practical option, particularly when available time was an issue. The road, today, is essential for business and commercial purposes, and that is what it is used for, primarily. As we all have seen, it is nose to tail with lorries, buses, and commuter traffic for most of the day, even on country roads. Setting aside those who drive 5 miles alone to work with only their laptop and sandwiches to carry, the vast majority of road users could not carry out their daily tasks as efficiently, effectively, and as quickly if they were to substitute their motorised vehicles for bicycles. I think that fact is fairly obvious to most people, so I won't waste time proving the point. No matter who is to blame, and no matter how much "right" cyclists have to be on the road, a great increase in the number of bicycles will result in a lot more fatal accidents. At the olympics, we did very well in the tennis, the boxing, and the shooting. But most people will not be going to buy a tennis racquet, organize neighbourhood punch-ups, or buy a gun. Why should they feel obliged to buy a bicycle ?

"Most people" won't be buying cycles either. However, cycling is different, quite obviously and evidently so, I would have thought. Cycling can open up a whole new world, so-to-speak, to people, who otherwise might only get to (bother to!) experience anything much of e.g. the countryside from a car, bus or train. But it is something the whole family can enjoy - as quite obviously many do - together. I visited the new Hargroves cycle store in Totton last week and it was absolutely jam-packed with all ages looking for bikes to buy. The cycle business scene in Britain is going to prosper considerable from our great cycling successes in the recent Olympics. They just need a steady spell of (reasonably) dry weather to nurture it along!

Oh nice, I should get a pedal on and go have a look, also, why does Southampton not have a dedicated point of contact for dangerous driving like london has with roadsafe?

Will we be hearing so much from you after the school holidays end?

Most certainly, thankfully I finished school 4 years ago.

I hope I never achieve that awful state of complacency more commonly known as “grown-up” or “mature”. In the real world, as a retired teacher, I follow a number of artistic pursuits, all of which require a constantly searching mind if the work is to be in any way valid. The day you are completely satisfied is the day your creativity died.

So, Downfader and Gingerbiker, blowing your ideas out of the water has been easy, and great fun, but ultimately unsatisfying. And that is because you have, fundamentally, the right idea if our planet and it’s population are to survive. Fat people sat in traffic queues with the stinking blue haze of exhaust fumes swirling around them is a vile but enduring image. Even if they do have jobs, own their own homes, and have plenty of money, it does not make it the only way to live, the only relevant aspiration for a successful life. Why should business and commercial enterprise dominate our lives ? Why should we allow ourselves to be manipulated into categories such as “jobseekers”, “first-time buyers”, “consumers”, etc ? Why should we stand aside as yet another industrial and/or technological revolution trundles through town, looking for potential victims to suck in ?

I hope you and your cycle friends do shake the confidence of the blinkered visionaries and the cynics. I hope you all ride slowly and bring everything to a standstill. Frequently. I hope your resilience and resolution eventually leads to the return of green grass, fresh air, and quiet roads. I’d applaud that. Just try to stop sounding like the naïve “Famous Five”.

BillyTheKid wrote:

downfader wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:
I have teased Downfader, and what Geoff 57 calls the "cycle Nazis" mercilessly in the past. I suppose you could call me a hypocrite, because, like most kids, I loved cycling as a child, but of course there was a lot less traffic back in the 50's. Plenty of room for everyone.

As I got older, and started work as a teacher, I needed to take a lot of books and stuff around with me each day, so the bicycle was not a practical option, particularly when available time was an issue.
The road, today, is essential for business and commercial purposes, and that is what it is used for, primarily. As we all have seen, it is nose to tail with lorries, buses, and commuter traffic for most of the day, even on country roads. Setting aside those who drive 5 miles alone to work with only their laptop and sandwiches to carry, the vast majority of road users could not carry out their daily tasks as efficiently, effectively, and as quickly if they were to substitute their motorised vehicles for bicycles. I think that fact is fairly obvious to most people, so I won't waste time proving the point.

No matter who is to blame, and no matter how much "right" cyclists have to be on the road, a great increase in the number of bicycles will result in a lot more fatal accidents.

At the olympics, we did very well in the tennis, the boxing, and the shooting. But most people will not be going to buy a tennis racquet, organize neighbourhood punch-ups, or buy a gun. Why should they feel obliged to buy a bicycle ?

Teased..? Dont honour yourself, LMAO!!!

I had a teacher when I was a lad who rode his bike everywhere. This was the early 90s, nobody rode like they do now, just a few kids to school, etc.

But he managed. He came from the other side of Totton iirc, down to the Weston area to teach. Two pannier bags filled with books, most of what he needed he left at work.

A rise in cyclists doesnt have to mean a rise in KSIs. If you really are a teacher you'd understand how raising awareness works. The amount of times we had to sit down as kids and watch safety videos about the roads, the railway once, even stranger danger.

Do kids not get this now..? If not why not.

Nobody feels obliged to buy a bike. People are seeing how fat they're getting, how every big mac is a nail in the coffin of their kids, their relatives and themselves. How ever can of coke downed is an extra millimetre on the waist. They're seeing an alternative and beneficial lifestyle despite the diatribes of the likes of yourself and Geoff.

It is a pity that you allow arrogant and narrow-minded posturing to lead you to say such foolish things.

Simply because ONE teacher was able to discharge his duties effectively with a bike and paniers does not mean ALL teachers can do so. Art, music, and drama teachers have a great deal of equipment and visual aids that even a team of cyclists could not get to and from school on a daily basis.

My comments were based on what I see and know about other people and the real world. Your comments are based on your own personal life, and reflect only what you want.

I think much of what you say deserves a response of "shut up and mind your own business".

My neighbour who's 75 has a bike & a small trailer attached to it so what you're saying is impossible for many teachers isn't it can be done with a bike

I love riding my bike everywhere instead of driving, it is so much more satisfying. Even on journeys up to a 40 mile round trip i would much rather cycle.

I abide by the highway code at all times but unfortunately a lot of motorists don't know what that is and that it does state that i do not have to be in a cycle lane if i am doing above 15 mph as it is dangerous. It also states that i can filter on EITHER side of traffic, which i do so very carefully!

At the end of the day i just like riding my bike, it keeps me fit, i also have a gym membership as well; which i can afford as i hardly spend any money on diesel for my car now.

All i ask is that motorists have a tad more respect, if a horse and carriage were in the road you would slow right down and give them a wide berth, if it were a cyclist most people feel the need to go as fast and close as possible?!? Why is that? It doesn't impress me how fast your car is and the fact you usually have to stop at a red light soon after is hilarious.

Just please do not kill me for the sake of getting where you are going 2 minutes earlier.

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

Scrutinizer wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:
I have teased Downfader, and what Geoff 57 calls the "cycle Nazis" mercilessly in the past. I suppose you could call me a hypocrite, because, like most kids, I loved cycling as a child, but of course there was a lot less traffic back in the 50's. Plenty of room for everyone. As I got older, and started work as a teacher, I needed to take a lot of books and stuff around with me each day, so the bicycle was not a practical option, particularly when available time was an issue. The road, today, is essential for business and commercial purposes, and that is what it is used for, primarily. As we all have seen, it is nose to tail with lorries, buses, and commuter traffic for most of the day, even on country roads. Setting aside those who drive 5 miles alone to work with only their laptop and sandwiches to carry, the vast majority of road users could not carry out their daily tasks as efficiently, effectively, and as quickly if they were to substitute their motorised vehicles for bicycles. I think that fact is fairly obvious to most people, so I won't waste time proving the point. No matter who is to blame, and no matter how much "right" cyclists have to be on the road, a great increase in the number of bicycles will result in a lot more fatal accidents. At the olympics, we did very well in the tennis, the boxing, and the shooting. But most people will not be going to buy a tennis racquet, organize neighbourhood punch-ups, or buy a gun. Why should they feel obliged to buy a bicycle ?

"Most people" won't be buying cycles either. However, cycling is different, quite obviously and evidently so, I would have thought. Cycling can open up a whole new world, so-to-speak, to people, who otherwise might only get to (bother to!) experience anything much of e.g. the countryside from a car, bus or train. But it is something the whole family can enjoy - as quite obviously many do - together. I visited the new Hargroves cycle store in Totton last week and it was absolutely jam-packed with all ages looking for bikes to buy. The cycle business scene in Britain is going to prosper considerable from our great cycling successes in the recent Olympics. They just need a steady spell of (reasonably) dry weather to nurture it along!

Oh nice, I should get a pedal on and go have a look, also, why does Southampton not have a dedicated point of contact for dangerous driving like london has with roadsafe?

Will we be hearing so much from you after the school holidays end?

Most certainly, thankfully I finished school 4 years ago.

Being just out of school explains a lot but in a few years when you can afford to run a car I'll look out for posts from 'ginger_motorist'.

Well thats a mature comment from Torchie1.

I finished school 5 years ago now, i drive a big diesel 4x4 and the VED is very expensive for it; and no i don't live with my parents, i pay rent for my own flat with money from my job and not the council!

Yet i still to choose to cycle most journeys, so before people jump in and say i don't pay "road tax" i pay a **** sight more than a lot of road users due to my "big" car.

bernard7 wrote:
Well thats a mature comment from Torchie1.

I finished school 5 years ago now, i drive a big diesel 4x4 and the VED is very expensive for it; and no i don't live with my parents, i pay rent for my own flat with money from my job and not the council!

Yet i still to choose to cycle most journeys, so before people jump in and say i don't pay "road tax" i pay a **** sight more than a lot of road users due to my "big" car.

I'll have to accept from you that owning an oil burner is a sign of maturity.

Well perhaps owning it may not be a sign of maturity, i just need to carry large things such as bikes when i go mountain biking, and it does come in very handy.

I think my maturity shows when i can admit that it is a very un-economical "oil burner" and therefore i hardly ever use it; i only drive around 50 miles a week, probably an awful lot less than the average motorist.

I have a chevrolet Spark.
I'm looking to buy a racing bike & if I ever could afford to trade in my car & get a Nissan Electric.
then on both the bike & the car I would pay no road tax so are you people going to have a go at electric car owners?

Torchie1 wrote:

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

Scrutinizer wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:
I have teased Downfader, and what Geoff 57 calls the "cycle Nazis" mercilessly in the past. I suppose you could call me a hypocrite, because, like most kids, I loved cycling as a child, but of course there was a lot less traffic back in the 50's. Plenty of room for everyone. As I got older, and started work as a teacher, I needed to take a lot of books and stuff around with me each day, so the bicycle was not a practical option, particularly when available time was an issue. The road, today, is essential for business and commercial purposes, and that is what it is used for, primarily. As we all have seen, it is nose to tail with lorries, buses, and commuter traffic for most of the day, even on country roads. Setting aside those who drive 5 miles alone to work with only their laptop and sandwiches to carry, the vast majority of road users could not carry out their daily tasks as efficiently, effectively, and as quickly if they were to substitute their motorised vehicles for bicycles. I think that fact is fairly obvious to most people, so I won't waste time proving the point. No matter who is to blame, and no matter how much "right" cyclists have to be on the road, a great increase in the number of bicycles will result in a lot more fatal accidents. At the olympics, we did very well in the tennis, the boxing, and the shooting. But most people will not be going to buy a tennis racquet, organize neighbourhood punch-ups, or buy a gun. Why should they feel obliged to buy a bicycle ?

"Most people" won't be buying cycles either. However, cycling is different, quite obviously and evidently so, I would have thought. Cycling can open up a whole new world, so-to-speak, to people, who otherwise might only get to (bother to!) experience anything much of e.g. the countryside from a car, bus or train. But it is something the whole family can enjoy - as quite obviously many do - together. I visited the new Hargroves cycle store in Totton last week and it was absolutely jam-packed with all ages looking for bikes to buy. The cycle business scene in Britain is going to prosper considerable from our great cycling successes in the recent Olympics. They just need a steady spell of (reasonably) dry weather to nurture it along!

Oh nice, I should get a pedal on and go have a look, also, why does Southampton not have a dedicated point of contact for dangerous driving like london has with roadsafe?

Will we be hearing so much from you after the school holidays end?

Most certainly, thankfully I finished school 4 years ago.

Being just out of school explains a lot but in a few years when you can afford to run a car I'll look out for posts from 'ginger_motorist'.

The only use I'd have for a car for now is to go fishing so you won't see that.

loosehead wrote:
I have a chevrolet Spark.
I'm looking to buy a racing bike & if I ever could afford to trade in my car & get a Nissan Electric.
then on both the bike & the car I would pay no road tax so are you people going to have a go at electric car owners?

They probably wouldn't say anything because it's still a car, some people are total geniuses like that, bark at one road user for not paying VED but don't bark at others who don't pay it.

loosehead wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

downfader wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:
I have teased Downfader, and what Geoff 57 calls the "cycle Nazis" mercilessly in the past. I suppose you could call me a hypocrite, because, like most kids, I loved cycling as a child, but of course there was a lot less traffic back in the 50's. Plenty of room for everyone.

As I got older, and started work as a teacher, I needed to take a lot of books and stuff around with me each day, so the bicycle was not a practical option, particularly when available time was an issue.
The road, today, is essential for business and commercial purposes, and that is what it is used for, primarily. As we all have seen, it is nose to tail with lorries, buses, and commuter traffic for most of the day, even on country roads. Setting aside those who drive 5 miles alone to work with only their laptop and sandwiches to carry, the vast majority of road users could not carry out their daily tasks as efficiently, effectively, and as quickly if they were to substitute their motorised vehicles for bicycles. I think that fact is fairly obvious to most people, so I won't waste time proving the point.

No matter who is to blame, and no matter how much "right" cyclists have to be on the road, a great increase in the number of bicycles will result in a lot more fatal accidents.

At the olympics, we did very well in the tennis, the boxing, and the shooting. But most people will not be going to buy a tennis racquet, organize neighbourhood punch-ups, or buy a gun. Why should they feel obliged to buy a bicycle ?

Teased..? Dont honour yourself, LMAO!!!

I had a teacher when I was a lad who rode his bike everywhere. This was the early 90s, nobody rode like they do now, just a few kids to school, etc.

But he managed. He came from the other side of Totton iirc, down to the Weston area to teach. Two pannier bags filled with books, most of what he needed he left at work.

A rise in cyclists doesnt have to mean a rise in KSIs. If you really are a teacher you'd understand how raising awareness works. The amount of times we had to sit down as kids and watch safety videos about the roads, the railway once, even stranger danger.

Do kids not get this now..? If not why not.

Nobody feels obliged to buy a bike. People are seeing how fat they're getting, how every big mac is a nail in the coffin of their kids, their relatives and themselves. How ever can of coke downed is an extra millimetre on the waist. They're seeing an alternative and beneficial lifestyle despite the diatribes of the likes of yourself and Geoff.

It is a pity that you allow arrogant and narrow-minded posturing to lead you to say such foolish things.

Simply because ONE teacher was able to discharge his duties effectively with a bike and paniers does not mean ALL teachers can do so. Art, music, and drama teachers have a great deal of equipment and visual aids that even a team of cyclists could not get to and from school on a daily basis.

My comments were based on what I see and know about other people and the real world. Your comments are based on your own personal life, and reflect only what you want.

I think much of what you say deserves a response of "shut up and mind your own business".

My neighbour who's 75 has a bike & a small trailer attached to it so what you're saying is impossible for many teachers isn't it can be done with a bike

I know you are right, technically, loosehead, but in my opinion you need to look at the bigger picture and recognise that a bicycle for many teachers, even with a trailor, would be severely limiting and limited both from a practical point of view, and from the point of view of the time required.

The majority of teachers do not live near the school at which they teach, quite often because they wish to avoid the practical jokes that children like to play when they discover the teacher that got their friend suspended lives nearby ! Or maybe they cannot find a suitable house near the school. Or maybe the area does not suit them. It is quite common for teachers to live up to forty miles away from their school. Cycling home in the winter, in the rain, after a staff meeting or after-school activity, when you have a family to feed, marking to do, and lessons to prepare is just not on.

How are art teachers supposed to get A1 folders, display material and other large items to and from school, on a daily basis, in a trailor ? Many music teachers take musical instruments backwards and forwards to school. A guitar amp, guitar, a bag of music, microphones and leads are not going to be very safe or stable in a bike trailor. Drama teachers are always having to get large boxes of costumes and props to and from school. There are also insurance issues which I'll leave for another day !

For a teacher, a car gets them to and from school with all manner of books and equipment on an ad hoc basis, with plenty of time and energy to spare. It makes many more options open to them that a bike cannot offer.

And how would doctors, nurses, self-employed builders, electricians, plumbers, carers, installation engineers, etc carry out the amount of work they have to do, in the time available, with just a bike ? I have not mentioned the emegency services, public transport, delivery or haulage as they clearly must have vehicles to function at all.

Quite why cyclists need all this drawn to their attention is beyond belief. And as I have already pointed out in another post, I don't like it either.

Last time i looked this was not an article about how teachers get to work?

It is just about cyclists in general and a lot of them are not teachers.

Yes it is fair enough that for many people it just is not practical to cycle to work but i know people who live less than half a mile from work and still drive there! They could at least walk!

bernard7 wrote:
Last time i looked this was not an article about how teachers get to work?

It is just about cyclists in general and a lot of them are not teachers.

Yes it is fair enough that for many people it just is not practical to cycle to work but i know people who live less than half a mile from work and still drive there! They could at least walk!

You don't look closely enough, Bernard.

My post selects the posts by people who HAVE mentioned teachers specifically, and I have drawn on first-hand knowledge and experience to reply to them.

Please do not attempt to tell people what they can and cannot talk about here. It is an OPEN forum, and posters are free to digress.

As far as when people should and should not, in your view, use their cars......with the greatest respect, Bernard, it is none of your business.

First of all I did not try to tell you what you can and cannot talk about.

I just thought it was a bit of a long winded and very thorough examination of why a teacher could not cycle to work, oh and on that matter, it is, with the greatest respect, none of your business whether or not a teacher would like to cycle to work.

I don't need any of this drawn to my attention as i am not a teacher, doctor, nurse, self-employed builder, electrician, plumber, carer or installation engineer and i do not wish to tell these people how to get to and from work.

The statement i made was about a person that works in an office, does not need to take anything to work and takes up parking spaces that could be used for people who live 30+ miles away; but instead they have to use a park and ride. All because one or two lazy people cannot be bothered to walk for 10 mins or even just cycle it in 2 mins.

BillyTheKid wrote:

bernard7 wrote:
Last time i looked this was not an article about how teachers get to work?

It is just about cyclists in general and a lot of them are not teachers.

Yes it is fair enough that for many people it just is not practical to cycle to work but i know people who live less than half a mile from work and still drive there! They could at least walk!

You don't look closely enough, Bernard.

My post selects the posts by people who HAVE mentioned teachers specifically, and I have drawn on first-hand knowledge and experience to reply to them.

Please do not attempt to tell people what they can and cannot talk about here. It is an OPEN forum, and posters are free to digress.

As far as when people should and should not, in your view, use their cars......with the greatest respect, Bernard, it is none of your business.

But I was just pointing out to you a case of some one who has a trailer attached to his bike?
As for nurses? midwifes only ever use to use bikes & many nurses ride bikes to the hospital as the car parks are to dear so exactly why do you think bikes are impractical?
Wouldn't it be safer for people to live a bikes ride from their work place keeping cars off the roads?
a car can & will kill how many cases of cycles killing people are there a year?

bernard7 wrote:
First of all I did not try to tell you what you can and cannot talk about.

I just thought it was a bit of a long winded and very thorough examination of why a teacher could not cycle to work, oh and on that matter, it is, with the greatest respect, none of your business whether or not a teacher would like to cycle to work.

I don't need any of this drawn to my attention as i am not a teacher, doctor, nurse, self-employed builder, electrician, plumber, carer or installation engineer and i do not wish to tell these people how to get to and from work.

The statement i made was about a person that works in an office, does not need to take anything to work and takes up parking spaces that could be used for people who live 30+ miles away; but instead they have to use a park and ride. All because one or two lazy people cannot be bothered to walk for 10 mins or even just cycle it in 2 mins.

Bernard ! There you go again ! How do you know whether the one or two people are "lazy", and whether or not they can be "bothered" ? !

You have made unjustified statements about people you do not know. My "examination" was "longwinded and very thorough" because when one makes generalized comments, you, Downfader, and Gingerbread Cyclist tend to highlight specific incidents to undermine the opinion.

People, as you have said, are free to choose. The vast majority can get a lot more done and do a lot more for others using a car rather than a bike. That is why car parks are full of cars, not bikes.

Like you, I am an idealist, and would love to use a bike rather than a car. But I have many responsibilities and pulls on my time, and the car makes it possible to get everything done within the time available.

Ok, lets just get this straight, i am not trying to thrust cycling upon anyone as i am sure you are aware from my previous posts.

I find that where i work it is more convenient to cycle as i beat the rush hour traffic everyday and this gives me more time elsewhere; obviously for yourself it is more convenient to drive which is fine by me, who am i to tell you what to do.

However, i am assuming that you live more than half a mile from work and perhaps need to take things to and from work.

I did not make "generalised" comments about people i do not know, as the people i referred to asctually work with me and are just plain lazy. I mean seriously would you choose to drive to work, down a road that is jammed with traffic, for half a mile just to get to work? I know i would rather walk that far, but these people would rather be selfish and take up parking spaces that could be used by people who actually need them.
I could drive if i wanted to, but as i too am an idealist i like to cycle and free up the parking for people who need it.

BillyTheKid wrote:

bernard7 wrote:
First of all I did not try to tell you what you can and cannot talk about.

I just thought it was a bit of a long winded and very thorough examination of why a teacher could not cycle to work, oh and on that matter, it is, with the greatest respect, none of your business whether or not a teacher would like to cycle to work.

I don't need any of this drawn to my attention as i am not a teacher, doctor, nurse, self-employed builder, electrician, plumber, carer or installation engineer and i do not wish to tell these people how to get to and from work.

The statement i made was about a person that works in an office, does not need to take anything to work and takes up parking spaces that could be used for people who live 30+ miles away; but instead they have to use a park and ride. All because one or two lazy people cannot be bothered to walk for 10 mins or even just cycle it in 2 mins.

Bernard ! There you go again ! How do you know whether the one or two people are "lazy", and whether or not they can be "bothered" ? !

You have made unjustified statements about people you do not know. My "examination" was "longwinded and very thorough" because when one makes generalized comments, you, Downfader, and Gingerbread Cyclist tend to highlight specific incidents to undermine the opinion.

People, as you have said, are free to choose. The vast majority can get a lot more done and do a lot more for others using a car rather than a bike. That is why car parks are full of cars, not bikes.

Like you, I am an idealist, and would love to use a bike rather than a car. But I have many responsibilities and pulls on my time, and the car makes it possible to get everything done within the time available.

Unjustified?

We know from Department for Transport surveys - of MOTORISTs - that they only average 6 miles and under, that 75% are travelling 5 miles or less and 25% 2 miles or less.

Like a lot of the nambies on here you bloat about "arrogance" and "ignorance" yet conveniently ignore the facts.

Keep digging. Others only have to look for themselves or ask the authorities the right questions.

BillyTheKid wrote:

loosehead wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

downfader wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:
I have teased Downfader, and what Geoff 57 calls the "cycle Nazis" mercilessly in the past. I suppose you could call me a hypocrite, because, like most kids, I loved cycling as a child, but of course there was a lot less traffic back in the 50's. Plenty of room for everyone.

As I got older, and started work as a teacher, I needed to take a lot of books and stuff around with me each day, so the bicycle was not a practical option, particularly when available time was an issue.
The road, today, is essential for business and commercial purposes, and that is what it is used for, primarily. As we all have seen, it is nose to tail with lorries, buses, and commuter traffic for most of the day, even on country roads. Setting aside those who drive 5 miles alone to work with only their laptop and sandwiches to carry, the vast majority of road users could not carry out their daily tasks as efficiently, effectively, and as quickly if they were to substitute their motorised vehicles for bicycles. I think that fact is fairly obvious to most people, so I won't waste time proving the point.

No matter who is to blame, and no matter how much "right" cyclists have to be on the road, a great increase in the number of bicycles will result in a lot more fatal accidents.

At the olympics, we did very well in the tennis, the boxing, and the shooting. But most people will not be going to buy a tennis racquet, organize neighbourhood punch-ups, or buy a gun. Why should they feel obliged to buy a bicycle ?

Teased..? Dont honour yourself, LMAO!!!

I had a teacher when I was a lad who rode his bike everywhere. This was the early 90s, nobody rode like they do now, just a few kids to school, etc.

But he managed. He came from the other side of Totton iirc, down to the Weston area to teach. Two pannier bags filled with books, most of what he needed he left at work.

A rise in cyclists doesnt have to mean a rise in KSIs. If you really are a teacher you'd understand how raising awareness works. The amount of times we had to sit down as kids and watch safety videos about the roads, the railway once, even stranger danger.

Do kids not get this now..? If not why not.

Nobody feels obliged to buy a bike. People are seeing how fat they're getting, how every big mac is a nail in the coffin of their kids, their relatives and themselves. How ever can of coke downed is an extra millimetre on the waist. They're seeing an alternative and beneficial lifestyle despite the diatribes of the likes of yourself and Geoff.

It is a pity that you allow arrogant and narrow-minded posturing to lead you to say such foolish things.

Simply because ONE teacher was able to discharge his duties effectively with a bike and paniers does not mean ALL teachers can do so. Art, music, and drama teachers have a great deal of equipment and visual aids that even a team of cyclists could not get to and from school on a daily basis.

My comments were based on what I see and know about other people and the real world. Your comments are based on your own personal life, and reflect only what you want.

I think much of what you say deserves a response of "shut up and mind your own business".

My neighbour who's 75 has a bike & a small trailer attached to it so what you're saying is impossible for many teachers isn't it can be done with a bike

I know you are right, technically, loosehead, but in my opinion you need to look at the bigger picture and recognise that a bicycle for many teachers, even with a trailor, would be severely limiting and limited both from a practical point of view, and from the point of view of the time required.

The majority of teachers do not live near the school at which they teach, quite often because they wish to avoid the practical jokes that children like to play when they discover the teacher that got their friend suspended lives nearby ! Or maybe they cannot find a suitable house near the school. Or maybe the area does not suit them. It is quite common for teachers to live up to forty miles away from their school. Cycling home in the winter, in the rain, after a staff meeting or after-school activity, when you have a family to feed, marking to do, and lessons to prepare is just not on.

How are art teachers supposed to get A1 folders, display material and other large items to and from school, on a daily basis, in a trailor ? Many music teachers take musical instruments backwards and forwards to school. A guitar amp, guitar, a bag of music, microphones and leads are not going to be very safe or stable in a bike trailor. Drama teachers are always having to get large boxes of costumes and props to and from school. There are also insurance issues which I'll leave for another day !

For a teacher, a car gets them to and from school with all manner of books and equipment on an ad hoc basis, with plenty of time and energy to spare. It makes many more options open to them that a bike cannot offer.

And how would doctors, nurses, self-employed builders, electricians, plumbers, carers, installation engineers, etc carry out the amount of work they have to do, in the time available, with just a bike ? I have not mentioned the emegency services, public transport, delivery or haulage as they clearly must have vehicles to function at all.

Quite why cyclists need all this drawn to their attention is beyond belief. And as I have already pointed out in another post, I don't like it either.

My mum is a carer and if she could actually ride a bike then she would ride it to each of her clients houses as the only thing she needs to really carry is a pen, her phone and a bag of gloves, all of which she can fit in her pockets.

Unfortunately for you, Bernard, I am a 24/7 carer for my elderly father. Over the last few years I have been in contact with a care home, and a number of professional care agencies.

Also, there have been a lot of articles in the press over the last year or so about the poor level of care given to the elderly. Carers and agencies have given interviews, all stating they are stretched to the limit. They have only been able to allocate 15 minutes of care to each service user, before needing to get to the next one as fast as possible IN A CAR. It's been on the news broadcasts, in the papers, and it's all over the internet.

If all your mother has is a pen, a phone, and a bag of gloves, she must be just a voluntary care giver, and not like the professionally-train
ed carers that I have employed over the last few years.

Or, Bernard, it's all just more of your tosh.

BillyTheKid wrote:
Unfortunately for you, Bernard, I am a 24/7 carer for my elderly father. Over the last few years I have been in contact with a care home, and a number of professional care agencies.

Also, there have been a lot of articles in the press over the last year or so about the poor level of care given to the elderly. Carers and agencies have given interviews, all stating they are stretched to the limit. They have only been able to allocate 15 minutes of care to each service user, before needing to get to the next one as fast as possible IN A CAR. It's been on the news broadcasts, in the papers, and it's all over the internet.

If all your mother has is a pen, a phone, and a bag of gloves, she must be just a voluntary care giver, and not like the professionally-train

ed carers that I have employed over the last few years.

Or, Bernard, it's all just more of your tosh.

You say you've employed? so this is a private carer?
As I thought the articles were about council paid carers?
If more people were like you there wouldn't be such a workload on the carers but sorry if a person can use a bike instead of a car in these times the amount of money they save will be a lot don't you agree?
I know not every one can ride a bike in their job but give us this some people can either ride a bike or walk a short distance but they don't true?

loosehead wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:
Unfortunately for you, Bernard, I am a 24/7 carer for my elderly father. Over the last few years I have been in contact with a care home, and a number of professional care agencies.

Also, there have been a lot of articles in the press over the last year or so about the poor level of care given to the elderly. Carers and agencies have given interviews, all stating they are stretched to the limit. They have only been able to allocate 15 minutes of care to each service user, before needing to get to the next one as fast as possible IN A CAR. It's been on the news broadcasts, in the papers, and it's all over the internet.

If all your mother has is a pen, a phone, and a bag of gloves, she must be just a voluntary care giver, and not like the professionally-train


ed carers that I have employed over the last few years.

Or, Bernard, it's all just more of your tosh.

You say you've employed? so this is a private carer?
As I thought the articles were about council paid carers?
If more people were like you there wouldn't be such a workload on the carers but sorry if a person can use a bike instead of a car in these times the amount of money they save will be a lot don't you agree?
I know not every one can ride a bike in their job but give us this some people can either ride a bike or walk a short distance but they don't true?

Hi, loosehead. What I was trying to say here was that a carer, whether council or private, can get to more service users if they use a car rather than a bike.

It's all mixed in with Bernard's penchant for Echo forum "tennis" !

downfader wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

bernard7 wrote:
First of all I did not try to tell you what you can and cannot talk about.

I just thought it was a bit of a long winded and very thorough examination of why a teacher could not cycle to work, oh and on that matter, it is, with the greatest respect, none of your business whether or not a teacher would like to cycle to work.

I don't need any of this drawn to my attention as i am not a teacher, doctor, nurse, self-employed builder, electrician, plumber, carer or installation engineer and i do not wish to tell these people how to get to and from work.

The statement i made was about a person that works in an office, does not need to take anything to work and takes up parking spaces that could be used for people who live 30+ miles away; but instead they have to use a park and ride. All because one or two lazy people cannot be bothered to walk for 10 mins or even just cycle it in 2 mins.

Bernard ! There you go again ! How do you know whether the one or two people are "lazy", and whether or not they can be "bothered" ? !

You have made unjustified statements about people you do not know. My "examination" was "longwinded and very thorough" because when one makes generalized comments, you, Downfader, and Gingerbread Cyclist tend to highlight specific incidents to undermine the opinion.

People, as you have said, are free to choose. The vast majority can get a lot more done and do a lot more for others using a car rather than a bike. That is why car parks are full of cars, not bikes.

Like you, I am an idealist, and would love to use a bike rather than a car. But I have many responsibilities and pulls on my time, and the car makes it possible to get everything done within the time available.

Unjustified?

We know from Department for Transport surveys - of MOTORISTs - that they only average 6 miles and under, that 75% are travelling 5 miles or less and 25% 2 miles or less.

Like a lot of the nambies on here you bloat about "arrogance" and "ignorance" yet conveniently ignore the facts.

Keep digging. Others only have to look for themselves or ask the authorities the right questions.

Downfader, Downfader, Downfader ! You are such a pain !

A statistic is what it is : a plain, cold fact. That is what the Department for Transport have gathered : plain facts. For you to attempt to put an interpretation on those facts that suits your need is an abuse of that survey.

The survey does not differentiate between each trip.

One two-mile trip might be someone going shopping, while another might be one of several where a doctor is visiting patients on a very tight schedule.

I actually like bikes, but the association of them with you is going to put me off them, I fear.

Anyway, we're all tired now, so will you just go away, please, Mr Downfader.

BillyTheKid wrote:
Unfortunately for you, Bernard, I am a 24/7 carer for my elderly father. Over the last few years I have been in contact with a care home, and a number of professional care agencies.

Also, there have been a lot of articles in the press over the last year or so about the poor level of care given to the elderly. Carers and agencies have given interviews, all stating they are stretched to the limit. They have only been able to allocate 15 minutes of care to each service user, before needing to get to the next one as fast as possible IN A CAR. It's been on the news broadcasts, in the papers, and it's all over the internet.

If all your mother has is a pen, a phone, and a bag of gloves, she must be just a voluntary care giver, and not like the professionally-train

ed carers that I have employed over the last few years.

Or, Bernard, it's all just more of your tosh.

No, she's professionally trained but most of her clients don't need anymore than medicine to be given and the basics, anything else she needs to do stuff is normally at the clients home already, sometimes she has to take lunch with her to do a 1 hour sit in call and sometimes she has to work with her supervisor but other than that, that's all she does as she walks between her calls, quite a few of which are half an hour each.

BillyTheKid wrote:

downfader wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

bernard7 wrote:
First of all I did not try to tell you what you can and cannot talk about.

I just thought it was a bit of a long winded and very thorough examination of why a teacher could not cycle to work, oh and on that matter, it is, with the greatest respect, none of your business whether or not a teacher would like to cycle to work.

I don't need any of this drawn to my attention as i am not a teacher, doctor, nurse, self-employed builder, electrician, plumber, carer or installation engineer and i do not wish to tell these people how to get to and from work.

The statement i made was about a person that works in an office, does not need to take anything to work and takes up parking spaces that could be used for people who live 30+ miles away; but instead they have to use a park and ride. All because one or two lazy people cannot be bothered to walk for 10 mins or even just cycle it in 2 mins.

Bernard ! There you go again ! How do you know whether the one or two people are "lazy", and whether or not they can be "bothered" ? !

You have made unjustified statements about people you do not know. My "examination" was "longwinded and very thorough" because when one makes generalized comments, you, Downfader, and Gingerbread Cyclist tend to highlight specific incidents to undermine the opinion.

People, as you have said, are free to choose. The vast majority can get a lot more done and do a lot more for others using a car rather than a bike. That is why car parks are full of cars, not bikes.

Like you, I am an idealist, and would love to use a bike rather than a car. But I have many responsibilities and pulls on my time, and the car makes it possible to get everything done within the time available.

Unjustified?

We know from Department for Transport surveys - of MOTORISTs - that they only average 6 miles and under, that 75% are travelling 5 miles or less and 25% 2 miles or less.

Like a lot of the nambies on here you bloat about "arrogance" and "ignorance" yet conveniently ignore the facts.

Keep digging. Others only have to look for themselves or ask the authorities the right questions.

Downfader, Downfader, Downfader ! You are such a pain !

A statistic is what it is : a plain, cold fact. That is what the Department for Transport have gathered : plain facts. For you to attempt to put an interpretation on those facts that suits your need is an abuse of that survey.

The survey does not differentiate between each trip.

One two-mile trip might be someone going shopping, while another might be one of several where a doctor is visiting patients on a very tight schedule.

I actually like bikes, but the association of them with you is going to put me off them, I fear.

Anyway, we're all tired now, so will you just go away, please, Mr Downfader.

Even a doctor could ride a bike to visit patients, heck I've even seen mountain bikes that have been kitted out for paramedics in full emergency colors and lights with a siren and these bikes could carry all of the essentials for a paramedic, even a defibrillator and life saving kit, so saying a doctor couldn't use a bike to visit local patients is absurd.

First of all, I never said what you have accused me of saying. I was criticising Downfader's abuse of statistics.

Now, you put the suggestion to any doctor's surgery that they all give up their cars and use bikes, and tell me what they say.

You cycle fanatics are as deluded as the political correctness crowd.

Please don't bother arguing because I'm the only one left reading your nonsense, and I already disagree with everything you are going to say.

I would like to know what the doctors say, if you wouldn't mind carrying out that survey for me. Now off you go and tidy your room.

BillyTheKid wrote:

loosehead wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:
Unfortunately for you, Bernard, I am a 24/7 carer for my elderly father. Over the last few years I have been in contact with a care home, and a number of professional care agencies.

Also, there have been a lot of articles in the press over the last year or so about the poor level of care given to the elderly. Carers and agencies have given interviews, all stating they are stretched to the limit. They have only been able to allocate 15 minutes of care to each service user, before needing to get to the next one as fast as possible IN A CAR. It's been on the news broadcasts, in the papers, and it's all over the internet.

If all your mother has is a pen, a phone, and a bag of gloves, she must be just a voluntary care giver, and not like the professionally-train



ed carers that I have employed over the last few years.

Or, Bernard, it's all just more of your tosh.

You say you've employed? so this is a private carer?
As I thought the articles were about council paid carers?
If more people were like you there wouldn't be such a workload on the carers but sorry if a person can use a bike instead of a car in these times the amount of money they save will be a lot don't you agree?
I know not every one can ride a bike in their job but give us this some people can either ride a bike or walk a short distance but they don't true?

Hi, loosehead. What I was trying to say here was that a carer, whether council or private, can get to more service users if they use a car rather than a bike.

It's all mixed in with Bernard's penchant for Echo forum "tennis" !

Billy I've worked as a Postman & 99% of them have to use a bike not the type of bike we might ride but real pigs.
they have a carrier in front where the bags go this makes a pig of a bike even harder to ride but I use to ride from Shirley to Cantell School.
the bag was so heavy it was a struggle just to carry it but I did & I rode all the way there,
on the way back the journey was like heaven.
my point is Yes some jobs won't be able to use bikes but travelling to work & home can be done on bikes.
please don't get me wrong I've had a Harley a Jag. a Range Rover & rode bikes ( cycles) all I'm trying to say is in these times of belt pulling leave the car at home ride a bike & the saving in petrol money should help families out & make us all healthier

BillyTheKid wrote:
First of all, I never said what you have accused me of saying. I was criticising Downfader's abuse of statistics.

Now, you put the suggestion to any doctor's surgery that they all give up their cars and use bikes, and tell me what they say.

You cycle fanatics are as deluded as the political correctness crowd.

Please don't bother arguing because I'm the only one left reading your nonsense, and I already disagree with everything you are going to say.

I would like to know what the doctors say, if you wouldn't mind carrying out that survey for me. Now off you go and tidy your room.

I'm sorry but you did try saying a doctor or carer HAS to use their car, which is totally untrue, yes some doctors might not agree with it but others would be more than happy to give it a go, in the end it's down to personal preference but if I'm honest, we've become far too dependent on burning fossil fuels such as oil, gas and petrol and we're starting to suffer for it, not the planet but us as people.

loosehead wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

loosehead wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:
Unfortunately for you, Bernard, I am a 24/7 carer for my elderly father. Over the last few years I have been in contact with a care home, and a number of professional care agencies.

Also, there have been a lot of articles in the press over the last year or so about the poor level of care given to the elderly. Carers and agencies have given interviews, all stating they are stretched to the limit. They have only been able to allocate 15 minutes of care to each service user, before needing to get to the next one as fast as possible IN A CAR. It's been on the news broadcasts, in the papers, and it's all over the internet.

If all your mother has is a pen, a phone, and a bag of gloves, she must be just a voluntary care giver, and not like the professionally-train




ed carers that I have employed over the last few years.

Or, Bernard, it's all just more of your tosh.

You say you've employed? so this is a private carer?
As I thought the articles were about council paid carers?
If more people were like you there wouldn't be such a workload on the carers but sorry if a person can use a bike instead of a car in these times the amount of money they save will be a lot don't you agree?
I know not every one can ride a bike in their job but give us this some people can either ride a bike or walk a short distance but they don't true?

Hi, loosehead. What I was trying to say here was that a carer, whether council or private, can get to more service users if they use a car rather than a bike.

It's all mixed in with Bernard's penchant for Echo forum "tennis" !

Billy I've worked as a Postman & 99% of them have to use a bike not the type of bike we might ride but real pigs.
they have a carrier in front where the bags go this makes a pig of a bike even harder to ride but I use to ride from Shirley to Cantell School.
the bag was so heavy it was a struggle just to carry it but I did & I rode all the way there,
on the way back the journey was like heaven.
my point is Yes some jobs won't be able to use bikes but travelling to work & home can be done on bikes.
please don't get me wrong I've had a Harley a Jag. a Range Rover & rode bikes ( cycles) all I'm trying to say is in these times of belt pulling leave the car at home ride a bike & the saving in petrol money should help families out & make us all healthier

For what it's worth, my opinion is that you have given a very fair-minded, balanced view, loosehead, and I'm completely in agreement with you.

My earlier comments were for the benefit of the "Downfader" crowd who would like everything done by bike power. They are obviously young people with no real responsibilities, only themselves to look after, and a total inability to see another's point of view. And they always seem to know some 90-year-old oddball who regularly cycles from Southampton to Edinburgh every day towing a double bass on wheels, or something equally as ludicrous !

Apart from those who are disabled who have to rely heavily on "motorisation" to get around, there is a huge wodge of people with minor disabilities, arthritis, and so forth who would feel, and be, unsafe on a bike. How many mothers would feel that their babies would be as safe in a bike trailor as they are in a car ?

Realistically, the vast majority of the electorate use, and prefer to use cars for everything. And the various governments are always chasing those votes. So if we get, as I imagine we are going to, a great increase in bicycles on the road over the next year or two, and this causes problems for the road users with vehicles, who's side do you think the government will take ?

Bicycles are only suitable for healthy leisure activities in the main, and there needs to be a road system separate from the commercial one, where all cyclists from 9 to 90 can be safe. The petrol engine needs to be replaced with one that is "eco friendly" and just as efficient.

Cue Downfader to tell us that 97% of all under-two-year-old child deaths happen in car accidents, and Ginger who knows a friend of his mum's who lives in Baffin Land who has designed a carry-cot that can be attached to a cycle helmet !

BillyTheKid wrote:
Cue Downfader to tell us that 97% of all under-two-year-old child deaths happen in car accidents, and Ginger who knows a friend of his mum's who lives in Baffin Land who has designed a carry-cot that can be attached to a cycle helmet !

Billy I agree with a few of your points but please do you agree that many parents could ride bikes with children who are capable of riding a cycle safely to school?
Many people could ride to work safely couldn't they?
More cycles less cars less traffic we all win

BillyTheKid wrote:

loosehead wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

loosehead wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:
Unfortunately for you, Bernard, I am a 24/7 carer for my elderly father. Over the last few years I have been in contact with a care home, and a number of professional care agencies.

Also, there have been a lot of articles in the press over the last year or so about the poor level of care given to the elderly. Carers and agencies have given interviews, all stating they are stretched to the limit. They have only been able to allocate 15 minutes of care to each service user, before needing to get to the next one as fast as possible IN A CAR. It's been on the news broadcasts, in the papers, and it's all over the internet.

If all your mother has is a pen, a phone, and a bag of gloves, she must be just a voluntary care giver, and not like the professionally-train





ed carers that I have employed over the last few years.

Or, Bernard, it's all just more of your tosh.

You say you've employed? so this is a private carer?
As I thought the articles were about council paid carers?
If more people were like you there wouldn't be such a workload on the carers but sorry if a person can use a bike instead of a car in these times the amount of money they save will be a lot don't you agree?
I know not every one can ride a bike in their job but give us this some people can either ride a bike or walk a short distance but they don't true?

Hi, loosehead. What I was trying to say here was that a carer, whether council or private, can get to more service users if they use a car rather than a bike.

It's all mixed in with Bernard's penchant for Echo forum "tennis" !

Billy I've worked as a Postman & 99% of them have to use a bike not the type of bike we might ride but real pigs.
they have a carrier in front where the bags go this makes a pig of a bike even harder to ride but I use to ride from Shirley to Cantell School.
the bag was so heavy it was a struggle just to carry it but I did & I rode all the way there,
on the way back the journey was like heaven.
my point is Yes some jobs won't be able to use bikes but travelling to work & home can be done on bikes.
please don't get me wrong I've had a Harley a Jag. a Range Rover & rode bikes ( cycles) all I'm trying to say is in these times of belt pulling leave the car at home ride a bike & the saving in petrol money should help families out & make us all healthier

For what it's worth, my opinion is that you have given a very fair-minded, balanced view, loosehead, and I'm completely in agreement with you.

My earlier comments were for the benefit of the "Downfader" crowd who would like everything done by bike power. They are obviously young people with no real responsibilities, only themselves to look after, and a total inability to see another's point of view. And they always seem to know some 90-year-old oddball who regularly cycles from Southampton to Edinburgh every day towing a double bass on wheels, or something equally as ludicrous !

Apart from those who are disabled who have to rely heavily on "motorisation" to get around, there is a huge wodge of people with minor disabilities, arthritis, and so forth who would feel, and be, unsafe on a bike. How many mothers would feel that their babies would be as safe in a bike trailor as they are in a car ?

Realistically, the vast majority of the electorate use, and prefer to use cars for everything. And the various governments are always chasing those votes. So if we get, as I imagine we are going to, a great increase in bicycles on the road over the next year or two, and this causes problems for the road users with vehicles, who's side do you think the government will take ?

Bicycles are only suitable for healthy leisure activities in the main, and there needs to be a road system separate from the commercial one, where all cyclists from 9 to 90 can be safe. The petrol engine needs to be replaced with one that is "eco friendly" and just as efficient.

Wow, that last bit "Bicycles are only suitable for healthy leisure activities in the main" shows how ignorant you are of the fact that 9 out of 10 times, a bicycle is QUICKER than a car in the Southampton rush hour, especially going over the Itchen bridge and down through Northam, also less cars on the road would mean a decrease in journey times, sure that would mean most motorised traffic would be disabled or ill people and possibly a few young mums but if people used the bike or public transport to go to work (unless they have to use the car or whatever they drive due to heavy or lots of equipment) instead of the car then then there would be at least a tenfold of benefits that would instantly come about, delivery times cut down, traffic accidents cut down, pollution cut down, strain on the NHS cut down, more money for people to spend, journey times cut down, less taxes due to the roads being worn down less, less stress, more parking spaces for those who NEED it and kids would be more willing to get on a bike and ride to school and stay fit and healthy through exercise, I'd say that if I was going to drive anywhere when I do get a car, my destination would have to be over 25 miles away to make it more economical to drive but even then I could just decide to ride anyway, make it a sponsored ride for charity but seriously, if I can get from Thornhill to travel lodge on rose road in 30 minutes on a bike then so can most people, that's the same amount of time it takes in a car, possibly a little less which meant I could leave home at 10 past 7 in the morning and get to work (when i had a job) early so I could help load up the work trailer when my supervisor arrived, also I agree, the petrol engine should be replaced, not by hybrids or higher efficiency diesels but by hydrogen and electric cars, they already have hydrogen buses running around in London, even TNT have electric trucks in Southampton, the tech is there but everybody's reluctant to use it. How about electrically assisted pedal cars than can go 80mph? I mean the parts are there ready to use, they're inexpensive and it's plausible to do, plus you could keep fit while driving.

BillyTheKid wrote:
Cue Downfader to tell us that 97% of all under-two-year-old child deaths happen in car accidents, and Ginger who knows a friend of his mum's who lives in Baffin Land who has designed a carry-cot that can be attached to a cycle helmet !

Now you're being ridiculous, even a crazy person in a mental home wouldn't go as far as putting a baby who can't even hold it's own head upright and still on a bike.

Billy, you can whinge all you like. As I said earlier all others have to do is write, email or talk to the DFT and other bodies that research this stuff (even AA/Populas, Mori-poll etc)

Repetition is hardly "abuse". Your flounce with the "97%" rubbish doesnt do anyone any favours. As I said to you before - I think you need to grow up.

downfader wrote:
Billy, you can whinge all you like. As I said earlier all others have to do is write, email or talk to the DFT and other bodies that research this stuff (even AA/Populas, Mori-poll etc)

Repetition is hardly "abuse". Your flounce with the "97%" rubbish doesnt do anyone any favours. As I said to you before - I think you need to grow up.

Well said.

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

loosehead wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

loosehead wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:
Unfortunately for you, Bernard, I am a 24/7 carer for my elderly father. Over the last few years I have been in contact with a care home, and a number of professional care agencies.

Also, there have been a lot of articles in the press over the last year or so about the poor level of care given to the elderly. Carers and agencies have given interviews, all stating they are stretched to the limit. They have only been able to allocate 15 minutes of care to each service user, before needing to get to the next one as fast as possible IN A CAR. It's been on the news broadcasts, in the papers, and it's all over the internet.

If all your mother has is a pen, a phone, and a bag of gloves, she must be just a voluntary care giver, and not like the professionally-train






ed carers that I have employed over the last few years.

Or, Bernard, it's all just more of your tosh.

You say you've employed? so this is a private carer?
As I thought the articles were about council paid carers?
If more people were like you there wouldn't be such a workload on the carers but sorry if a person can use a bike instead of a car in these times the amount of money they save will be a lot don't you agree?
I know not every one can ride a bike in their job but give us this some people can either ride a bike or walk a short distance but they don't true?

Hi, loosehead. What I was trying to say here was that a carer, whether council or private, can get to more service users if they use a car rather than a bike.

It's all mixed in with Bernard's penchant for Echo forum "tennis" !

Billy I've worked as a Postman & 99% of them have to use a bike not the type of bike we might ride but real pigs.
they have a carrier in front where the bags go this makes a pig of a bike even harder to ride but I use to ride from Shirley to Cantell School.
the bag was so heavy it was a struggle just to carry it but I did & I rode all the way there,
on the way back the journey was like heaven.
my point is Yes some jobs won't be able to use bikes but travelling to work & home can be done on bikes.
please don't get me wrong I've had a Harley a Jag. a Range Rover & rode bikes ( cycles) all I'm trying to say is in these times of belt pulling leave the car at home ride a bike & the saving in petrol money should help families out & make us all healthier

For what it's worth, my opinion is that you have given a very fair-minded, balanced view, loosehead, and I'm completely in agreement with you.

My earlier comments were for the benefit of the "Downfader" crowd who would like everything done by bike power. They are obviously young people with no real responsibilities, only themselves to look after, and a total inability to see another's point of view. And they always seem to know some 90-year-old oddball who regularly cycles from Southampton to Edinburgh every day towing a double bass on wheels, or something equally as ludicrous !

Apart from those who are disabled who have to rely heavily on "motorisation" to get around, there is a huge wodge of people with minor disabilities, arthritis, and so forth who would feel, and be, unsafe on a bike. How many mothers would feel that their babies would be as safe in a bike trailor as they are in a car ?

Realistically, the vast majority of the electorate use, and prefer to use cars for everything. And the various governments are always chasing those votes. So if we get, as I imagine we are going to, a great increase in bicycles on the road over the next year or two, and this causes problems for the road users with vehicles, who's side do you think the government will take ?

Bicycles are only suitable for healthy leisure activities in the main, and there needs to be a road system separate from the commercial one, where all cyclists from 9 to 90 can be safe. The petrol engine needs to be replaced with one that is "eco friendly" and just as efficient.

Wow, that last bit "Bicycles are only suitable for healthy leisure activities in the main" shows how ignorant you are of the fact that 9 out of 10 times, a bicycle is QUICKER than a car in the Southampton rush hour, especially going over the Itchen bridge and down through Northam, also less cars on the road would mean a decrease in journey times, sure that would mean most motorised traffic would be disabled or ill people and possibly a few young mums but if people used the bike or public transport to go to work (unless they have to use the car or whatever they drive due to heavy or lots of equipment) instead of the car then then there would be at least a tenfold of benefits that would instantly come about, delivery times cut down, traffic accidents cut down, pollution cut down, strain on the NHS cut down, more money for people to spend, journey times cut down, less taxes due to the roads being worn down less, less stress, more parking spaces for those who NEED it and kids would be more willing to get on a bike and ride to school and stay fit and healthy through exercise, I'd say that if I was going to drive anywhere when I do get a car, my destination would have to be over 25 miles away to make it more economical to drive but even then I could just decide to ride anyway, make it a sponsored ride for charity but seriously, if I can get from Thornhill to travel lodge on rose road in 30 minutes on a bike then so can most people, that's the same amount of time it takes in a car, possibly a little less which meant I could leave home at 10 past 7 in the morning and get to work (when i had a job) early so I could help load up the work trailer when my supervisor arrived, also I agree, the petrol engine should be replaced, not by hybrids or higher efficiency diesels but by hydrogen and electric cars, they already have hydrogen buses running around in London, even TNT have electric trucks in Southampton, the tech is there but everybody's reluctant to use it. How about electrically assisted pedal cars than can go 80mph? I mean the parts are there ready to use, they're inexpensive and it's plausible to do, plus you could keep fit while driving.

Don't call me ignorant, Ginger ! I'm 62, owned more bikes and cars than you'll probably ever get, and I have a pretty good notion about most things in life. It's called wisdom, and it comes with experience.

Your comments are very exciting and praiseworthy, but they are YOUR views based on YOUR priorities. I do not want to live my life according to "Ginger Law" !

And you, Downfader and I are the only one's still here talking, so at least I'm still interested in what you have to say.

Your comments and suggestions are full to the brim with imponderables, and more suited to robots than human beings. Some people get tired of charging about, wearing themselves out. Sometimes you just don't feel like loading all your stuff and the baby into the trailor and cycling off into the pouring rain !

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:
Cue Downfader to tell us that 97% of all under-two-year-old child deaths happen in car accidents, and Ginger who knows a friend of his mum's who lives in Baffin Land who has designed a carry-cot that can be attached to a cycle helmet !

Now you're being ridiculous, even a crazy person in a mental home wouldn't go as far as putting a baby who can't even hold it's own head upright and still on a bike.

It's called a joke, Ginger ! Taking the mickey ! All right ?

downfader wrote:
Billy, you can whinge all you like. As I said earlier all others have to do is write, email or talk to the DFT and other bodies that research this stuff (even AA/Populas, Mori-poll etc)

Repetition is hardly "abuse". Your flounce with the "97%" rubbish doesnt do anyone any favours. As I said to you before - I think you need to grow up.

Don't talk to your elders and betters in such a disrespectful manner, Downfader.

You are having difficulty accepting that I and most other people are more eloquent than you, better educated than you, have more wisdom and experience than you, can make better videos and compose better-quality music than you, and make more sense than you.

While I realise that you are very well-intentioned, and will undoubtedly become as worthy as us old 'uns one day, until you learn the concept of making concessions, and start listening to and examining views different from your own, you will be lecturing in empty auditoriums for the rest of your days.

"Now you're being ridiculous, even a crazy person in a mental home wouldn't go as far as putting a baby who can't even hold it's own head upright and still on a bike."

Google "bakfiets baby seat". Dutch mums do exactly this, safely on their well thought out roads.

BillyTheKid wrote:

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

loosehead wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

loosehead wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:
Unfortunately for you, Bernard, I am a 24/7 carer for my elderly father. Over the last few years I have been in contact with a care home, and a number of professional care agencies.

Also, there have been a lot of articles in the press over the last year or so about the poor level of care given to the elderly. Carers and agencies have given interviews, all stating they are stretched to the limit. They have only been able to allocate 15 minutes of care to each service user, before needing to get to the next one as fast as possible IN A CAR. It's been on the news broadcasts, in the papers, and it's all over the internet.

If all your mother has is a pen, a phone, and a bag of gloves, she must be just a voluntary care giver, and not like the professionally-train







ed carers that I have employed over the last few years.

Or, Bernard, it's all just more of your tosh.

You say you've employed? so this is a private carer?
As I thought the articles were about council paid carers?
If more people were like you there wouldn't be such a workload on the carers but sorry if a person can use a bike instead of a car in these times the amount of money they save will be a lot don't you agree?
I know not every one can ride a bike in their job but give us this some people can either ride a bike or walk a short distance but they don't true?

Hi, loosehead. What I was trying to say here was that a carer, whether council or private, can get to more service users if they use a car rather than a bike.

It's all mixed in with Bernard's penchant for Echo forum "tennis" !

Billy I've worked as a Postman & 99% of them have to use a bike not the type of bike we might ride but real pigs.
they have a carrier in front where the bags go this makes a pig of a bike even harder to ride but I use to ride from Shirley to Cantell School.
the bag was so heavy it was a struggle just to carry it but I did & I rode all the way there,
on the way back the journey was like heaven.
my point is Yes some jobs won't be able to use bikes but travelling to work & home can be done on bikes.
please don't get me wrong I've had a Harley a Jag. a Range Rover & rode bikes ( cycles) all I'm trying to say is in these times of belt pulling leave the car at home ride a bike & the saving in petrol money should help families out & make us all healthier

For what it's worth, my opinion is that you have given a very fair-minded, balanced view, loosehead, and I'm completely in agreement with you.

My earlier comments were for the benefit of the "Downfader" crowd who would like everything done by bike power. They are obviously young people with no real responsibilities, only themselves to look after, and a total inability to see another's point of view. And they always seem to know some 90-year-old oddball who regularly cycles from Southampton to Edinburgh every day towing a double bass on wheels, or something equally as ludicrous !

Apart from those who are disabled who have to rely heavily on "motorisation" to get around, there is a huge wodge of people with minor disabilities, arthritis, and so forth who would feel, and be, unsafe on a bike. How many mothers would feel that their babies would be as safe in a bike trailor as they are in a car ?

Realistically, the vast majority of the electorate use, and prefer to use cars for everything. And the various governments are always chasing those votes. So if we get, as I imagine we are going to, a great increase in bicycles on the road over the next year or two, and this causes problems for the road users with vehicles, who's side do you think the government will take ?

Bicycles are only suitable for healthy leisure activities in the main, and there needs to be a road system separate from the commercial one, where all cyclists from 9 to 90 can be safe. The petrol engine needs to be replaced with one that is "eco friendly" and just as efficient.

Wow, that last bit "Bicycles are only suitable for healthy leisure activities in the main" shows how ignorant you are of the fact that 9 out of 10 times, a bicycle is QUICKER than a car in the Southampton rush hour, especially going over the Itchen bridge and down through Northam, also less cars on the road would mean a decrease in journey times, sure that would mean most motorised traffic would be disabled or ill people and possibly a few young mums but if people used the bike or public transport to go to work (unless they have to use the car or whatever they drive due to heavy or lots of equipment) instead of the car then then there would be at least a tenfold of benefits that would instantly come about, delivery times cut down, traffic accidents cut down, pollution cut down, strain on the NHS cut down, more money for people to spend, journey times cut down, less taxes due to the roads being worn down less, less stress, more parking spaces for those who NEED it and kids would be more willing to get on a bike and ride to school and stay fit and healthy through exercise, I'd say that if I was going to drive anywhere when I do get a car, my destination would have to be over 25 miles away to make it more economical to drive but even then I could just decide to ride anyway, make it a sponsored ride for charity but seriously, if I can get from Thornhill to travel lodge on rose road in 30 minutes on a bike then so can most people, that's the same amount of time it takes in a car, possibly a little less which meant I could leave home at 10 past 7 in the morning and get to work (when i had a job) early so I could help load up the work trailer when my supervisor arrived, also I agree, the petrol engine should be replaced, not by hybrids or higher efficiency diesels but by hydrogen and electric cars, they already have hydrogen buses running around in London, even TNT have electric trucks in Southampton, the tech is there but everybody's reluctant to use it. How about electrically assisted pedal cars than can go 80mph? I mean the parts are there ready to use, they're inexpensive and it's plausible to do, plus you could keep fit while driving.

Don't call me ignorant, Ginger ! I'm 62, owned more bikes and cars than you'll probably ever get, and I have a pretty good notion about most things in life. It's called wisdom, and it comes with experience.

Your comments are very exciting and praiseworthy, but they are YOUR views based on YOUR priorities. I do not want to live my life according to "Ginger Law" !

And you, Downfader and I are the only one's still here talking, so at least I'm still interested in what you have to say.

Your comments and suggestions are full to the brim with imponderables, and more suited to robots than human beings. Some people get tired of charging about, wearing themselves out. Sometimes you just don't feel like loading all your stuff and the baby into the trailor and cycling off into the pouring rain !

I'm not trying to say what people should and shouldn't do, they're suggestions and I also admitted that there are times when a car is necessary, so what if you're 62? Doesn't mean you're always right, look around and then tell me how many obese people you see, how many single mums you see and how many young people you see walking round causing trouble and doing nothing with their lives, sure, some of them didn't choose to be there but most did, some had the idea that things would be handed to them, some fell in with the wrong crowd and others are just bone idle and can't be bothered, if they just got on a bike then they might get somewhere in life.

BillyTheKid wrote:

downfader wrote:
Billy, you can whinge all you like. As I said earlier all others have to do is write, email or talk to the DFT and other bodies that research this stuff (even AA/Populas, Mori-poll etc)

Repetition is hardly "abuse". Your flounce with the "97%" rubbish doesnt do anyone any favours. As I said to you before - I think you need to grow up.

Don't talk to your elders and betters in such a disrespectful manner, Downfader.

You are having difficulty accepting that I and most other people are more eloquent than you, better educated than you, have more wisdom and experience than you, can make better videos and compose better-quality music than you, and make more sense than you.

While I realise that you are very well-intentioned, and will undoubtedly become as worthy as us old 'uns one day, until you learn the concept of making concessions, and start listening to and examining views different from your own, you will be lecturing in empty auditoriums for the rest of your days.

Respect is earned, not given, earn that respect you desire.

Cyclestrian wrote:
"Now you're being ridiculous, even a crazy person in a mental home wouldn't go as far as putting a baby who can't even hold it's own head upright and still on a bike."

Google "bakfiets baby seat". Dutch mums do exactly this, safely on their well thought out roads.

Ah yes, quite right they do but sadly I think those bikes would be even more of a target for the minority of motorists, also I get the impression from their wheelbase and where the rider that is in control sits, it might take a bit of getting used to the odd sensation of feeling as if you're sat at the back of a bus looking out the front window but riding a bike, would be a nice solution to my problem of how to get all my fishing gear to the lake though when I can't get a bus or a lift from a friend.

Billy. You have to earn respect. I couldnt care less if your 62 or 22. Your constant bickering has proven nothing.

Start conducting yourself in an adult manner - everyone who has replied to you has been in the main very polite... but that hasn't changed the fact you've talked complete and utter rubbish.

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

Cyclestrian wrote:
"Now you're being ridiculous, even a crazy person in a mental home wouldn't go as far as putting a baby who can't even hold it's own head upright and still on a bike."

Google "bakfiets baby seat". Dutch mums do exactly this, safely on their well thought out roads.

Ah yes, quite right they do but sadly I think those bikes would be even more of a target for the minority of motorists, also I get the impression from their wheelbase and where the rider that is in control sits, it might take a bit of getting used to the odd sensation of feeling as if you're sat at the back of a bus looking out the front window but riding a bike, would be a nice solution to my problem of how to get all my fishing gear to the lake though when I can't get a bus or a lift from a friend.

I know of a Newcastle cyclist who built his own Bakfiet. The imports tend to be rather expensive.

downfader wrote:

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

Cyclestrian wrote:
"Now you're being ridiculous, even a crazy person in a mental home wouldn't go as far as putting a baby who can't even hold it's own head upright and still on a bike."

Google "bakfiets baby seat". Dutch mums do exactly this, safely on their well thought out roads.

Ah yes, quite right they do but sadly I think those bikes would be even more of a target for the minority of motorists, also I get the impression from their wheelbase and where the rider that is in control sits, it might take a bit of getting used to the odd sensation of feeling as if you're sat at the back of a bus looking out the front window but riding a bike, would be a nice solution to my problem of how to get all my fishing gear to the lake though when I can't get a bus or a lift from a friend.

I know of a Newcastle cyclist who built his own Bakfiet. The imports tend to be rather expensive.

Wow, that's quite adventurous and indeed, I've looked at prices and agree that the imports can be expensive but then they are normally high quality, they had a bunch to hire at this years sky ride in Southampton, even saw a quad and trike for transporting disabled/ wheelchair bound people by bicycle.

Respect, Downfader ? After all the idiotic, inconsequential, incoherent blather that you have poured into this forum over the last six months or more, you think I'm looking for respect ? What a joke you are !

The kind of respect I was talking about was the automatic politeness you owe to your elders and betters who have made so many allowances for you to blossom into the full-blown eccentric that you are !

My colleagues and I read your posts because the nonsense you spout with such determination and conviction has us in fits ! I hope you are keeping copies of it all because it would make an excellent TV comedy. You come over like one of Rik Mayall's characters !

Over to you again, Downfader ! Go on, say something daft again ! Give us another laugh ! Call me childish ! It really kills me when you tell people to "grow up" ! Oh the irony.....

And where do you get words like flounce, and expressions like "hoist with your own petard" from ? You doing an essay on Shakespeare, or something ?

Come on Fader, take a break. We've fought long enough. Time to agree to disagree isn't it ?

Here we go, i deal with 62+ year olds everyday who think they are better than everyone else and they are always right!

I have a lot of respect for my elders until they start talking down on me like i am some sort of idiot because i haven't lived as long as them, what is that all about ?

How dare you question any of our levels of education etc. Did we ever question yours? No we (or at least I) stuck to the subject instead of making it personal; how on earth can you judge someone elses level of education on an internet forum? You have no idea who we are and what we have achieved and we do not know that about you either, so all we can do is discuss this subject.

Your opinions are all very valid and correct in that basically cycling will not be convenient for everyone. Im not trying to say otherwise, all i ask is for a bit of respect whilst i am cycling from motorists; every bike that passes them is one less car in the queue so why not day thanks? Yet we still get abused which is very childish and most of these people are my 'elders' why should i respect them when they treat me like that?

* say thanks*

bernard7 wrote:
Here we go, i deal with 62+ year olds everyday who think they are better than everyone else and they are always right!

I have a lot of respect for my elders until they start talking down on me like i am some sort of idiot because i haven't lived as long as them, what is that all about ?

How dare you question any of our levels of education etc. Did we ever question yours? No we (or at least I) stuck to the subject instead of making it personal; how on earth can you judge someone elses level of education on an internet forum? You have no idea who we are and what we have achieved and we do not know that about you either, so all we can do is discuss this subject.

Your opinions are all very valid and correct in that basically cycling will not be convenient for everyone. Im not trying to say otherwise, all i ask is for a bit of respect whilst i am cycling from motorists; every bike that passes them is one less car in the queue so why not day thanks? Yet we still get abused which is very childish and most of these people are my 'elders' why should i respect them when they treat me like that?

Without wanting to sound patronizing, Bernard, you need to know something of the history of this site.

It is a bear pit of a forum, and some of us, including me, have been viciously attacked and trolled, simply for expressing our opinions with a level of eloquence that betrays our educated backgrounds. Jealousies are aroused amongst certain eccentrics who like to "lord it" here, and a number of young people who are often unable to distinguish between opinion, knowledge and wisdom.

I have talked about the abuse with the Echo, but they want to keep it open and fresh here, so it is a "wild frontier" situation where, every so often, Dan Kerins "removes" posters who go too far. He realises there are one or two here who provoke trouble in a subtle way, and that some of the victims of that provocation appear to be perpetrators when they reach the limits of their patience and retaliate.

These forum wars do seem a bit childish when you come into the middle of them, and they are annoying and distressing to those who want a serious discussion and/or some light-hearted banter. For a bit of fun, I tried to fight the trolls by giving them as good as I got, but it got out of hand, as, not being an experienced chat room user, I did not realise that by fighting trolls you play straight into their hands.

As far as being condescending in my attitude to the young is concerned, it is just something us "old uns" do when a young person is pressing an ill-conceived point without the benefit of the wisdom that age and experience brings.

Just for your information, I was a teacher in the secondary sector for over thirty years before I retired, and one of the many who gave huge amounts of time, for free, talking with pupils at lunchtimes, and providing opportunities and resources for extra-curricular arts activities.

As you so rightly pointed out, it is very difficult to assess the calibre of the people you are talking to in a chatroom like this. However, you did appear to be rather arrogant and unreasonably self-assured earlier, turning up at an unfortunate time when Downfader had been irritating many of us with his special brand of eccentricity.

Bernard, if you are a genuine and serious poster, then I express my regret for any distress I may have caused. From now on I will treat you with respect unless you give me cause to do otherwise.

For the record, I see no harm in robust discussion so long as it doesn't deteriorate into swearing and vicious, personal attacks. Even sarcasm and light insults should, in my opinion, be OK so long as it is not vindictive.

I can assure you that i am nothing to do with downfader or anyone else on here. Even though when i appeared it may seem suspicious.

Just a genuine poster with some opinions on cycling, it is a real shame the way some of these discussions go and i think that as soon as anyone tries to make a more serious personal attack they should be banned and just let us adults get on with our debates.

It is refreshing to receive a post as your one above and i have the utmost respect for you for doing that on here.

Just for the record i have a lot of respect for my elders (being only 21) until they start to show me reasons as to why i should not respect them.

I just think that cyclists deserve a bit more dignity and respect, all we are trying to do is get about and not die whilst doing so :). Obviously there are some cyclists that seem to cycle with a suicidal attitude, however this does not mean we are all bad at it, i stop at lights and never give a motorist a reason to be angry at me; and yet there are still a few that find it necessary to beep and swear because i have delayed them by 30 seconds.

bernard7 wrote:
Here we go, i deal with 62+ year olds everyday who think they are better than everyone else and they are always right!

I have a lot of respect for my elders until they start talking down on me like i am some sort of idiot because i haven't lived as long as them, what is that all about ?

How dare you question any of our levels of education etc. Did we ever question yours? No we (or at least I) stuck to the subject instead of making it personal; how on earth can you judge someone elses level of education on an internet forum? You have no idea who we are and what we have achieved and we do not know that about you either, so all we can do is discuss this subject.

Your opinions are all very valid and correct in that basically cycling will not be convenient for everyone. Im not trying to say otherwise, all i ask is for a bit of respect whilst i am cycling from motorists; every bike that passes them is one less car in the queue so why not day thanks? Yet we still get abused which is very childish and most of these people are my 'elders' why should i respect them when they treat me like that?

Well said mate, very well said.

bernard7 wrote:
I can assure you that i am nothing to do with downfader or anyone else on here. Even though when i appeared it may seem suspicious.

Just a genuine poster with some opinions on cycling, it is a real shame the way some of these discussions go and i think that as soon as anyone tries to make a more serious personal attack they should be banned and just let us adults get on with our debates.

It is refreshing to receive a post as your one above and i have the utmost respect for you for doing that on here.

Just for the record i have a lot of respect for my elders (being only 21) until they start to show me reasons as to why i should not respect them.

I just think that cyclists deserve a bit more dignity and respect, all we are trying to do is get about and not die whilst doing so :). Obviously there are some cyclists that seem to cycle with a suicidal attitude, however this does not mean we are all bad at it, i stop at lights and never give a motorist a reason to be angry at me; and yet there are still a few that find it necessary to beep and swear because i have delayed them by 30 seconds.

Glad we got that sorted, Bernard. And i totally agree with everything you have just said.

However, instead of cyclists, motorists, and commercial traffic trying to cope with each other on the same roads, what do you think of a national, dedicated network of cycle roads, where cyclists of all abilities and experience can be as safe as possible ? Obviously a cycle path along every road in the country is not possible, but my view is that cyclists ought to be able to get from near A to near B without having to use the the main road system.

I rode bikes from about ten onwards throuh my teens. My parents bought me an Elswick Hopper as they didn't want me racing around on anything faster ! Even back in the 50's and 60's, out on spacious country roads around Fair Oak, you still got pushed off the road by lorries sometimes. My worst experience was being tailgated by a double-decker bus coming over Bitterne railway bridge towards Bitterne. It got so close I lost my nerve, hit the curb and fell off right in front of it ! Obviously I survived to tell the tale.

When Downfader (especially), and Gingercyclist get on their high horses ( or would it be high cycles ? A penny farthing ? ) about cycling issues, Geoff57 and I like to tease them mercilessly ! They are not like the ordinary cyclists - they get over-excited, and quite objectionable !

BillyTheKid wrote:

bernard7 wrote:
I can assure you that i am nothing to do with downfader or anyone else on here. Even though when i appeared it may seem suspicious.

Just a genuine poster with some opinions on cycling, it is a real shame the way some of these discussions go and i think that as soon as anyone tries to make a more serious personal attack they should be banned and just let us adults get on with our debates.

It is refreshing to receive a post as your one above and i have the utmost respect for you for doing that on here.

Just for the record i have a lot of respect for my elders (being only 21) until they start to show me reasons as to why i should not respect them.

I just think that cyclists deserve a bit more dignity and respect, all we are trying to do is get about and not die whilst doing so :). Obviously there are some cyclists that seem to cycle with a suicidal attitude, however this does not mean we are all bad at it, i stop at lights and never give a motorist a reason to be angry at me; and yet there are still a few that find it necessary to beep and swear because i have delayed them by 30 seconds.

Glad we got that sorted, Bernard. And i totally agree with everything you have just said.

However, instead of cyclists, motorists, and commercial traffic trying to cope with each other on the same roads, what do you think of a national, dedicated network of cycle roads, where cyclists of all abilities and experience can be as safe as possible ? Obviously a cycle path along every road in the country is not possible, but my view is that cyclists ought to be able to get from near A to near B without having to use the the main road system.

I rode bikes from about ten onwards throuh my teens. My parents bought me an Elswick Hopper as they didn't want me racing around on anything faster ! Even back in the 50's and 60's, out on spacious country roads around Fair Oak, you still got pushed off the road by lorries sometimes. My worst experience was being tailgated by a double-decker bus coming over Bitterne railway bridge towards Bitterne. It got so close I lost my nerve, hit the curb and fell off right in front of it ! Obviously I survived to tell the tale.

When Downfader (especially), and Gingercyclist get on their high horses ( or would it be high cycles ? A penny farthing ? ) about cycling issues, Geoff57 and I like to tease them mercilessly ! They are not like the ordinary cyclists - they get over-excited, and quite objectionable !

In Germany they don't have all this rubbish fighting because everyone knows that they're all just trying to get somewhere and that it's not just motorists who pay for the upkeep of the roads so how about take a leaf out of their books and not fight with each other?

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

BillyTheKid wrote:

bernard7 wrote:
I can assure you that i am nothing to do with downfader or anyone else on here. Even though when i appeared it may seem suspicious.

Just a genuine poster with some opinions on cycling, it is a real shame the way some of these discussions go and i think that as soon as anyone tries to make a more serious personal attack they should be banned and just let us adults get on with our debates.

It is refreshing to receive a post as your one above and i have the utmost respect for you for doing that on here.

Just for the record i have a lot of respect for my elders (being only 21) until they start to show me reasons as to why i should not respect them.

I just think that cyclists deserve a bit more dignity and respect, all we are trying to do is get about and not die whilst doing so :). Obviously there are some cyclists that seem to cycle with a suicidal attitude, however this does not mean we are all bad at it, i stop at lights and never give a motorist a reason to be angry at me; and yet there are still a few that find it necessary to beep and swear because i have delayed them by 30 seconds.

Glad we got that sorted, Bernard. And i totally agree with everything you have just said.

However, instead of cyclists, motorists, and commercial traffic trying to cope with each other on the same roads, what do you think of a national, dedicated network of cycle roads, where cyclists of all abilities and experience can be as safe as possible ? Obviously a cycle path along every road in the country is not possible, but my view is that cyclists ought to be able to get from near A to near B without having to use the the main road system.

I rode bikes from about ten onwards throuh my teens. My parents bought me an Elswick Hopper as they didn't want me racing around on anything faster ! Even back in the 50's and 60's, out on spacious country roads around Fair Oak, you still got pushed off the road by lorries sometimes. My worst experience was being tailgated by a double-decker bus coming over Bitterne railway bridge towards Bitterne. It got so close I lost my nerve, hit the curb and fell off right in front of it ! Obviously I survived to tell the tale.

When Downfader (especially), and Gingercyclist get on their high horses ( or would it be high cycles ? A penny farthing ? ) about cycling issues, Geoff57 and I like to tease them mercilessly ! They are not like the ordinary cyclists - they get over-excited, and quite objectionable !

In Germany they don't have all this rubbish fighting because everyone knows that they're all just trying to get somewhere and that it's not just motorists who pay for the upkeep of the roads so how about take a leaf out of their books and not fight with each other?

Completely agree with you, Ginger.

All that needs to happen now is for Downfader to agree with something - anything - just SOMETHING !

I think a dedicated network of cycle roads could solve a lot of problems. They would have to be quite wide and people would have to have lessons on how to use them, much like a motorway with different lanes for overtaking etc.

If im going somewhere i usually take country roads that are very quiet but often this is a very long route compared to the main roads, i even cycled on a dual carriageway to save time once; never again!

Now if they just built a cycle network that runs parallel to the motorways and dual cariiageways etc (obviously with some proper separation) then cyclists would be out of harms way and be able to get where they are going much quicker. This could also in turn increase the amount of cyclists as they would realise how safe and quick it can be.

Just to add, there is nothing i hate more than some cyclists who are on there high horse slagging of all the motorists, swearing at them and folding in wing mirrors so they can filter past easily. That kind of behaviour is only going to worsen the situation!

bernard7 wrote:
I think a dedicated network of cycle roads could solve a lot of problems. They would have to be quite wide and people would have to have lessons on how to use them, much like a motorway with different lanes for overtaking etc.

If im going somewhere i usually take country roads that are very quiet but often this is a very long route compared to the main roads, i even cycled on a dual carriageway to save time once; never again!

Now if they just built a cycle network that runs parallel to the motorways and dual cariiageways etc (obviously with some proper separation) then cyclists would be out of harms way and be able to get where they are going much quicker. This could also in turn increase the amount of cyclists as they would realise how safe and quick it can be.

Just to add, there is nothing i hate more than some cyclists who are on there high horse slagging of all the motorists, swearing at them and folding in wing mirrors so they can filter past easily. That kind of behaviour is only going to worsen the situation!

The cycle roads that follow the motorways is an idea I've had a while myself and it would indeed get more people out on their bikes as it would make a journey such as Southampton to London that much more doable for novice and intermediate cyclists but I would like to add that having dedicated cycle paths going to places you can stay at over night would also be advantageous as it would again make even longer journeys possible by bike, of course if you want to be challenged then you can still use the normal roads for rides such as lands end to John O'groates or the Coast to Coast ride and I agree, I hate cyclists who just make things worse for the rest of us, if I was filtering, I wouldn't touch wing mirrors unless they were already folded in, then I'd get the drivers attention and let them know before folding it out for them and i don't go jumping lights and stuff which is the sort of behaviour I expect ALL cyclists to adopt by instinct but to help it get there I think bikeability levels 1 to 3 should be part of mandatory school curriculum for all children of school age, obviously the younger they are the lower the difficulty of the bikeability is, maybe you would like to add some more?

Yeah this sounds ideal really. These days i feel that cycling is just going to become more and more popular and so these measures will have to be introduced sooner or later.

I was at school quite a few years ago now but i remember doing cycling profficiency and passing a test but this was only an extra curricular activity that i chose to do, so not everyone did it. I definitley think this should become mandatory throughout education so people have no excuse for cycling like idiots.

The cycle lanes parallel to the motorway would be amazing as you said because longer journeys would be much more do-able and shorter journeys, such as southampton to winchester which i regularly do, would become a lot quicker.

But the main thing is educating drivers about cyclists whilst doing driving lessons and their test etc. Making drivers aware of cyclists rights and vice versa in cycling lessons at schools. Educating both sides will ultimately be the solution to the problem. For example, how many motorists are aware that according to the highway code if i am cycling more than 15mph i should not be on a cycle path as it is dangerous; i bet none of them know that. So instead they just shout abuse at us, now if they were educated this would not happen. They should also be taught that passing a cyclist on a single track road with about a foot to spare is very unacceptable and it should, in my opinion, be punishable for putting someones life at risk like that.

bernard7 wrote:
Yeah this sounds ideal really. These days i feel that cycling is just going to become more and more popular and so these measures will have to be introduced sooner or later.

I was at school quite a few years ago now but i remember doing cycling profficiency and passing a test but this was only an extra curricular activity that i chose to do, so not everyone did it. I definitley think this should become mandatory throughout education so people have no excuse for cycling like idiots.

The cycle lanes parallel to the motorway would be amazing as you said because longer journeys would be much more do-able and shorter journeys, such as southampton to winchester which i regularly do, would become a lot quicker.

But the main thing is educating drivers about cyclists whilst doing driving lessons and their test etc. Making drivers aware of cyclists rights and vice versa in cycling lessons at schools. Educating both sides will ultimately be the solution to the problem. For example, how many motorists are aware that according to the highway code if i am cycling more than 15mph i should not be on a cycle path as it is dangerous; i bet none of them know that. So instead they just shout abuse at us, now if they were educated this would not happen. They should also be taught that passing a cyclist on a single track road with about a foot to spare is very unacceptable and it should, in my opinion, be punishable for putting someones life at risk like that.

Exactly, I remember cycling to Sparsholt college once while I was studying there and it took me about 3.5 hours to get there, mind it didn't help that I took a wrong turn and ended up in Winchester but still, without getting lost it would probably have taken me 2.5 hours to get there, with a cycle cycle lane running parallel to the motorway all the way up, I might have been able to get there just after 9AM instead of 11AM and educating people is better than segregation, as for those already driving, a TV advert campaign should be made to highlight the rules about sharing the road with cyclists and the consequences for breaking those rules.

BillyTheKid wrote:

bernard7 wrote:
Here we go, i deal with 62+ year olds everyday who think they are better than everyone else and they are always right!

I have a lot of respect for my elders until they start talking down on me like i am some sort of idiot because i haven't lived as long as them, what is that all about ?

How dare you question any of our levels of education etc. Did we ever question yours? No we (or at least I) stuck to the subject instead of making it personal; how on earth can you judge someone elses level of education on an internet forum? You have no idea who we are and what we have achieved and we do not know that about you either, so all we can do is discuss this subject.

Your opinions are all very valid and correct in that basically cycling will not be convenient for everyone. Im not trying to say otherwise, all i ask is for a bit of respect whilst i am cycling from motorists; every bike that passes them is one less car in the queue so why not day thanks? Yet we still get abused which is very childish and most of these people are my 'elders' why should i respect them when they treat me like that?

Without wanting to sound patronizing, Bernard, you need to know something of the history of this site.

It is a bear pit of a forum, and some of us, including me, have been viciously attacked and trolled, simply for expressing our opinions with a level of eloquence that betrays our educated backgrounds. Jealousies are aroused amongst certain eccentrics who like to "lord it" here, and a number of young people who are often unable to distinguish between opinion, knowledge and wisdom.

I have talked about the abuse with the Echo, but they want to keep it open and fresh here, so it is a "wild frontier" situation where, every so often, Dan Kerins "removes" posters who go too far. He realises there are one or two here who provoke trouble in a subtle way, and that some of the victims of that provocation appear to be perpetrators when they reach the limits of their patience and retaliate.

These forum wars do seem a bit childish when you come into the middle of them, and they are annoying and distressing to those who want a serious discussion and/or some light-hearted banter. For a bit of fun, I tried to fight the trolls by giving them as good as I got, but it got out of hand, as, not being an experienced chat room user, I did not realise that by fighting trolls you play straight into their hands.

As far as being condescending in my attitude to the young is concerned, it is just something us "old uns" do when a young person is pressing an ill-conceived point without the benefit of the wisdom that age and experience brings.

Just for your information, I was a teacher in the secondary sector for over thirty years before I retired, and one of the many who gave huge amounts of time, for free, talking with pupils at lunchtimes, and providing opportunities and resources for extra-curricular arts activities.

As you so rightly pointed out, it is very difficult to assess the calibre of the people you are talking to in a chatroom like this. However, you did appear to be rather arrogant and unreasonably self-assured earlier, turning up at an unfortunate time when Downfader had been irritating many of us with his special brand of eccentricity.

Bernard, if you are a genuine and serious poster, then I express my regret for any distress I may have caused. From now on I will treat you with respect unless you give me cause to do otherwise.

For the record, I see no harm in robust discussion so long as it doesn't deteriorate into swearing and vicious, personal attacks. Even sarcasm and light insults should, in my opinion, be OK so long as it is not vindictive.

Billy I have tried (hopefully I hope) to have a debate with you on this subject.
But you've said you're 62 sorry this doesn't stop you riding a cycle as my neighbour has only just changed to an electric bike at 75.
they say you're as old as you feel & I don't want to feel old to soon.
I give you that not everyone can or should ride a bike to work or for pleasure.
I also think it's wrong for people attacking you for you're view point they don't know you're situation do they?
If you are capable of doing it try a bike for a fun ride & see how it goes

Ginger_cyclist wrote:

bernard7 wrote:
Here we go, i deal with 62+ year olds everyday who think they are better than everyone else and they are always right!

I have a lot of respect for my elders until they start talking down on me like i am some sort of idiot because i haven't lived as long as them, what is that all about ?

How dare you question any of our levels of education etc. Did we ever question yours? No we (or at least I) stuck to the subject instead of making it personal; how on earth can you judge someone elses level of education on an internet forum? You have no idea who we are and what we have achieved and we do not know that about you either, so all we can do is discuss this subject.

Your opinions are all very valid and correct in that basically cycling will not be convenient for everyone. Im not trying to say otherwise, all i ask is for a bit of respect whilst i am cycling from motorists; every bike that passes them is one less car in the queue so why not day thanks? Yet we still get abused which is very childish and most of these people are my 'elders' why should i respect them when they treat me like that?

Well said mate, very well said.

This is a e-mail to me from Sotonia I hope it helps you Ginger.
Firstly congratulations on achieving a high level of fitness within Rugby. Cycling is an excellent form of exercise for both cardiovascular and strength. Starting off steadily and slowly over the weeks building up mileage is the best way to start. Once you have a good base level of miles in your legs then you can concentrate on improving techniques, speed, racing, time trials etc.

Depending what area you wish to specialise in Sotonia will certainly be able to support you whether its time trails, club riding or longer reliability rides.

Sotonia has club rides on Wed and Sun with Sundays having the bigger turn out due to work commitments of many members on the Wed ride. Rides start at North Baddesly Community Centre Shops Car Park, Fleming Road departing prompt 09.00 and arrive back around 13.00 ish. Various groups depart covering differing distances at varying speeds, the social group covers around 35/45miles at an average speed 12mph. A midway stop is always taken in all groups at various tea rooms/cafes etc for snacks and refreshments.

Sotonia also has a club night every Tues at Valley Park Community Centre 20.00 till 22.00. This is an informal gathering for members to enjoy coffee and biscuits and chat all things bikes.

You would be made more than welcome should you wish to pop along any Tue eve and meet some members and also chat more regarding riding as a sport. You are also welcome to come out and try a club ride on any Sunday.

It is advisable to arrive ten mins prior to start time and make yourself known to either myself, Martin, Ian or Julian and we will ensure you are placed into the relevant group for your experience. Please bring some cash for refreshment stop and also ensure you carry spare inner tube and tools to mend/repair puncture should the event arise on ride.

Regarding purchasing a road bike, sadly as a club we cannot offer advice on particular brands or promote any one manufacture. I would however say there are several good bike shops in the area and they will offer you the advice you need to ensure you purchase the correctly fitted sized bike.