Come cycle with me

Come cycle with me

Come cycle with me

First published in Readers' Letters

HAVING just read Ross Ansell’s letter “Cyclists shouldn’t be on the road when they pay no tax”, (Daily Echo, March 5) I have an offer for him.

Let Mr Ansell cycle with me for one day and he will see why cyclists ride the way they do.

He will also see how poor the standard of driving is in Southampton.

This offer comes from someone who pays road tax and insurance on three vehicles which I think gives me all the right in the world to ride one of my two bicycles on UK roads!

I think my offer will make Mr Ansell a far better and courteous driver! We’ll see if he takes me up on my offer.

FRANK ADAMS, Address supplied.

Comments (50)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:45am Sun 16 Mar 14

Turtlebay says...

As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves.

Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter!
As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves. Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter! Turtlebay
  • Score: -5

10:48am Sun 16 Mar 14

downfader says...

Turtlebay wrote:
As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves.

Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter!
For crying out loud man at least look at the figures:

Most cyclists drive. Ergo they know the Highway Code. I would suggest from 30 years experience on the roads that the vast majority do obey the law - yours is a biased perception.

Lest we forget how yesterday there were THREE major crashes involving only a single driver - and NONE involving bikes. This is a daily occurrence now - but just keep banging the same drum - I'm sure repetition makes things true or at least distracts from the real problem
[quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves. Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter![/p][/quote]For crying out loud man at least look at the figures: Most cyclists drive. Ergo they know the Highway Code. I would suggest from 30 years experience on the roads that the vast majority do obey the law - yours is a biased perception. Lest we forget how yesterday there were THREE major crashes involving only a single driver - and NONE involving bikes. This is a daily occurrence now - but just keep banging the same drum - I'm sure repetition makes things true or at least distracts from the real problem downfader
  • Score: 2

10:51am Sun 16 Mar 14

downfader says...

Oh and Turtlebay, when the Police stopped Lorries in Hants recently - how many HGVs and Lorries did they find that were knowingly being driven with dangerous defects or altered tachographs?

60% plus
http://www.thetimes.
co.uk/tto/public/cyc
lesafety/article3966
743.ece
Oh and Turtlebay, when the Police stopped Lorries in Hants recently - how many HGVs and Lorries did they find that were knowingly being driven with dangerous defects or altered tachographs? 60% plus http://www.thetimes. co.uk/tto/public/cyc lesafety/article3966 743.ece downfader
  • Score: 3

11:21am Sun 16 Mar 14

K5054 says...

Sunday cyclists out today in Bournemouth on main roads. Sunny days, No rain in sight inspires them to venture out on dangerous roads among 4x4 dirvers who dressed in their large armoured suits think they are invincible.
.
Bike riding, bare meat, on 100psi racing tyres. Once they get up to max speeds they seem very reluctant to apply the brakes which they avoid like the plague.

The results, High speeds on roundabouts and corners if at all possible just like boy car racers! Small visual l profiles can suddenly appear out of nowhere at high speeds. its sheer madness mixing the two - both are accidents just waiting to happen.
Sunday cyclists out today in Bournemouth on main roads. Sunny days, No rain in sight inspires them to venture out on dangerous roads among 4x4 dirvers who dressed in their large armoured suits think they are invincible. . Bike riding, bare meat, on 100psi racing tyres. Once they get up to max speeds they seem very reluctant to apply the brakes which they avoid like the plague. The results, High speeds on roundabouts and corners if at all possible just like boy car racers! Small visual l profiles can suddenly appear out of nowhere at high speeds. its sheer madness mixing the two - both are accidents just waiting to happen. K5054
  • Score: -4

11:25am Sun 16 Mar 14

downfader says...

K5054 wrote:
Sunday cyclists out today in Bournemouth on main roads. Sunny days, No rain in sight inspires them to venture out on dangerous roads among 4x4 dirvers who dressed in their large armoured suits think they are invincible.
.
Bike riding, bare meat, on 100psi racing tyres. Once they get up to max speeds they seem very reluctant to apply the brakes which they avoid like the plague.

The results, High speeds on roundabouts and corners if at all possible just like boy car racers! Small visual l profiles can suddenly appear out of nowhere at high speeds. its sheer madness mixing the two - both are accidents just waiting to happen.
I think you need your eyesight checked if you cant spot a person on a bike. Do you have the same problem spotting people on zebra crossings?
[quote][p][bold]K5054[/bold] wrote: Sunday cyclists out today in Bournemouth on main roads. Sunny days, No rain in sight inspires them to venture out on dangerous roads among 4x4 dirvers who dressed in their large armoured suits think they are invincible. . Bike riding, bare meat, on 100psi racing tyres. Once they get up to max speeds they seem very reluctant to apply the brakes which they avoid like the plague. The results, High speeds on roundabouts and corners if at all possible just like boy car racers! Small visual l profiles can suddenly appear out of nowhere at high speeds. its sheer madness mixing the two - both are accidents just waiting to happen.[/p][/quote]I think you need your eyesight checked if you cant spot a person on a bike. Do you have the same problem spotting people on zebra crossings? downfader
  • Score: 3

11:51am Sun 16 Mar 14

Drhysted says...

Remember

Never let the facts get in the way of opinion!
Remember Never let the facts get in the way of opinion! Drhysted
  • Score: 0

12:13pm Sun 16 Mar 14

K5054 says...

i thought i would check the life expectancy for Holland with all their cycling and yes it is better than the UK by 2.5 years. Does this relate to cycling? who knows!

but it is strange how countires like to portray their life expectancy

if you google life expectancy in the UK they will show the UK to have the best record of 80 years having carefully selected two coutries with worse records.

Germany and the USA..

so I suppose you will get the same with bike records...a load of nonsense..

.
i thought i would check the life expectancy for Holland with all their cycling and yes it is better than the UK by 2.5 years. Does this relate to cycling? who knows! but it is strange how countires like to portray their life expectancy if you google life expectancy in the UK they will show the UK to have the best record of 80 years having carefully selected two coutries with worse records. Germany and the USA.. so I suppose you will get the same with bike records...a load of nonsense.. . K5054
  • Score: 1

12:17pm Sun 16 Mar 14

K5054 says...

downfader wrote:
K5054 wrote:
Sunday cyclists out today in Bournemouth on main roads. Sunny days, No rain in sight inspires them to venture out on dangerous roads among 4x4 dirvers who dressed in their large armoured suits think they are invincible.
.
Bike riding, bare meat, on 100psi racing tyres. Once they get up to max speeds they seem very reluctant to apply the brakes which they avoid like the plague.

The results, High speeds on roundabouts and corners if at all possible just like boy car racers! Small visual l profiles can suddenly appear out of nowhere at high speeds. its sheer madness mixing the two - both are accidents just waiting to happen.
I think you need your eyesight checked if you cant spot a person on a bike. Do you have the same problem spotting people on zebra crossings?
you wont see a bike rider along Barrack road ..I think they must all be wearing Stealth suits.
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]K5054[/bold] wrote: Sunday cyclists out today in Bournemouth on main roads. Sunny days, No rain in sight inspires them to venture out on dangerous roads among 4x4 dirvers who dressed in their large armoured suits think they are invincible. . Bike riding, bare meat, on 100psi racing tyres. Once they get up to max speeds they seem very reluctant to apply the brakes which they avoid like the plague. The results, High speeds on roundabouts and corners if at all possible just like boy car racers! Small visual l profiles can suddenly appear out of nowhere at high speeds. its sheer madness mixing the two - both are accidents just waiting to happen.[/p][/quote]I think you need your eyesight checked if you cant spot a person on a bike. Do you have the same problem spotting people on zebra crossings?[/p][/quote]you wont see a bike rider along Barrack road ..I think they must all be wearing Stealth suits. K5054
  • Score: 0

1:02pm Sun 16 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

K5054 wrote:
Sunday cyclists out today in Bournemouth on main roads. Sunny days, No rain in sight inspires them to venture out on dangerous roads among 4x4 dirvers who dressed in their large armoured suits think they are invincible.
.
Bike riding, bare meat, on 100psi racing tyres. Once they get up to max speeds they seem very reluctant to apply the brakes which they avoid like the plague.

The results, High speeds on roundabouts and corners if at all possible just like boy car racers! Small visual l profiles can suddenly appear out of nowhere at high speeds. its sheer madness mixing the two - both are accidents just waiting to happen.
Both are also road vehicles, so it makes sense that they share the roads.
[quote][p][bold]K5054[/bold] wrote: Sunday cyclists out today in Bournemouth on main roads. Sunny days, No rain in sight inspires them to venture out on dangerous roads among 4x4 dirvers who dressed in their large armoured suits think they are invincible. . Bike riding, bare meat, on 100psi racing tyres. Once they get up to max speeds they seem very reluctant to apply the brakes which they avoid like the plague. The results, High speeds on roundabouts and corners if at all possible just like boy car racers! Small visual l profiles can suddenly appear out of nowhere at high speeds. its sheer madness mixing the two - both are accidents just waiting to happen.[/p][/quote]Both are also road vehicles, so it makes sense that they share the roads. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

2:46pm Sun 16 Mar 14

Inform Al says...

I ride a bike on the rare occasions that I forget my aversion to excercise, but I would not accompany the idiot I saw cycling in the middle of Winchester Road a couple of days ago holding up the traffic, when there is a very wide cycle lane there.
I ride a bike on the rare occasions that I forget my aversion to excercise, but I would not accompany the idiot I saw cycling in the middle of Winchester Road a couple of days ago holding up the traffic, when there is a very wide cycle lane there. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

4:11pm Sun 16 Mar 14

Mary80 says...

*Bangs head into wall*

How many more times ROAD TAX DOES NOT EXIST and hasn't done since 1937 for crist sake. Some people should spend less time on the DE letters section and more time reading the highway code
*Bangs head into wall* How many more times ROAD TAX DOES NOT EXIST and hasn't done since 1937 for crist sake. Some people should spend less time on the DE letters section and more time reading the highway code Mary80
  • Score: 2

5:02pm Sun 16 Mar 14

downfader says...

Inform Al wrote:
I ride a bike on the rare occasions that I forget my aversion to excercise, but I would not accompany the idiot I saw cycling in the middle of Winchester Road a couple of days ago holding up the traffic, when there is a very wide cycle lane there.
Ahh Winchester road. Last time I rode up there I couldnt actually get in the cycle lane due to all the parked cars. Grrr....

Question - was the rider heading downhill? Eg towards the Range/Halfords before the roundabout? I've been able to do a good 35mph there, yet you'll still get passed by drivers.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: I ride a bike on the rare occasions that I forget my aversion to excercise, but I would not accompany the idiot I saw cycling in the middle of Winchester Road a couple of days ago holding up the traffic, when there is a very wide cycle lane there.[/p][/quote]Ahh Winchester road. Last time I rode up there I couldnt actually get in the cycle lane due to all the parked cars. Grrr.... Question - was the rider heading downhill? Eg towards the Range/Halfords before the roundabout? I've been able to do a good 35mph there, yet you'll still get passed by drivers. downfader
  • Score: -2

5:14pm Sun 16 Mar 14

Inform Al says...

downfader wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
I ride a bike on the rare occasions that I forget my aversion to excercise, but I would not accompany the idiot I saw cycling in the middle of Winchester Road a couple of days ago holding up the traffic, when there is a very wide cycle lane there.
Ahh Winchester road. Last time I rode up there I couldnt actually get in the cycle lane due to all the parked cars. Grrr....

Question - was the rider heading downhill? Eg towards the Range/Halfords before the roundabout? I've been able to do a good 35mph there, yet you'll still get passed by drivers.
No, he was going uphill, the cycle lane was clear and he was doing about 20 mph. He appeared to be one of the lycra clad brigade that thinks he owns the road. Most cyclists have more sense.
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: I ride a bike on the rare occasions that I forget my aversion to excercise, but I would not accompany the idiot I saw cycling in the middle of Winchester Road a couple of days ago holding up the traffic, when there is a very wide cycle lane there.[/p][/quote]Ahh Winchester road. Last time I rode up there I couldnt actually get in the cycle lane due to all the parked cars. Grrr.... Question - was the rider heading downhill? Eg towards the Range/Halfords before the roundabout? I've been able to do a good 35mph there, yet you'll still get passed by drivers.[/p][/quote]No, he was going uphill, the cycle lane was clear and he was doing about 20 mph. He appeared to be one of the lycra clad brigade that thinks he owns the road. Most cyclists have more sense. Inform Al
  • Score: 1

5:24pm Sun 16 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Inform Al wrote:
downfader wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
I ride a bike on the rare occasions that I forget my aversion to excercise, but I would not accompany the idiot I saw cycling in the middle of Winchester Road a couple of days ago holding up the traffic, when there is a very wide cycle lane there.
Ahh Winchester road. Last time I rode up there I couldnt actually get in the cycle lane due to all the parked cars. Grrr....

Question - was the rider heading downhill? Eg towards the Range/Halfords before the roundabout? I've been able to do a good 35mph there, yet you'll still get passed by drivers.
No, he was going uphill, the cycle lane was clear and he was doing about 20 mph. He appeared to be one of the lycra clad brigade that thinks he owns the road. Most cyclists have more sense.
20mph is still pretty fast for a cyclist going uphill and is faster than an electric milk float, so what's the problem? The fact that he was ascerting his LEGAL RIGHT to use the full lane?
Did you know that the government tells you to avoid cycle paths and lanes if you can cycle faster than 18mph? It's also recommended AND taught as best ractice in cycle training, to ride well away from the curb, by at LEAST 1 meter and it's taught as best practice to take the lane when coming up to junctions, traffic lights, roundabouts, level crossings, pinch points, on multi-lane roads and on narrow roads.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: I ride a bike on the rare occasions that I forget my aversion to excercise, but I would not accompany the idiot I saw cycling in the middle of Winchester Road a couple of days ago holding up the traffic, when there is a very wide cycle lane there.[/p][/quote]Ahh Winchester road. Last time I rode up there I couldnt actually get in the cycle lane due to all the parked cars. Grrr.... Question - was the rider heading downhill? Eg towards the Range/Halfords before the roundabout? I've been able to do a good 35mph there, yet you'll still get passed by drivers.[/p][/quote]No, he was going uphill, the cycle lane was clear and he was doing about 20 mph. He appeared to be one of the lycra clad brigade that thinks he owns the road. Most cyclists have more sense.[/p][/quote]20mph is still pretty fast for a cyclist going uphill and is faster than an electric milk float, so what's the problem? The fact that he was ascerting his LEGAL RIGHT to use the full lane? Did you know that the government tells you to avoid cycle paths and lanes if you can cycle faster than 18mph? It's also recommended AND taught as best ractice in cycle training, to ride well away from the curb, by at LEAST 1 meter and it's taught as best practice to take the lane when coming up to junctions, traffic lights, roundabouts, level crossings, pinch points, on multi-lane roads and on narrow roads. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

7:08pm Sun 16 Mar 14

downfader says...

Inform Al wrote:
downfader wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
I ride a bike on the rare occasions that I forget my aversion to excercise, but I would not accompany the idiot I saw cycling in the middle of Winchester Road a couple of days ago holding up the traffic, when there is a very wide cycle lane there.
Ahh Winchester road. Last time I rode up there I couldnt actually get in the cycle lane due to all the parked cars. Grrr....

Question - was the rider heading downhill? Eg towards the Range/Halfords before the roundabout? I've been able to do a good 35mph there, yet you'll still get passed by drivers.
No, he was going uphill, the cycle lane was clear and he was doing about 20 mph. He appeared to be one of the lycra clad brigade that thinks he owns the road. Most cyclists have more sense.
How do you know he thinks he owns the road? Has he just passed parked cars (that are pretty much always there when I pass the place)? Was there something else in the cycle lane? Was he approaching a junction? (Called visibility management sometimes)

I could go on. 20mph is a reasonable speed. Cyclecraft advises to move towards the flow of traffic at such speeds. As does Effective Traffic Riding from the British Cycling instruction team.

http://www.britishcy
cling.org.uk/commuti
ng/article/trav20111
121-Effective-Traffi
c-Riding-home0
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: I ride a bike on the rare occasions that I forget my aversion to excercise, but I would not accompany the idiot I saw cycling in the middle of Winchester Road a couple of days ago holding up the traffic, when there is a very wide cycle lane there.[/p][/quote]Ahh Winchester road. Last time I rode up there I couldnt actually get in the cycle lane due to all the parked cars. Grrr.... Question - was the rider heading downhill? Eg towards the Range/Halfords before the roundabout? I've been able to do a good 35mph there, yet you'll still get passed by drivers.[/p][/quote]No, he was going uphill, the cycle lane was clear and he was doing about 20 mph. He appeared to be one of the lycra clad brigade that thinks he owns the road. Most cyclists have more sense.[/p][/quote]How do you know he thinks he owns the road? Has he just passed parked cars (that are pretty much always there when I pass the place)? Was there something else in the cycle lane? Was he approaching a junction? (Called visibility management sometimes) I could go on. 20mph is a reasonable speed. Cyclecraft advises to move towards the flow of traffic at such speeds. As does Effective Traffic Riding from the British Cycling instruction team. http://www.britishcy cling.org.uk/commuti ng/article/trav20111 121-Effective-Traffi c-Riding-home0 downfader
  • Score: -2

11:53pm Sun 16 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Turtlebay wrote:
As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves.

Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter!
Here here!
[quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves. Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter![/p][/quote]Here here! Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -1

11:58pm Sun 16 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Turtlebay wrote:
As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves.

Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter!
Here here!
Shall we do the same with motorists?
Oh wait...
WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves. Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter![/p][/quote]Here here![/p][/quote]Shall we do the same with motorists? Oh wait... WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 1

12:15am Mon 17 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Turtlebay wrote:
As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves.

Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter!
Here here!
Shall we do the same with motorists?
Oh wait...
WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort.
Doesn't count Ginge,even car drivers have to have CBT,and pass a test within 2 years (or start again) to ride a motor bike.
All Turtle bay is saying,is that in the interest of their own safety(and that of other road users for that matter) so should cyclists.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves. Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter![/p][/quote]Here here![/p][/quote]Shall we do the same with motorists? Oh wait... WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort.[/p][/quote]Doesn't count Ginge,even car drivers have to have CBT,and pass a test within 2 years (or start again) to ride a motor bike. All Turtle bay is saying,is that in the interest of their own safety(and that of other road users for that matter) so should cyclists. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 2

12:53am Mon 17 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Turtlebay wrote:
As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves.

Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter!
Here here!
Shall we do the same with motorists?
Oh wait...
WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort.
Doesn't count Ginge,even car drivers have to have CBT,and pass a test within 2 years (or start again) to ride a motor bike.
All Turtle bay is saying,is that in the interest of their own safety(and that of other road users for that matter) so should cyclists.
Why? A cyclist is FAR less dangerous than a car or even a motorcycle, plus,they're mechanically(or electrically if electric motors alone power them to anything above 15mph) propelled vehicles, electric bicycles aren't included in licencing as they're usually electrically ASSISTED, those that can be propelled to more than 15mph by the motor alone(without the assistance of gravity), aren't normally road legal unless registered and is type approved, like there's an electric mountain bike capable of 50+mph on the motor, though it is able to be switched between road legal mode where you have to pedal along and competition mode where the motor works on it's own to throw you to 50mph, it also has regen braking.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves. Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter![/p][/quote]Here here![/p][/quote]Shall we do the same with motorists? Oh wait... WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort.[/p][/quote]Doesn't count Ginge,even car drivers have to have CBT,and pass a test within 2 years (or start again) to ride a motor bike. All Turtle bay is saying,is that in the interest of their own safety(and that of other road users for that matter) so should cyclists.[/p][/quote]Why? A cyclist is FAR less dangerous than a car or even a motorcycle, plus,they're mechanically(or electrically if electric motors alone power them to anything above 15mph) propelled vehicles, electric bicycles aren't included in licencing as they're usually electrically ASSISTED, those that can be propelled to more than 15mph by the motor alone(without the assistance of gravity), aren't normally road legal unless registered and is type approved, like there's an electric mountain bike capable of 50+mph on the motor, though it is able to be switched between road legal mode where you have to pedal along and competition mode where the motor works on it's own to throw you to 50mph, it also has regen braking. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

1:02am Mon 17 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Turtlebay wrote:
As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves.

Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter!
Here here!
Shall we do the same with motorists?
Oh wait...
WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort.
Doesn't count Ginge,even car drivers have to have CBT,and pass a test within 2 years (or start again) to ride a motor bike.
All Turtle bay is saying,is that in the interest of their own safety(and that of other road users for that matter) so should cyclists.
Why? A cyclist is FAR less dangerous than a car or even a motorcycle, plus,they're mechanically(or electrically if electric motors alone power them to anything above 15mph) propelled vehicles, electric bicycles aren't included in licencing as they're usually electrically ASSISTED, those that can be propelled to more than 15mph by the motor alone(without the assistance of gravity), aren't normally road legal unless registered and is type approved, like there's an electric mountain bike capable of 50+mph on the motor, though it is able to be switched between road legal mode where you have to pedal along and competition mode where the motor works on it's own to throw you to 50mph, it also has regen braking.
So you're saying that there are no circumstances on this earth,that an untrained, untested person,in charge of a bicycle could ever be responsible for a situation,that would result in death or serious injury,to either themselves,or other road users or pedestrians?
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves. Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter![/p][/quote]Here here![/p][/quote]Shall we do the same with motorists? Oh wait... WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort.[/p][/quote]Doesn't count Ginge,even car drivers have to have CBT,and pass a test within 2 years (or start again) to ride a motor bike. All Turtle bay is saying,is that in the interest of their own safety(and that of other road users for that matter) so should cyclists.[/p][/quote]Why? A cyclist is FAR less dangerous than a car or even a motorcycle, plus,they're mechanically(or electrically if electric motors alone power them to anything above 15mph) propelled vehicles, electric bicycles aren't included in licencing as they're usually electrically ASSISTED, those that can be propelled to more than 15mph by the motor alone(without the assistance of gravity), aren't normally road legal unless registered and is type approved, like there's an electric mountain bike capable of 50+mph on the motor, though it is able to be switched between road legal mode where you have to pedal along and competition mode where the motor works on it's own to throw you to 50mph, it also has regen braking.[/p][/quote]So you're saying that there are no circumstances on this earth,that an untrained, untested person,in charge of a bicycle could ever be responsible for a situation,that would result in death or serious injury,to either themselves,or other road users or pedestrians? Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 0

1:04am Mon 17 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Turtlebay wrote:
As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves.

Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter!
Here here!
Shall we do the same with motorists?
Oh wait...
WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort.
Doesn't count Ginge,even car drivers have to have CBT,and pass a test within 2 years (or start again) to ride a motor bike.
All Turtle bay is saying,is that in the interest of their own safety(and that of other road users for that matter) so should cyclists.
Why? A cyclist is FAR less dangerous than a car or even a motorcycle, plus,they're mechanically(or electrically if electric motors alone power them to anything above 15mph) propelled vehicles, electric bicycles aren't included in licencing as they're usually electrically ASSISTED, those that can be propelled to more than 15mph by the motor alone(without the assistance of gravity), aren't normally road legal unless registered and is type approved, like there's an electric mountain bike capable of 50+mph on the motor, though it is able to be switched between road legal mode where you have to pedal along and competition mode where the motor works on it's own to throw you to 50mph, it also has regen braking.
So you're saying that there are no circumstances on this earth,that an untrained, untested person,in charge of a bicycle could ever be responsible for a situation,that would result in death or serious injury,to either themselves,or other road users or pedestrians?
I never said that now did I? I just said we're far less likely to cause death or injury, not the same as saying it doesn't happen, because I know it does but very rarely.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves. Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter![/p][/quote]Here here![/p][/quote]Shall we do the same with motorists? Oh wait... WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort.[/p][/quote]Doesn't count Ginge,even car drivers have to have CBT,and pass a test within 2 years (or start again) to ride a motor bike. All Turtle bay is saying,is that in the interest of their own safety(and that of other road users for that matter) so should cyclists.[/p][/quote]Why? A cyclist is FAR less dangerous than a car or even a motorcycle, plus,they're mechanically(or electrically if electric motors alone power them to anything above 15mph) propelled vehicles, electric bicycles aren't included in licencing as they're usually electrically ASSISTED, those that can be propelled to more than 15mph by the motor alone(without the assistance of gravity), aren't normally road legal unless registered and is type approved, like there's an electric mountain bike capable of 50+mph on the motor, though it is able to be switched between road legal mode where you have to pedal along and competition mode where the motor works on it's own to throw you to 50mph, it also has regen braking.[/p][/quote]So you're saying that there are no circumstances on this earth,that an untrained, untested person,in charge of a bicycle could ever be responsible for a situation,that would result in death or serious injury,to either themselves,or other road users or pedestrians?[/p][/quote]I never said that now did I? I just said we're far less likely to cause death or injury, not the same as saying it doesn't happen, because I know it does but very rarely. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -1

8:22am Mon 17 Mar 14

bigfella777 says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Turtlebay wrote:
As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves.

Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter!
Here here!
Shall we do the same with motorists?
Oh wait...
WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort.
Doesn't count Ginge,even car drivers have to have CBT,and pass a test within 2 years (or start again) to ride a motor bike.
All Turtle bay is saying,is that in the interest of their own safety(and that of other road users for that matter) so should cyclists.
In 2012 not including cyclists the figures for death and injury's caused by motor vehicles Uk was as follows
Killed- 1,754
Seriously injured-23,039
Slight injury-170,930
Total -193,969

200,000 people injured or dead! And you think it's cyclists who need more training? What a joke.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves. Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter![/p][/quote]Here here![/p][/quote]Shall we do the same with motorists? Oh wait... WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort.[/p][/quote]Doesn't count Ginge,even car drivers have to have CBT,and pass a test within 2 years (or start again) to ride a motor bike. All Turtle bay is saying,is that in the interest of their own safety(and that of other road users for that matter) so should cyclists.[/p][/quote]In 2012 not including cyclists the figures for death and injury's caused by motor vehicles Uk was as follows Killed- 1,754 Seriously injured-23,039 Slight injury-170,930 Total -193,969 200,000 people injured or dead! And you think it's cyclists who need more training? What a joke. bigfella777
  • Score: 0

9:25am Mon 17 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

bigfella777 wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Turtlebay wrote:
As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves.

Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter!
Here here!
Shall we do the same with motorists?
Oh wait...
WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort.
Doesn't count Ginge,even car drivers have to have CBT,and pass a test within 2 years (or start again) to ride a motor bike.
All Turtle bay is saying,is that in the interest of their own safety(and that of other road users for that matter) so should cyclists.
In 2012 not including cyclists the figures for death and injury's caused by motor vehicles Uk was as follows
Killed- 1,754
Seriously injured-23,039
Slight injury-170,930
Total -193,969

200,000 people injured or dead! And you think it's cyclists who need more training? What a joke.
We all know about road casualty figures,its undoubtedly a national disgrace,I agree.
Turtlebay's point was that there is a potential for the risk of death and injury,brought about by the fact there is currently a class of vehicle on the road,that is at present completely untrained,or untested,regardless of the fact that there are some amongst its fraternity (as Ginger cyclist has pointed out) that may hold other forms of documentation related to other modes of transport.
Turtlebay made a perfectly valid,and more to the point,true,observati
on,with which I agree..others may not,but that doesn't make it any less a fact.
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves. Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter![/p][/quote]Here here![/p][/quote]Shall we do the same with motorists? Oh wait... WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort.[/p][/quote]Doesn't count Ginge,even car drivers have to have CBT,and pass a test within 2 years (or start again) to ride a motor bike. All Turtle bay is saying,is that in the interest of their own safety(and that of other road users for that matter) so should cyclists.[/p][/quote]In 2012 not including cyclists the figures for death and injury's caused by motor vehicles Uk was as follows Killed- 1,754 Seriously injured-23,039 Slight injury-170,930 Total -193,969 200,000 people injured or dead! And you think it's cyclists who need more training? What a joke.[/p][/quote]We all know about road casualty figures,its undoubtedly a national disgrace,I agree. Turtlebay's point was that there is a potential for the risk of death and injury,brought about by the fact there is currently a class of vehicle on the road,that is at present completely untrained,or untested,regardless of the fact that there are some amongst its fraternity (as Ginger cyclist has pointed out) that may hold other forms of documentation related to other modes of transport. Turtlebay made a perfectly valid,and more to the point,true,observati on,with which I agree..others may not,but that doesn't make it any less a fact. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 0

9:25am Mon 17 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

bigfella777 wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Turtlebay wrote:
As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves.

Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter!
Here here!
Shall we do the same with motorists?
Oh wait...
WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort.
Doesn't count Ginge,even car drivers have to have CBT,and pass a test within 2 years (or start again) to ride a motor bike.
All Turtle bay is saying,is that in the interest of their own safety(and that of other road users for that matter) so should cyclists.
In 2012 not including cyclists the figures for death and injury's caused by motor vehicles Uk was as follows
Killed- 1,754
Seriously injured-23,039
Slight injury-170,930
Total -193,969

200,000 people injured or dead! And you think it's cyclists who need more training? What a joke.
We all know about road casualty figures,its undoubtedly a national disgrace,I agree.
Turtlebay's point was that there is a potential for the risk of death and injury,brought about by the fact there is currently a class of vehicle on the road,that is at present completely untrained,or untested,regardless of the fact that there are some amongst its fraternity (as Ginger cyclist has pointed out) that may hold other forms of documentation related to other modes of transport.
Turtlebay made a perfectly valid,and more to the point,true,observati
on,with which I agree..others may not,but that doesn't make it any less a fact.
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves. Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter![/p][/quote]Here here![/p][/quote]Shall we do the same with motorists? Oh wait... WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort.[/p][/quote]Doesn't count Ginge,even car drivers have to have CBT,and pass a test within 2 years (or start again) to ride a motor bike. All Turtle bay is saying,is that in the interest of their own safety(and that of other road users for that matter) so should cyclists.[/p][/quote]In 2012 not including cyclists the figures for death and injury's caused by motor vehicles Uk was as follows Killed- 1,754 Seriously injured-23,039 Slight injury-170,930 Total -193,969 200,000 people injured or dead! And you think it's cyclists who need more training? What a joke.[/p][/quote]We all know about road casualty figures,its undoubtedly a national disgrace,I agree. Turtlebay's point was that there is a potential for the risk of death and injury,brought about by the fact there is currently a class of vehicle on the road,that is at present completely untrained,or untested,regardless of the fact that there are some amongst its fraternity (as Ginger cyclist has pointed out) that may hold other forms of documentation related to other modes of transport. Turtlebay made a perfectly valid,and more to the point,true,observati on,with which I agree..others may not,but that doesn't make it any less a fact. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -1

11:58am Mon 17 Mar 14

camerajuan says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Turtlebay wrote:
As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves.

Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter!
Here here!
Shall we do the same with motorists?
Oh wait...
WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort.
Doesn't count Ginge,even car drivers have to have CBT,and pass a test within 2 years (or start again) to ride a motor bike.
All Turtle bay is saying,is that in the interest of their own safety(and that of other road users for that matter) so should cyclists.
Why? A cyclist is FAR less dangerous than a car or even a motorcycle, plus,they're mechanically(or electrically if electric motors alone power them to anything above 15mph) propelled vehicles, electric bicycles aren't included in licencing as they're usually electrically ASSISTED, those that can be propelled to more than 15mph by the motor alone(without the assistance of gravity), aren't normally road legal unless registered and is type approved, like there's an electric mountain bike capable of 50+mph on the motor, though it is able to be switched between road legal mode where you have to pedal along and competition mode where the motor works on it's own to throw you to 50mph, it also has regen braking.
So you're saying that there are no circumstances on this earth,that an untrained, untested person,in charge of a bicycle could ever be responsible for a situation,that would result in death or serious injury,to either themselves,or other road users or pedestrians?
Nobody is claiming this could never happen. The likelihood of it happening however, is minute compared to motor accidents - irrespective of user ratios - yet somehow cyclists are dubbed menaces.

They're not menaces. Statistical evidence proves it.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves. Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter![/p][/quote]Here here![/p][/quote]Shall we do the same with motorists? Oh wait... WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort.[/p][/quote]Doesn't count Ginge,even car drivers have to have CBT,and pass a test within 2 years (or start again) to ride a motor bike. All Turtle bay is saying,is that in the interest of their own safety(and that of other road users for that matter) so should cyclists.[/p][/quote]Why? A cyclist is FAR less dangerous than a car or even a motorcycle, plus,they're mechanically(or electrically if electric motors alone power them to anything above 15mph) propelled vehicles, electric bicycles aren't included in licencing as they're usually electrically ASSISTED, those that can be propelled to more than 15mph by the motor alone(without the assistance of gravity), aren't normally road legal unless registered and is type approved, like there's an electric mountain bike capable of 50+mph on the motor, though it is able to be switched between road legal mode where you have to pedal along and competition mode where the motor works on it's own to throw you to 50mph, it also has regen braking.[/p][/quote]So you're saying that there are no circumstances on this earth,that an untrained, untested person,in charge of a bicycle could ever be responsible for a situation,that would result in death or serious injury,to either themselves,or other road users or pedestrians?[/p][/quote]Nobody is claiming this could never happen. The likelihood of it happening however, is minute compared to motor accidents - irrespective of user ratios - yet somehow cyclists are dubbed menaces. They're not menaces. Statistical evidence proves it. camerajuan
  • Score: 2

1:06pm Mon 17 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Turtlebay wrote:
As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves.

Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter!
Here here!
Shall we do the same with motorists?
Oh wait...
WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort.
Doesn't count Ginge,even car drivers have to have CBT,and pass a test within 2 years (or start again) to ride a motor bike.
All Turtle bay is saying,is that in the interest of their own safety(and that of other road users for that matter) so should cyclists.
Why? A cyclist is FAR less dangerous than a car or even a motorcycle, plus,they're mechanically(or electrically if electric motors alone power them to anything above 15mph) propelled vehicles, electric bicycles aren't included in licencing as they're usually electrically ASSISTED, those that can be propelled to more than 15mph by the motor alone(without the assistance of gravity), aren't normally road legal unless registered and is type approved, like there's an electric mountain bike capable of 50+mph on the motor, though it is able to be switched between road legal mode where you have to pedal along and competition mode where the motor works on it's own to throw you to 50mph, it also has regen braking.
So you're saying that there are no circumstances on this earth,that an untrained, untested person,in charge of a bicycle could ever be responsible for a situation,that would result in death or serious injury,to either themselves,or other road users or pedestrians?
Nobody is claiming this could never happen. The likelihood of it happening however, is minute compared to motor accidents - irrespective of user ratios - yet somehow cyclists are dubbed menaces.

They're not menaces. Statistical evidence proves it.
Where is anyone saying cyclists are a menace?
All Turtlebay was trying to point out,is that some cyclists are by default,a danger to themselves due their currently legally permissible untrained and untested state.
At the very least,a CBT certificate should be a minimum requirement,even if only for riders who are unable to produce any other form of road craft qualification documents.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves. Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter![/p][/quote]Here here![/p][/quote]Shall we do the same with motorists? Oh wait... WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort.[/p][/quote]Doesn't count Ginge,even car drivers have to have CBT,and pass a test within 2 years (or start again) to ride a motor bike. All Turtle bay is saying,is that in the interest of their own safety(and that of other road users for that matter) so should cyclists.[/p][/quote]Why? A cyclist is FAR less dangerous than a car or even a motorcycle, plus,they're mechanically(or electrically if electric motors alone power them to anything above 15mph) propelled vehicles, electric bicycles aren't included in licencing as they're usually electrically ASSISTED, those that can be propelled to more than 15mph by the motor alone(without the assistance of gravity), aren't normally road legal unless registered and is type approved, like there's an electric mountain bike capable of 50+mph on the motor, though it is able to be switched between road legal mode where you have to pedal along and competition mode where the motor works on it's own to throw you to 50mph, it also has regen braking.[/p][/quote]So you're saying that there are no circumstances on this earth,that an untrained, untested person,in charge of a bicycle could ever be responsible for a situation,that would result in death or serious injury,to either themselves,or other road users or pedestrians?[/p][/quote]Nobody is claiming this could never happen. The likelihood of it happening however, is minute compared to motor accidents - irrespective of user ratios - yet somehow cyclists are dubbed menaces. They're not menaces. Statistical evidence proves it.[/p][/quote]Where is anyone saying cyclists are a menace? All Turtlebay was trying to point out,is that some cyclists are by default,a danger to themselves due their currently legally permissible untrained and untested state. At the very least,a CBT certificate should be a minimum requirement,even if only for riders who are unable to produce any other form of road craft qualification documents. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -4

1:43pm Mon 17 Mar 14

camerajuan says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Turtlebay wrote:
As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves.

Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter!
Here here!
Shall we do the same with motorists?
Oh wait...
WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort.
Doesn't count Ginge,even car drivers have to have CBT,and pass a test within 2 years (or start again) to ride a motor bike.
All Turtle bay is saying,is that in the interest of their own safety(and that of other road users for that matter) so should cyclists.
Why? A cyclist is FAR less dangerous than a car or even a motorcycle, plus,they're mechanically(or electrically if electric motors alone power them to anything above 15mph) propelled vehicles, electric bicycles aren't included in licencing as they're usually electrically ASSISTED, those that can be propelled to more than 15mph by the motor alone(without the assistance of gravity), aren't normally road legal unless registered and is type approved, like there's an electric mountain bike capable of 50+mph on the motor, though it is able to be switched between road legal mode where you have to pedal along and competition mode where the motor works on it's own to throw you to 50mph, it also has regen braking.
So you're saying that there are no circumstances on this earth,that an untrained, untested person,in charge of a bicycle could ever be responsible for a situation,that would result in death or serious injury,to either themselves,or other road users or pedestrians?
Nobody is claiming this could never happen. The likelihood of it happening however, is minute compared to motor accidents - irrespective of user ratios - yet somehow cyclists are dubbed menaces.

They're not menaces. Statistical evidence proves it.
Where is anyone saying cyclists are a menace?
All Turtlebay was trying to point out,is that some cyclists are by default,a danger to themselves due their currently legally permissible untrained and untested state.
At the very least,a CBT certificate should be a minimum requirement,even if only for riders who are unable to produce any other form of road craft qualification documents.
Legally?!?! What are you on about?!?!

CBT for cycliing?! Doesn't exist and no amount of bleating will cause there to be one.

And as for nobody branding cyclists menaces, don't be so naive. You're not new to this forum.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves. Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter![/p][/quote]Here here![/p][/quote]Shall we do the same with motorists? Oh wait... WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort.[/p][/quote]Doesn't count Ginge,even car drivers have to have CBT,and pass a test within 2 years (or start again) to ride a motor bike. All Turtle bay is saying,is that in the interest of their own safety(and that of other road users for that matter) so should cyclists.[/p][/quote]Why? A cyclist is FAR less dangerous than a car or even a motorcycle, plus,they're mechanically(or electrically if electric motors alone power them to anything above 15mph) propelled vehicles, electric bicycles aren't included in licencing as they're usually electrically ASSISTED, those that can be propelled to more than 15mph by the motor alone(without the assistance of gravity), aren't normally road legal unless registered and is type approved, like there's an electric mountain bike capable of 50+mph on the motor, though it is able to be switched between road legal mode where you have to pedal along and competition mode where the motor works on it's own to throw you to 50mph, it also has regen braking.[/p][/quote]So you're saying that there are no circumstances on this earth,that an untrained, untested person,in charge of a bicycle could ever be responsible for a situation,that would result in death or serious injury,to either themselves,or other road users or pedestrians?[/p][/quote]Nobody is claiming this could never happen. The likelihood of it happening however, is minute compared to motor accidents - irrespective of user ratios - yet somehow cyclists are dubbed menaces. They're not menaces. Statistical evidence proves it.[/p][/quote]Where is anyone saying cyclists are a menace? All Turtlebay was trying to point out,is that some cyclists are by default,a danger to themselves due their currently legally permissible untrained and untested state. At the very least,a CBT certificate should be a minimum requirement,even if only for riders who are unable to produce any other form of road craft qualification documents.[/p][/quote]Legally?!?! What are you on about?!?! CBT for cycliing?! Doesn't exist and no amount of bleating will cause there to be one. And as for nobody branding cyclists menaces, don't be so naive. You're not new to this forum. camerajuan
  • Score: 2

1:59pm Mon 17 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Turtlebay wrote:
As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves.

Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter!
Here here!
Shall we do the same with motorists?
Oh wait...
WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort.
Doesn't count Ginge,even car drivers have to have CBT,and pass a test within 2 years (or start again) to ride a motor bike.
All Turtle bay is saying,is that in the interest of their own safety(and that of other road users for that matter) so should cyclists.
Why? A cyclist is FAR less dangerous than a car or even a motorcycle, plus,they're mechanically(or electrically if electric motors alone power them to anything above 15mph) propelled vehicles, electric bicycles aren't included in licencing as they're usually electrically ASSISTED, those that can be propelled to more than 15mph by the motor alone(without the assistance of gravity), aren't normally road legal unless registered and is type approved, like there's an electric mountain bike capable of 50+mph on the motor, though it is able to be switched between road legal mode where you have to pedal along and competition mode where the motor works on it's own to throw you to 50mph, it also has regen braking.
So you're saying that there are no circumstances on this earth,that an untrained, untested person,in charge of a bicycle could ever be responsible for a situation,that would result in death or serious injury,to either themselves,or other road users or pedestrians?
Nobody is claiming this could never happen. The likelihood of it happening however, is minute compared to motor accidents - irrespective of user ratios - yet somehow cyclists are dubbed menaces.

They're not menaces. Statistical evidence proves it.
Where is anyone saying cyclists are a menace?
All Turtlebay was trying to point out,is that some cyclists are by default,a danger to themselves due their currently legally permissible untrained and untested state.
At the very least,a CBT certificate should be a minimum requirement,even if only for riders who are unable to produce any other form of road craft qualification documents.
Legally?!?! What are you on about?!?!

CBT for cycliing?! Doesn't exist and no amount of bleating will cause there to be one.

And as for nobody branding cyclists menaces, don't be so naive. You're not new to this forum.
Legally,anyone can jump on a bike without any training or testing whatsoever.
A CBT for cycling doesn't exist.. exactly my point CJ,glad you agree.
Can't ever recall having suggested that cyclists are a menace,although the fact that some people do,suggests that they have personal experience, and justification for their reasoning,and as I said before,Turtlebay was only suggesting that some cyclists were a menace to themselves (and by default to others)as a result of the lack of training or testing.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves. Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter![/p][/quote]Here here![/p][/quote]Shall we do the same with motorists? Oh wait... WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort.[/p][/quote]Doesn't count Ginge,even car drivers have to have CBT,and pass a test within 2 years (or start again) to ride a motor bike. All Turtle bay is saying,is that in the interest of their own safety(and that of other road users for that matter) so should cyclists.[/p][/quote]Why? A cyclist is FAR less dangerous than a car or even a motorcycle, plus,they're mechanically(or electrically if electric motors alone power them to anything above 15mph) propelled vehicles, electric bicycles aren't included in licencing as they're usually electrically ASSISTED, those that can be propelled to more than 15mph by the motor alone(without the assistance of gravity), aren't normally road legal unless registered and is type approved, like there's an electric mountain bike capable of 50+mph on the motor, though it is able to be switched between road legal mode where you have to pedal along and competition mode where the motor works on it's own to throw you to 50mph, it also has regen braking.[/p][/quote]So you're saying that there are no circumstances on this earth,that an untrained, untested person,in charge of a bicycle could ever be responsible for a situation,that would result in death or serious injury,to either themselves,or other road users or pedestrians?[/p][/quote]Nobody is claiming this could never happen. The likelihood of it happening however, is minute compared to motor accidents - irrespective of user ratios - yet somehow cyclists are dubbed menaces. They're not menaces. Statistical evidence proves it.[/p][/quote]Where is anyone saying cyclists are a menace? All Turtlebay was trying to point out,is that some cyclists are by default,a danger to themselves due their currently legally permissible untrained and untested state. At the very least,a CBT certificate should be a minimum requirement,even if only for riders who are unable to produce any other form of road craft qualification documents.[/p][/quote]Legally?!?! What are you on about?!?! CBT for cycliing?! Doesn't exist and no amount of bleating will cause there to be one. And as for nobody branding cyclists menaces, don't be so naive. You're not new to this forum.[/p][/quote]Legally,anyone can jump on a bike without any training or testing whatsoever. A CBT for cycling doesn't exist.. exactly my point CJ,glad you agree. Can't ever recall having suggested that cyclists are a menace,although the fact that some people do,suggests that they have personal experience, and justification for their reasoning,and as I said before,Turtlebay was only suggesting that some cyclists were a menace to themselves (and by default to others)as a result of the lack of training or testing. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -1

3:29pm Mon 17 Mar 14

Inform Al says...

downfader wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
downfader wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
I ride a bike on the rare occasions that I forget my aversion to excercise, but I would not accompany the idiot I saw cycling in the middle of Winchester Road a couple of days ago holding up the traffic, when there is a very wide cycle lane there.
Ahh Winchester road. Last time I rode up there I couldnt actually get in the cycle lane due to all the parked cars. Grrr....

Question - was the rider heading downhill? Eg towards the Range/Halfords before the roundabout? I've been able to do a good 35mph there, yet you'll still get passed by drivers.
No, he was going uphill, the cycle lane was clear and he was doing about 20 mph. He appeared to be one of the lycra clad brigade that thinks he owns the road. Most cyclists have more sense.
How do you know he thinks he owns the road? Has he just passed parked cars (that are pretty much always there when I pass the place)? Was there something else in the cycle lane? Was he approaching a junction? (Called visibility management sometimes)

I could go on. 20mph is a reasonable speed. Cyclecraft advises to move towards the flow of traffic at such speeds. As does Effective Traffic Riding from the British Cycling instruction team.

http://www.britishcy

cling.org.uk/commuti

ng/article/trav20111

121-Effective-Traffi

c-Riding-home0
There were no parked cars on that side of the road, if there was a reasonable reason for him being in the middle of the road I would have said so, as I neither condemn of give excuses without knowing all the facts. Cycling at about 20mph deliberately holding up traffic that is able and allowed to do 30 mph is totally pig ignorant. Most cyclists with more than one brain cell will agree with this.
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: I ride a bike on the rare occasions that I forget my aversion to excercise, but I would not accompany the idiot I saw cycling in the middle of Winchester Road a couple of days ago holding up the traffic, when there is a very wide cycle lane there.[/p][/quote]Ahh Winchester road. Last time I rode up there I couldnt actually get in the cycle lane due to all the parked cars. Grrr.... Question - was the rider heading downhill? Eg towards the Range/Halfords before the roundabout? I've been able to do a good 35mph there, yet you'll still get passed by drivers.[/p][/quote]No, he was going uphill, the cycle lane was clear and he was doing about 20 mph. He appeared to be one of the lycra clad brigade that thinks he owns the road. Most cyclists have more sense.[/p][/quote]How do you know he thinks he owns the road? Has he just passed parked cars (that are pretty much always there when I pass the place)? Was there something else in the cycle lane? Was he approaching a junction? (Called visibility management sometimes) I could go on. 20mph is a reasonable speed. Cyclecraft advises to move towards the flow of traffic at such speeds. As does Effective Traffic Riding from the British Cycling instruction team. http://www.britishcy cling.org.uk/commuti ng/article/trav20111 121-Effective-Traffi c-Riding-home0[/p][/quote]There were no parked cars on that side of the road, if there was a reasonable reason for him being in the middle of the road I would have said so, as I neither condemn of give excuses without knowing all the facts. Cycling at about 20mph deliberately holding up traffic that is able and allowed to do 30 mph is totally pig ignorant. Most cyclists with more than one brain cell will agree with this. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

5:42pm Mon 17 Mar 14

camerajuan says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Turtlebay wrote:
As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves.

Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter!
Here here!
Shall we do the same with motorists?
Oh wait...
WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort.
Doesn't count Ginge,even car drivers have to have CBT,and pass a test within 2 years (or start again) to ride a motor bike.
All Turtle bay is saying,is that in the interest of their own safety(and that of other road users for that matter) so should cyclists.
Why? A cyclist is FAR less dangerous than a car or even a motorcycle, plus,they're mechanically(or electrically if electric motors alone power them to anything above 15mph) propelled vehicles, electric bicycles aren't included in licencing as they're usually electrically ASSISTED, those that can be propelled to more than 15mph by the motor alone(without the assistance of gravity), aren't normally road legal unless registered and is type approved, like there's an electric mountain bike capable of 50+mph on the motor, though it is able to be switched between road legal mode where you have to pedal along and competition mode where the motor works on it's own to throw you to 50mph, it also has regen braking.
So you're saying that there are no circumstances on this earth,that an untrained, untested person,in charge of a bicycle could ever be responsible for a situation,that would result in death or serious injury,to either themselves,or other road users or pedestrians?
Nobody is claiming this could never happen. The likelihood of it happening however, is minute compared to motor accidents - irrespective of user ratios - yet somehow cyclists are dubbed menaces.

They're not menaces. Statistical evidence proves it.
Where is anyone saying cyclists are a menace?
All Turtlebay was trying to point out,is that some cyclists are by default,a danger to themselves due their currently legally permissible untrained and untested state.
At the very least,a CBT certificate should be a minimum requirement,even if only for riders who are unable to produce any other form of road craft qualification documents.
Legally?!?! What are you on about?!?!

CBT for cycliing?! Doesn't exist and no amount of bleating will cause there to be one.

And as for nobody branding cyclists menaces, don't be so naive. You're not new to this forum.
Legally,anyone can jump on a bike without any training or testing whatsoever.
A CBT for cycling doesn't exist.. exactly my point CJ,glad you agree.
Can't ever recall having suggested that cyclists are a menace,although the fact that some people do,suggests that they have personal experience, and justification for their reasoning,and as I said before,Turtlebay was only suggesting that some cyclists were a menace to themselves (and by default to others)as a result of the lack of training or testing.
"Legally,anyone can jump on a bike without any training or testing whatsoever" - Yes, they can. There are no formal mandatory tests required. You would be shattering the Christmas's of millions of kids by incorporating one. Not to mention the financial implications involved to set up such a scheme. Waste of time and money and will make more people miserable.

"A CBT for cycling doesn't exist.. exactly my point CJ,glad you agree." - No there's not. We agree there well done. Not sure what you were hoping to achieve but we do agree.

"Can't ever recall having suggested that cyclists are a menace,although the fact that some people do,suggests that they have personal experience, and justification for their reasoning,and as I said before,Turtlebay was only suggesting that some cyclists were a menace to themselves (and by default to others)as a result of the lack of training or testing." - You may not have, but many people have and continue to do so. Because they once saw one jump a red light or had to swerve to get past one or some other ridiculous reason to hate an entire group of people. I don't hate all Germans because of Hitler or all North Koreans because of Kim Jong-Il or all TOTP presenters because of Sir Jimmy. There is training available however due to the minuscule risk to other road users caused by cyclists, there is no legal requirement to be tested. Therefore, give it a rest and realise that cycling is a permanent, legal, healthy and safe mode of transport. When that changes, and cycling becomes taxable, unsafe, dangerous and unhealthy, I will throw my hands up and stop preaching.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves. Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter![/p][/quote]Here here![/p][/quote]Shall we do the same with motorists? Oh wait... WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort.[/p][/quote]Doesn't count Ginge,even car drivers have to have CBT,and pass a test within 2 years (or start again) to ride a motor bike. All Turtle bay is saying,is that in the interest of their own safety(and that of other road users for that matter) so should cyclists.[/p][/quote]Why? A cyclist is FAR less dangerous than a car or even a motorcycle, plus,they're mechanically(or electrically if electric motors alone power them to anything above 15mph) propelled vehicles, electric bicycles aren't included in licencing as they're usually electrically ASSISTED, those that can be propelled to more than 15mph by the motor alone(without the assistance of gravity), aren't normally road legal unless registered and is type approved, like there's an electric mountain bike capable of 50+mph on the motor, though it is able to be switched between road legal mode where you have to pedal along and competition mode where the motor works on it's own to throw you to 50mph, it also has regen braking.[/p][/quote]So you're saying that there are no circumstances on this earth,that an untrained, untested person,in charge of a bicycle could ever be responsible for a situation,that would result in death or serious injury,to either themselves,or other road users or pedestrians?[/p][/quote]Nobody is claiming this could never happen. The likelihood of it happening however, is minute compared to motor accidents - irrespective of user ratios - yet somehow cyclists are dubbed menaces. They're not menaces. Statistical evidence proves it.[/p][/quote]Where is anyone saying cyclists are a menace? All Turtlebay was trying to point out,is that some cyclists are by default,a danger to themselves due their currently legally permissible untrained and untested state. At the very least,a CBT certificate should be a minimum requirement,even if only for riders who are unable to produce any other form of road craft qualification documents.[/p][/quote]Legally?!?! What are you on about?!?! CBT for cycliing?! Doesn't exist and no amount of bleating will cause there to be one. And as for nobody branding cyclists menaces, don't be so naive. You're not new to this forum.[/p][/quote]Legally,anyone can jump on a bike without any training or testing whatsoever. A CBT for cycling doesn't exist.. exactly my point CJ,glad you agree. Can't ever recall having suggested that cyclists are a menace,although the fact that some people do,suggests that they have personal experience, and justification for their reasoning,and as I said before,Turtlebay was only suggesting that some cyclists were a menace to themselves (and by default to others)as a result of the lack of training or testing.[/p][/quote]"Legally,anyone can jump on a bike without any training or testing whatsoever" - Yes, they can. There are no formal mandatory tests required. You would be shattering the Christmas's of millions of kids by incorporating one. Not to mention the financial implications involved to set up such a scheme. Waste of time and money and will make more people miserable. "A CBT for cycling doesn't exist.. exactly my point CJ,glad you agree." - No there's not. We agree there well done. Not sure what you were hoping to achieve but we do agree. "Can't ever recall having suggested that cyclists are a menace,although the fact that some people do,suggests that they have personal experience, and justification for their reasoning,and as I said before,Turtlebay was only suggesting that some cyclists were a menace to themselves (and by default to others)as a result of the lack of training or testing." - You may not have, but many people have and continue to do so. Because they once saw one jump a red light or had to swerve to get past one or some other ridiculous reason to hate an entire group of people. I don't hate all Germans because of Hitler or all North Koreans because of Kim Jong-Il or all TOTP presenters because of Sir Jimmy. There is training available however due to the minuscule risk to other road users caused by cyclists, there is no legal requirement to be tested. Therefore, give it a rest and realise that cycling is a permanent, legal, healthy and safe mode of transport. When that changes, and cycling becomes taxable, unsafe, dangerous and unhealthy, I will throw my hands up and stop preaching. camerajuan
  • Score: 1

6:16pm Mon 17 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Turtlebay wrote:
As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves.

Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter!
Here here!
Shall we do the same with motorists?
Oh wait...
WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort.
Doesn't count Ginge,even car drivers have to have CBT,and pass a test within 2 years (or start again) to ride a motor bike.
All Turtle bay is saying,is that in the interest of their own safety(and that of other road users for that matter) so should cyclists.
Why? A cyclist is FAR less dangerous than a car or even a motorcycle, plus,they're mechanically(or electrically if electric motors alone power them to anything above 15mph) propelled vehicles, electric bicycles aren't included in licencing as they're usually electrically ASSISTED, those that can be propelled to more than 15mph by the motor alone(without the assistance of gravity), aren't normally road legal unless registered and is type approved, like there's an electric mountain bike capable of 50+mph on the motor, though it is able to be switched between road legal mode where you have to pedal along and competition mode where the motor works on it's own to throw you to 50mph, it also has regen braking.
So you're saying that there are no circumstances on this earth,that an untrained, untested person,in charge of a bicycle could ever be responsible for a situation,that would result in death or serious injury,to either themselves,or other road users or pedestrians?
Nobody is claiming this could never happen. The likelihood of it happening however, is minute compared to motor accidents - irrespective of user ratios - yet somehow cyclists are dubbed menaces.

They're not menaces. Statistical evidence proves it.
Where is anyone saying cyclists are a menace?
All Turtlebay was trying to point out,is that some cyclists are by default,a danger to themselves due their currently legally permissible untrained and untested state.
At the very least,a CBT certificate should be a minimum requirement,even if only for riders who are unable to produce any other form of road craft qualification documents.
Legally?!?! What are you on about?!?!

CBT for cycliing?! Doesn't exist and no amount of bleating will cause there to be one.

And as for nobody branding cyclists menaces, don't be so naive. You're not new to this forum.
Legally,anyone can jump on a bike without any training or testing whatsoever.
A CBT for cycling doesn't exist.. exactly my point CJ,glad you agree.
Can't ever recall having suggested that cyclists are a menace,although the fact that some people do,suggests that they have personal experience, and justification for their reasoning,and as I said before,Turtlebay was only suggesting that some cyclists were a menace to themselves (and by default to others)as a result of the lack of training or testing.
"Legally,anyone can jump on a bike without any training or testing whatsoever" - Yes, they can. There are no formal mandatory tests required. You would be shattering the Christmas's of millions of kids by incorporating one. Not to mention the financial implications involved to set up such a scheme. Waste of time and money and will make more people miserable.

"A CBT for cycling doesn't exist.. exactly my point CJ,glad you agree." - No there's not. We agree there well done. Not sure what you were hoping to achieve but we do agree.

"Can't ever recall having suggested that cyclists are a menace,although the fact that some people do,suggests that they have personal experience, and justification for their reasoning,and as I said before,Turtlebay was only suggesting that some cyclists were a menace to themselves (and by default to others)as a result of the lack of training or testing." - You may not have, but many people have and continue to do so. Because they once saw one jump a red light or had to swerve to get past one or some other ridiculous reason to hate an entire group of people. I don't hate all Germans because of Hitler or all North Koreans because of Kim Jong-Il or all TOTP presenters because of Sir Jimmy. There is training available however due to the minuscule risk to other road users caused by cyclists, there is no legal requirement to be tested. Therefore, give it a rest and realise that cycling is a permanent, legal, healthy and safe mode of transport. When that changes, and cycling becomes taxable, unsafe, dangerous and unhealthy, I will throw my hands up and stop preaching.
Well I think you'll find CJ,that the whole point of these threads,is to make considered comment,which is all Turtlebay was doing,so there's no reason why either of us should have to"give it a rest" least of all at your instruction,and especially in the light of your admission to preaching.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves. Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter![/p][/quote]Here here![/p][/quote]Shall we do the same with motorists? Oh wait... WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort.[/p][/quote]Doesn't count Ginge,even car drivers have to have CBT,and pass a test within 2 years (or start again) to ride a motor bike. All Turtle bay is saying,is that in the interest of their own safety(and that of other road users for that matter) so should cyclists.[/p][/quote]Why? A cyclist is FAR less dangerous than a car or even a motorcycle, plus,they're mechanically(or electrically if electric motors alone power them to anything above 15mph) propelled vehicles, electric bicycles aren't included in licencing as they're usually electrically ASSISTED, those that can be propelled to more than 15mph by the motor alone(without the assistance of gravity), aren't normally road legal unless registered and is type approved, like there's an electric mountain bike capable of 50+mph on the motor, though it is able to be switched between road legal mode where you have to pedal along and competition mode where the motor works on it's own to throw you to 50mph, it also has regen braking.[/p][/quote]So you're saying that there are no circumstances on this earth,that an untrained, untested person,in charge of a bicycle could ever be responsible for a situation,that would result in death or serious injury,to either themselves,or other road users or pedestrians?[/p][/quote]Nobody is claiming this could never happen. The likelihood of it happening however, is minute compared to motor accidents - irrespective of user ratios - yet somehow cyclists are dubbed menaces. They're not menaces. Statistical evidence proves it.[/p][/quote]Where is anyone saying cyclists are a menace? All Turtlebay was trying to point out,is that some cyclists are by default,a danger to themselves due their currently legally permissible untrained and untested state. At the very least,a CBT certificate should be a minimum requirement,even if only for riders who are unable to produce any other form of road craft qualification documents.[/p][/quote]Legally?!?! What are you on about?!?! CBT for cycliing?! Doesn't exist and no amount of bleating will cause there to be one. And as for nobody branding cyclists menaces, don't be so naive. You're not new to this forum.[/p][/quote]Legally,anyone can jump on a bike without any training or testing whatsoever. A CBT for cycling doesn't exist.. exactly my point CJ,glad you agree. Can't ever recall having suggested that cyclists are a menace,although the fact that some people do,suggests that they have personal experience, and justification for their reasoning,and as I said before,Turtlebay was only suggesting that some cyclists were a menace to themselves (and by default to others)as a result of the lack of training or testing.[/p][/quote]"Legally,anyone can jump on a bike without any training or testing whatsoever" - Yes, they can. There are no formal mandatory tests required. You would be shattering the Christmas's of millions of kids by incorporating one. Not to mention the financial implications involved to set up such a scheme. Waste of time and money and will make more people miserable. "A CBT for cycling doesn't exist.. exactly my point CJ,glad you agree." - No there's not. We agree there well done. Not sure what you were hoping to achieve but we do agree. "Can't ever recall having suggested that cyclists are a menace,although the fact that some people do,suggests that they have personal experience, and justification for their reasoning,and as I said before,Turtlebay was only suggesting that some cyclists were a menace to themselves (and by default to others)as a result of the lack of training or testing." - You may not have, but many people have and continue to do so. Because they once saw one jump a red light or had to swerve to get past one or some other ridiculous reason to hate an entire group of people. I don't hate all Germans because of Hitler or all North Koreans because of Kim Jong-Il or all TOTP presenters because of Sir Jimmy. There is training available however due to the minuscule risk to other road users caused by cyclists, there is no legal requirement to be tested. Therefore, give it a rest and realise that cycling is a permanent, legal, healthy and safe mode of transport. When that changes, and cycling becomes taxable, unsafe, dangerous and unhealthy, I will throw my hands up and stop preaching.[/p][/quote]Well I think you'll find CJ,that the whole point of these threads,is to make considered comment,which is all Turtlebay was doing,so there's no reason why either of us should have to"give it a rest" least of all at your instruction,and especially in the light of your admission to preaching. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -1

10:45pm Mon 17 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Turtlebay wrote:
As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves.

Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter!
Here here!
Shall we do the same with motorists?
Oh wait...
WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort.
Doesn't count Ginge,even car drivers have to have CBT,and pass a test within 2 years (or start again) to ride a motor bike.
All Turtle bay is saying,is that in the interest of their own safety(and that of other road users for that matter) so should cyclists.
Why? A cyclist is FAR less dangerous than a car or even a motorcycle, plus,they're mechanically(or electrically if electric motors alone power them to anything above 15mph) propelled vehicles, electric bicycles aren't included in licencing as they're usually electrically ASSISTED, those that can be propelled to more than 15mph by the motor alone(without the assistance of gravity), aren't normally road legal unless registered and is type approved, like there's an electric mountain bike capable of 50+mph on the motor, though it is able to be switched between road legal mode where you have to pedal along and competition mode where the motor works on it's own to throw you to 50mph, it also has regen braking.
So you're saying that there are no circumstances on this earth,that an untrained, untested person,in charge of a bicycle could ever be responsible for a situation,that would result in death or serious injury,to either themselves,or other road users or pedestrians?
Nobody is claiming this could never happen. The likelihood of it happening however, is minute compared to motor accidents - irrespective of user ratios - yet somehow cyclists are dubbed menaces.

They're not menaces. Statistical evidence proves it.
Where is anyone saying cyclists are a menace?
All Turtlebay was trying to point out,is that some cyclists are by default,a danger to themselves due their currently legally permissible untrained and untested state.
At the very least,a CBT certificate should be a minimum requirement,even if only for riders who are unable to produce any other form of road craft qualification documents.
Legally?!?! What are you on about?!?!

CBT for cycliing?! Doesn't exist and no amount of bleating will cause there to be one.

And as for nobody branding cyclists menaces, don't be so naive. You're not new to this forum.
Legally,anyone can jump on a bike without any training or testing whatsoever.
A CBT for cycling doesn't exist.. exactly my point CJ,glad you agree.
Can't ever recall having suggested that cyclists are a menace,although the fact that some people do,suggests that they have personal experience, and justification for their reasoning,and as I said before,Turtlebay was only suggesting that some cyclists were a menace to themselves (and by default to others)as a result of the lack of training or testing.
"Legally,anyone can jump on a bike without any training or testing whatsoever" - Yes, they can. There are no formal mandatory tests required. You would be shattering the Christmas's of millions of kids by incorporating one. Not to mention the financial implications involved to set up such a scheme. Waste of time and money and will make more people miserable.

"A CBT for cycling doesn't exist.. exactly my point CJ,glad you agree." - No there's not. We agree there well done. Not sure what you were hoping to achieve but we do agree.

"Can't ever recall having suggested that cyclists are a menace,although the fact that some people do,suggests that they have personal experience, and justification for their reasoning,and as I said before,Turtlebay was only suggesting that some cyclists were a menace to themselves (and by default to others)as a result of the lack of training or testing." - You may not have, but many people have and continue to do so. Because they once saw one jump a red light or had to swerve to get past one or some other ridiculous reason to hate an entire group of people. I don't hate all Germans because of Hitler or all North Koreans because of Kim Jong-Il or all TOTP presenters because of Sir Jimmy. There is training available however due to the minuscule risk to other road users caused by cyclists, there is no legal requirement to be tested. Therefore, give it a rest and realise that cycling is a permanent, legal, healthy and safe mode of transport. When that changes, and cycling becomes taxable, unsafe, dangerous and unhealthy, I will throw my hands up and stop preaching.
Well I think you'll find CJ,that the whole point of these threads,is to make considered comment,which is all Turtlebay was doing,so there's no reason why either of us should have to"give it a rest" least of all at your instruction,and especially in the light of your admission to preaching.
Coming through the new junction at the Itchen bridge at about 19:15, yclist in front of me in the cycle lane waiting at the lights, they change and then a taxi almost hits them while turning left and the cyclist was going straight on AND in the process, cut across in front of me at the same time, me and the other cyclist also had lights on, does the cabbie's incompetence mean me and the other cyclist shouldn't have been on the road without a licence for our bikes or should the cabby be retested as they were at fault?
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves. Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter![/p][/quote]Here here![/p][/quote]Shall we do the same with motorists? Oh wait... WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort.[/p][/quote]Doesn't count Ginge,even car drivers have to have CBT,and pass a test within 2 years (or start again) to ride a motor bike. All Turtle bay is saying,is that in the interest of their own safety(and that of other road users for that matter) so should cyclists.[/p][/quote]Why? A cyclist is FAR less dangerous than a car or even a motorcycle, plus,they're mechanically(or electrically if electric motors alone power them to anything above 15mph) propelled vehicles, electric bicycles aren't included in licencing as they're usually electrically ASSISTED, those that can be propelled to more than 15mph by the motor alone(without the assistance of gravity), aren't normally road legal unless registered and is type approved, like there's an electric mountain bike capable of 50+mph on the motor, though it is able to be switched between road legal mode where you have to pedal along and competition mode where the motor works on it's own to throw you to 50mph, it also has regen braking.[/p][/quote]So you're saying that there are no circumstances on this earth,that an untrained, untested person,in charge of a bicycle could ever be responsible for a situation,that would result in death or serious injury,to either themselves,or other road users or pedestrians?[/p][/quote]Nobody is claiming this could never happen. The likelihood of it happening however, is minute compared to motor accidents - irrespective of user ratios - yet somehow cyclists are dubbed menaces. They're not menaces. Statistical evidence proves it.[/p][/quote]Where is anyone saying cyclists are a menace? All Turtlebay was trying to point out,is that some cyclists are by default,a danger to themselves due their currently legally permissible untrained and untested state. At the very least,a CBT certificate should be a minimum requirement,even if only for riders who are unable to produce any other form of road craft qualification documents.[/p][/quote]Legally?!?! What are you on about?!?! CBT for cycliing?! Doesn't exist and no amount of bleating will cause there to be one. And as for nobody branding cyclists menaces, don't be so naive. You're not new to this forum.[/p][/quote]Legally,anyone can jump on a bike without any training or testing whatsoever. A CBT for cycling doesn't exist.. exactly my point CJ,glad you agree. Can't ever recall having suggested that cyclists are a menace,although the fact that some people do,suggests that they have personal experience, and justification for their reasoning,and as I said before,Turtlebay was only suggesting that some cyclists were a menace to themselves (and by default to others)as a result of the lack of training or testing.[/p][/quote]"Legally,anyone can jump on a bike without any training or testing whatsoever" - Yes, they can. There are no formal mandatory tests required. You would be shattering the Christmas's of millions of kids by incorporating one. Not to mention the financial implications involved to set up such a scheme. Waste of time and money and will make more people miserable. "A CBT for cycling doesn't exist.. exactly my point CJ,glad you agree." - No there's not. We agree there well done. Not sure what you were hoping to achieve but we do agree. "Can't ever recall having suggested that cyclists are a menace,although the fact that some people do,suggests that they have personal experience, and justification for their reasoning,and as I said before,Turtlebay was only suggesting that some cyclists were a menace to themselves (and by default to others)as a result of the lack of training or testing." - You may not have, but many people have and continue to do so. Because they once saw one jump a red light or had to swerve to get past one or some other ridiculous reason to hate an entire group of people. I don't hate all Germans because of Hitler or all North Koreans because of Kim Jong-Il or all TOTP presenters because of Sir Jimmy. There is training available however due to the minuscule risk to other road users caused by cyclists, there is no legal requirement to be tested. Therefore, give it a rest and realise that cycling is a permanent, legal, healthy and safe mode of transport. When that changes, and cycling becomes taxable, unsafe, dangerous and unhealthy, I will throw my hands up and stop preaching.[/p][/quote]Well I think you'll find CJ,that the whole point of these threads,is to make considered comment,which is all Turtlebay was doing,so there's no reason why either of us should have to"give it a rest" least of all at your instruction,and especially in the light of your admission to preaching.[/p][/quote]Coming through the new junction at the Itchen bridge at about 19:15, yclist in front of me in the cycle lane waiting at the lights, they change and then a taxi almost hits them while turning left and the cyclist was going straight on AND in the process, cut across in front of me at the same time, me and the other cyclist also had lights on, does the cabbie's incompetence mean me and the other cyclist shouldn't have been on the road without a licence for our bikes or should the cabby be retested as they were at fault? Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -2

1:06am Tue 18 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Turtlebay wrote:
As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves.

Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter!
Here here!
Shall we do the same with motorists?
Oh wait...
WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort.
Doesn't count Ginge,even car drivers have to have CBT,and pass a test within 2 years (or start again) to ride a motor bike.
All Turtle bay is saying,is that in the interest of their own safety(and that of other road users for that matter) so should cyclists.
Why? A cyclist is FAR less dangerous than a car or even a motorcycle, plus,they're mechanically(or electrically if electric motors alone power them to anything above 15mph) propelled vehicles, electric bicycles aren't included in licencing as they're usually electrically ASSISTED, those that can be propelled to more than 15mph by the motor alone(without the assistance of gravity), aren't normally road legal unless registered and is type approved, like there's an electric mountain bike capable of 50+mph on the motor, though it is able to be switched between road legal mode where you have to pedal along and competition mode where the motor works on it's own to throw you to 50mph, it also has regen braking.
So you're saying that there are no circumstances on this earth,that an untrained, untested person,in charge of a bicycle could ever be responsible for a situation,that would result in death or serious injury,to either themselves,or other road users or pedestrians?
Nobody is claiming this could never happen. The likelihood of it happening however, is minute compared to motor accidents - irrespective of user ratios - yet somehow cyclists are dubbed menaces.

They're not menaces. Statistical evidence proves it.
Where is anyone saying cyclists are a menace?
All Turtlebay was trying to point out,is that some cyclists are by default,a danger to themselves due their currently legally permissible untrained and untested state.
At the very least,a CBT certificate should be a minimum requirement,even if only for riders who are unable to produce any other form of road craft qualification documents.
Legally?!?! What are you on about?!?!

CBT for cycliing?! Doesn't exist and no amount of bleating will cause there to be one.

And as for nobody branding cyclists menaces, don't be so naive. You're not new to this forum.
Legally,anyone can jump on a bike without any training or testing whatsoever.
A CBT for cycling doesn't exist.. exactly my point CJ,glad you agree.
Can't ever recall having suggested that cyclists are a menace,although the fact that some people do,suggests that they have personal experience, and justification for their reasoning,and as I said before,Turtlebay was only suggesting that some cyclists were a menace to themselves (and by default to others)as a result of the lack of training or testing.
"Legally,anyone can jump on a bike without any training or testing whatsoever" - Yes, they can. There are no formal mandatory tests required. You would be shattering the Christmas's of millions of kids by incorporating one. Not to mention the financial implications involved to set up such a scheme. Waste of time and money and will make more people miserable.

"A CBT for cycling doesn't exist.. exactly my point CJ,glad you agree." - No there's not. We agree there well done. Not sure what you were hoping to achieve but we do agree.

"Can't ever recall having suggested that cyclists are a menace,although the fact that some people do,suggests that they have personal experience, and justification for their reasoning,and as I said before,Turtlebay was only suggesting that some cyclists were a menace to themselves (and by default to others)as a result of the lack of training or testing." - You may not have, but many people have and continue to do so. Because they once saw one jump a red light or had to swerve to get past one or some other ridiculous reason to hate an entire group of people. I don't hate all Germans because of Hitler or all North Koreans because of Kim Jong-Il or all TOTP presenters because of Sir Jimmy. There is training available however due to the minuscule risk to other road users caused by cyclists, there is no legal requirement to be tested. Therefore, give it a rest and realise that cycling is a permanent, legal, healthy and safe mode of transport. When that changes, and cycling becomes taxable, unsafe, dangerous and unhealthy, I will throw my hands up and stop preaching.
Well I think you'll find CJ,that the whole point of these threads,is to make considered comment,which is all Turtlebay was doing,so there's no reason why either of us should have to"give it a rest" least of all at your instruction,and especially in the light of your admission to preaching.
Coming through the new junction at the Itchen bridge at about 19:15, yclist in front of me in the cycle lane waiting at the lights, they change and then a taxi almost hits them while turning left and the cyclist was going straight on AND in the process, cut across in front of me at the same time, me and the other cyclist also had lights on, does the cabbie's incompetence mean me and the other cyclist shouldn't have been on the road without a licence for our bikes or should the cabby be retested as they were at fault?
You've lost me Ginge,I should take it to citizens advice if I were you.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves. Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter![/p][/quote]Here here![/p][/quote]Shall we do the same with motorists? Oh wait... WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort.[/p][/quote]Doesn't count Ginge,even car drivers have to have CBT,and pass a test within 2 years (or start again) to ride a motor bike. All Turtle bay is saying,is that in the interest of their own safety(and that of other road users for that matter) so should cyclists.[/p][/quote]Why? A cyclist is FAR less dangerous than a car or even a motorcycle, plus,they're mechanically(or electrically if electric motors alone power them to anything above 15mph) propelled vehicles, electric bicycles aren't included in licencing as they're usually electrically ASSISTED, those that can be propelled to more than 15mph by the motor alone(without the assistance of gravity), aren't normally road legal unless registered and is type approved, like there's an electric mountain bike capable of 50+mph on the motor, though it is able to be switched between road legal mode where you have to pedal along and competition mode where the motor works on it's own to throw you to 50mph, it also has regen braking.[/p][/quote]So you're saying that there are no circumstances on this earth,that an untrained, untested person,in charge of a bicycle could ever be responsible for a situation,that would result in death or serious injury,to either themselves,or other road users or pedestrians?[/p][/quote]Nobody is claiming this could never happen. The likelihood of it happening however, is minute compared to motor accidents - irrespective of user ratios - yet somehow cyclists are dubbed menaces. They're not menaces. Statistical evidence proves it.[/p][/quote]Where is anyone saying cyclists are a menace? All Turtlebay was trying to point out,is that some cyclists are by default,a danger to themselves due their currently legally permissible untrained and untested state. At the very least,a CBT certificate should be a minimum requirement,even if only for riders who are unable to produce any other form of road craft qualification documents.[/p][/quote]Legally?!?! What are you on about?!?! CBT for cycliing?! Doesn't exist and no amount of bleating will cause there to be one. And as for nobody branding cyclists menaces, don't be so naive. You're not new to this forum.[/p][/quote]Legally,anyone can jump on a bike without any training or testing whatsoever. A CBT for cycling doesn't exist.. exactly my point CJ,glad you agree. Can't ever recall having suggested that cyclists are a menace,although the fact that some people do,suggests that they have personal experience, and justification for their reasoning,and as I said before,Turtlebay was only suggesting that some cyclists were a menace to themselves (and by default to others)as a result of the lack of training or testing.[/p][/quote]"Legally,anyone can jump on a bike without any training or testing whatsoever" - Yes, they can. There are no formal mandatory tests required. You would be shattering the Christmas's of millions of kids by incorporating one. Not to mention the financial implications involved to set up such a scheme. Waste of time and money and will make more people miserable. "A CBT for cycling doesn't exist.. exactly my point CJ,glad you agree." - No there's not. We agree there well done. Not sure what you were hoping to achieve but we do agree. "Can't ever recall having suggested that cyclists are a menace,although the fact that some people do,suggests that they have personal experience, and justification for their reasoning,and as I said before,Turtlebay was only suggesting that some cyclists were a menace to themselves (and by default to others)as a result of the lack of training or testing." - You may not have, but many people have and continue to do so. Because they once saw one jump a red light or had to swerve to get past one or some other ridiculous reason to hate an entire group of people. I don't hate all Germans because of Hitler or all North Koreans because of Kim Jong-Il or all TOTP presenters because of Sir Jimmy. There is training available however due to the minuscule risk to other road users caused by cyclists, there is no legal requirement to be tested. Therefore, give it a rest and realise that cycling is a permanent, legal, healthy and safe mode of transport. When that changes, and cycling becomes taxable, unsafe, dangerous and unhealthy, I will throw my hands up and stop preaching.[/p][/quote]Well I think you'll find CJ,that the whole point of these threads,is to make considered comment,which is all Turtlebay was doing,so there's no reason why either of us should have to"give it a rest" least of all at your instruction,and especially in the light of your admission to preaching.[/p][/quote]Coming through the new junction at the Itchen bridge at about 19:15, yclist in front of me in the cycle lane waiting at the lights, they change and then a taxi almost hits them while turning left and the cyclist was going straight on AND in the process, cut across in front of me at the same time, me and the other cyclist also had lights on, does the cabbie's incompetence mean me and the other cyclist shouldn't have been on the road without a licence for our bikes or should the cabby be retested as they were at fault?[/p][/quote]You've lost me Ginge,I should take it to citizens advice if I were you. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -3

10:24am Tue 18 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Turtlebay wrote:
As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves.

Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter!
Here here!
Shall we do the same with motorists?
Oh wait...
WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort.
Doesn't count Ginge,even car drivers have to have CBT,and pass a test within 2 years (or start again) to ride a motor bike.
All Turtle bay is saying,is that in the interest of their own safety(and that of other road users for that matter) so should cyclists.
Why? A cyclist is FAR less dangerous than a car or even a motorcycle, plus,they're mechanically(or electrically if electric motors alone power them to anything above 15mph) propelled vehicles, electric bicycles aren't included in licencing as they're usually electrically ASSISTED, those that can be propelled to more than 15mph by the motor alone(without the assistance of gravity), aren't normally road legal unless registered and is type approved, like there's an electric mountain bike capable of 50+mph on the motor, though it is able to be switched between road legal mode where you have to pedal along and competition mode where the motor works on it's own to throw you to 50mph, it also has regen braking.
So you're saying that there are no circumstances on this earth,that an untrained, untested person,in charge of a bicycle could ever be responsible for a situation,that would result in death or serious injury,to either themselves,or other road users or pedestrians?
Nobody is claiming this could never happen. The likelihood of it happening however, is minute compared to motor accidents - irrespective of user ratios - yet somehow cyclists are dubbed menaces.

They're not menaces. Statistical evidence proves it.
Where is anyone saying cyclists are a menace?
All Turtlebay was trying to point out,is that some cyclists are by default,a danger to themselves due their currently legally permissible untrained and untested state.
At the very least,a CBT certificate should be a minimum requirement,even if only for riders who are unable to produce any other form of road craft qualification documents.
Legally?!?! What are you on about?!?!

CBT for cycliing?! Doesn't exist and no amount of bleating will cause there to be one.

And as for nobody branding cyclists menaces, don't be so naive. You're not new to this forum.
Legally,anyone can jump on a bike without any training or testing whatsoever.
A CBT for cycling doesn't exist.. exactly my point CJ,glad you agree.
Can't ever recall having suggested that cyclists are a menace,although the fact that some people do,suggests that they have personal experience, and justification for their reasoning,and as I said before,Turtlebay was only suggesting that some cyclists were a menace to themselves (and by default to others)as a result of the lack of training or testing.
"Legally,anyone can jump on a bike without any training or testing whatsoever" - Yes, they can. There are no formal mandatory tests required. You would be shattering the Christmas's of millions of kids by incorporating one. Not to mention the financial implications involved to set up such a scheme. Waste of time and money and will make more people miserable.

"A CBT for cycling doesn't exist.. exactly my point CJ,glad you agree." - No there's not. We agree there well done. Not sure what you were hoping to achieve but we do agree.

"Can't ever recall having suggested that cyclists are a menace,although the fact that some people do,suggests that they have personal experience, and justification for their reasoning,and as I said before,Turtlebay was only suggesting that some cyclists were a menace to themselves (and by default to others)as a result of the lack of training or testing." - You may not have, but many people have and continue to do so. Because they once saw one jump a red light or had to swerve to get past one or some other ridiculous reason to hate an entire group of people. I don't hate all Germans because of Hitler or all North Koreans because of Kim Jong-Il or all TOTP presenters because of Sir Jimmy. There is training available however due to the minuscule risk to other road users caused by cyclists, there is no legal requirement to be tested. Therefore, give it a rest and realise that cycling is a permanent, legal, healthy and safe mode of transport. When that changes, and cycling becomes taxable, unsafe, dangerous and unhealthy, I will throw my hands up and stop preaching.
Well I think you'll find CJ,that the whole point of these threads,is to make considered comment,which is all Turtlebay was doing,so there's no reason why either of us should have to"give it a rest" least of all at your instruction,and especially in the light of your admission to preaching.
Coming through the new junction at the Itchen bridge at about 19:15, yclist in front of me in the cycle lane waiting at the lights, they change and then a taxi almost hits them while turning left and the cyclist was going straight on AND in the process, cut across in front of me at the same time, me and the other cyclist also had lights on, does the cabbie's incompetence mean me and the other cyclist shouldn't have been on the road without a licence for our bikes or should the cabby be retested as they were at fault?
You've lost me Ginge,I should take it to citizens advice if I were you.
Yesterday, I saw a taxi almost knock a kid off his bike at around 7:15pm when the taxi went to turnleft at the new junction on Itchen bridge/saltmash road, kid had working lights on his bike and was crossing the junction from central bridge to itchen bridge after they had pulled away on a green light, the taxi also cut across in front of me, so it was almost a double left hook, if the taxi had waited, there wouldn't have been any conflict.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves. Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter![/p][/quote]Here here![/p][/quote]Shall we do the same with motorists? Oh wait... WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort.[/p][/quote]Doesn't count Ginge,even car drivers have to have CBT,and pass a test within 2 years (or start again) to ride a motor bike. All Turtle bay is saying,is that in the interest of their own safety(and that of other road users for that matter) so should cyclists.[/p][/quote]Why? A cyclist is FAR less dangerous than a car or even a motorcycle, plus,they're mechanically(or electrically if electric motors alone power them to anything above 15mph) propelled vehicles, electric bicycles aren't included in licencing as they're usually electrically ASSISTED, those that can be propelled to more than 15mph by the motor alone(without the assistance of gravity), aren't normally road legal unless registered and is type approved, like there's an electric mountain bike capable of 50+mph on the motor, though it is able to be switched between road legal mode where you have to pedal along and competition mode where the motor works on it's own to throw you to 50mph, it also has regen braking.[/p][/quote]So you're saying that there are no circumstances on this earth,that an untrained, untested person,in charge of a bicycle could ever be responsible for a situation,that would result in death or serious injury,to either themselves,or other road users or pedestrians?[/p][/quote]Nobody is claiming this could never happen. The likelihood of it happening however, is minute compared to motor accidents - irrespective of user ratios - yet somehow cyclists are dubbed menaces. They're not menaces. Statistical evidence proves it.[/p][/quote]Where is anyone saying cyclists are a menace? All Turtlebay was trying to point out,is that some cyclists are by default,a danger to themselves due their currently legally permissible untrained and untested state. At the very least,a CBT certificate should be a minimum requirement,even if only for riders who are unable to produce any other form of road craft qualification documents.[/p][/quote]Legally?!?! What are you on about?!?! CBT for cycliing?! Doesn't exist and no amount of bleating will cause there to be one. And as for nobody branding cyclists menaces, don't be so naive. You're not new to this forum.[/p][/quote]Legally,anyone can jump on a bike without any training or testing whatsoever. A CBT for cycling doesn't exist.. exactly my point CJ,glad you agree. Can't ever recall having suggested that cyclists are a menace,although the fact that some people do,suggests that they have personal experience, and justification for their reasoning,and as I said before,Turtlebay was only suggesting that some cyclists were a menace to themselves (and by default to others)as a result of the lack of training or testing.[/p][/quote]"Legally,anyone can jump on a bike without any training or testing whatsoever" - Yes, they can. There are no formal mandatory tests required. You would be shattering the Christmas's of millions of kids by incorporating one. Not to mention the financial implications involved to set up such a scheme. Waste of time and money and will make more people miserable. "A CBT for cycling doesn't exist.. exactly my point CJ,glad you agree." - No there's not. We agree there well done. Not sure what you were hoping to achieve but we do agree. "Can't ever recall having suggested that cyclists are a menace,although the fact that some people do,suggests that they have personal experience, and justification for their reasoning,and as I said before,Turtlebay was only suggesting that some cyclists were a menace to themselves (and by default to others)as a result of the lack of training or testing." - You may not have, but many people have and continue to do so. Because they once saw one jump a red light or had to swerve to get past one or some other ridiculous reason to hate an entire group of people. I don't hate all Germans because of Hitler or all North Koreans because of Kim Jong-Il or all TOTP presenters because of Sir Jimmy. There is training available however due to the minuscule risk to other road users caused by cyclists, there is no legal requirement to be tested. Therefore, give it a rest and realise that cycling is a permanent, legal, healthy and safe mode of transport. When that changes, and cycling becomes taxable, unsafe, dangerous and unhealthy, I will throw my hands up and stop preaching.[/p][/quote]Well I think you'll find CJ,that the whole point of these threads,is to make considered comment,which is all Turtlebay was doing,so there's no reason why either of us should have to"give it a rest" least of all at your instruction,and especially in the light of your admission to preaching.[/p][/quote]Coming through the new junction at the Itchen bridge at about 19:15, yclist in front of me in the cycle lane waiting at the lights, they change and then a taxi almost hits them while turning left and the cyclist was going straight on AND in the process, cut across in front of me at the same time, me and the other cyclist also had lights on, does the cabbie's incompetence mean me and the other cyclist shouldn't have been on the road without a licence for our bikes or should the cabby be retested as they were at fault?[/p][/quote]You've lost me Ginge,I should take it to citizens advice if I were you.[/p][/quote]Yesterday, I saw a taxi almost knock a kid off his bike at around 7:15pm when the taxi went to turnleft at the new junction on Itchen bridge/saltmash road, kid had working lights on his bike and was crossing the junction from central bridge to itchen bridge after they had pulled away on a green light, the taxi also cut across in front of me, so it was almost a double left hook, if the taxi had waited, there wouldn't have been any conflict. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: -2

10:32am Tue 18 Mar 14

camerajuan says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Turtlebay wrote:
As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves.

Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter!
Here here!
Shall we do the same with motorists?
Oh wait...
WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort.
Doesn't count Ginge,even car drivers have to have CBT,and pass a test within 2 years (or start again) to ride a motor bike.
All Turtle bay is saying,is that in the interest of their own safety(and that of other road users for that matter) so should cyclists.
Why? A cyclist is FAR less dangerous than a car or even a motorcycle, plus,they're mechanically(or electrically if electric motors alone power them to anything above 15mph) propelled vehicles, electric bicycles aren't included in licencing as they're usually electrically ASSISTED, those that can be propelled to more than 15mph by the motor alone(without the assistance of gravity), aren't normally road legal unless registered and is type approved, like there's an electric mountain bike capable of 50+mph on the motor, though it is able to be switched between road legal mode where you have to pedal along and competition mode where the motor works on it's own to throw you to 50mph, it also has regen braking.
So you're saying that there are no circumstances on this earth,that an untrained, untested person,in charge of a bicycle could ever be responsible for a situation,that would result in death or serious injury,to either themselves,or other road users or pedestrians?
Nobody is claiming this could never happen. The likelihood of it happening however, is minute compared to motor accidents - irrespective of user ratios - yet somehow cyclists are dubbed menaces.

They're not menaces. Statistical evidence proves it.
Where is anyone saying cyclists are a menace?
All Turtlebay was trying to point out,is that some cyclists are by default,a danger to themselves due their currently legally permissible untrained and untested state.
At the very least,a CBT certificate should be a minimum requirement,even if only for riders who are unable to produce any other form of road craft qualification documents.
Legally?!?! What are you on about?!?!

CBT for cycliing?! Doesn't exist and no amount of bleating will cause there to be one.

And as for nobody branding cyclists menaces, don't be so naive. You're not new to this forum.
Legally,anyone can jump on a bike without any training or testing whatsoever.
A CBT for cycling doesn't exist.. exactly my point CJ,glad you agree.
Can't ever recall having suggested that cyclists are a menace,although the fact that some people do,suggests that they have personal experience, and justification for their reasoning,and as I said before,Turtlebay was only suggesting that some cyclists were a menace to themselves (and by default to others)as a result of the lack of training or testing.
"Legally,anyone can jump on a bike without any training or testing whatsoever" - Yes, they can. There are no formal mandatory tests required. You would be shattering the Christmas's of millions of kids by incorporating one. Not to mention the financial implications involved to set up such a scheme. Waste of time and money and will make more people miserable.

"A CBT for cycling doesn't exist.. exactly my point CJ,glad you agree." - No there's not. We agree there well done. Not sure what you were hoping to achieve but we do agree.

"Can't ever recall having suggested that cyclists are a menace,although the fact that some people do,suggests that they have personal experience, and justification for their reasoning,and as I said before,Turtlebay was only suggesting that some cyclists were a menace to themselves (and by default to others)as a result of the lack of training or testing." - You may not have, but many people have and continue to do so. Because they once saw one jump a red light or had to swerve to get past one or some other ridiculous reason to hate an entire group of people. I don't hate all Germans because of Hitler or all North Koreans because of Kim Jong-Il or all TOTP presenters because of Sir Jimmy. There is training available however due to the minuscule risk to other road users caused by cyclists, there is no legal requirement to be tested. Therefore, give it a rest and realise that cycling is a permanent, legal, healthy and safe mode of transport. When that changes, and cycling becomes taxable, unsafe, dangerous and unhealthy, I will throw my hands up and stop preaching.
Well I think you'll find CJ,that the whole point of these threads,is to make considered comment,which is all Turtlebay was doing,so there's no reason why either of us should have to"give it a rest" least of all at your instruction,and especially in the light of your admission to preaching.
Coming through the new junction at the Itchen bridge at about 19:15, yclist in front of me in the cycle lane waiting at the lights, they change and then a taxi almost hits them while turning left and the cyclist was going straight on AND in the process, cut across in front of me at the same time, me and the other cyclist also had lights on, does the cabbie's incompetence mean me and the other cyclist shouldn't have been on the road without a licence for our bikes or should the cabby be retested as they were at fault?
You've lost me Ginge,I should take it to citizens advice if I were you.
Exactly. If you're lost by that you really shouldn't be commenting on what cyclists/drivers should/shouldn't be doing.

Cabbie should have an eye test & be forced to take a drivers awareness course. As if.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves. Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter![/p][/quote]Here here![/p][/quote]Shall we do the same with motorists? Oh wait... WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort.[/p][/quote]Doesn't count Ginge,even car drivers have to have CBT,and pass a test within 2 years (or start again) to ride a motor bike. All Turtle bay is saying,is that in the interest of their own safety(and that of other road users for that matter) so should cyclists.[/p][/quote]Why? A cyclist is FAR less dangerous than a car or even a motorcycle, plus,they're mechanically(or electrically if electric motors alone power them to anything above 15mph) propelled vehicles, electric bicycles aren't included in licencing as they're usually electrically ASSISTED, those that can be propelled to more than 15mph by the motor alone(without the assistance of gravity), aren't normally road legal unless registered and is type approved, like there's an electric mountain bike capable of 50+mph on the motor, though it is able to be switched between road legal mode where you have to pedal along and competition mode where the motor works on it's own to throw you to 50mph, it also has regen braking.[/p][/quote]So you're saying that there are no circumstances on this earth,that an untrained, untested person,in charge of a bicycle could ever be responsible for a situation,that would result in death or serious injury,to either themselves,or other road users or pedestrians?[/p][/quote]Nobody is claiming this could never happen. The likelihood of it happening however, is minute compared to motor accidents - irrespective of user ratios - yet somehow cyclists are dubbed menaces. They're not menaces. Statistical evidence proves it.[/p][/quote]Where is anyone saying cyclists are a menace? All Turtlebay was trying to point out,is that some cyclists are by default,a danger to themselves due their currently legally permissible untrained and untested state. At the very least,a CBT certificate should be a minimum requirement,even if only for riders who are unable to produce any other form of road craft qualification documents.[/p][/quote]Legally?!?! What are you on about?!?! CBT for cycliing?! Doesn't exist and no amount of bleating will cause there to be one. And as for nobody branding cyclists menaces, don't be so naive. You're not new to this forum.[/p][/quote]Legally,anyone can jump on a bike without any training or testing whatsoever. A CBT for cycling doesn't exist.. exactly my point CJ,glad you agree. Can't ever recall having suggested that cyclists are a menace,although the fact that some people do,suggests that they have personal experience, and justification for their reasoning,and as I said before,Turtlebay was only suggesting that some cyclists were a menace to themselves (and by default to others)as a result of the lack of training or testing.[/p][/quote]"Legally,anyone can jump on a bike without any training or testing whatsoever" - Yes, they can. There are no formal mandatory tests required. You would be shattering the Christmas's of millions of kids by incorporating one. Not to mention the financial implications involved to set up such a scheme. Waste of time and money and will make more people miserable. "A CBT for cycling doesn't exist.. exactly my point CJ,glad you agree." - No there's not. We agree there well done. Not sure what you were hoping to achieve but we do agree. "Can't ever recall having suggested that cyclists are a menace,although the fact that some people do,suggests that they have personal experience, and justification for their reasoning,and as I said before,Turtlebay was only suggesting that some cyclists were a menace to themselves (and by default to others)as a result of the lack of training or testing." - You may not have, but many people have and continue to do so. Because they once saw one jump a red light or had to swerve to get past one or some other ridiculous reason to hate an entire group of people. I don't hate all Germans because of Hitler or all North Koreans because of Kim Jong-Il or all TOTP presenters because of Sir Jimmy. There is training available however due to the minuscule risk to other road users caused by cyclists, there is no legal requirement to be tested. Therefore, give it a rest and realise that cycling is a permanent, legal, healthy and safe mode of transport. When that changes, and cycling becomes taxable, unsafe, dangerous and unhealthy, I will throw my hands up and stop preaching.[/p][/quote]Well I think you'll find CJ,that the whole point of these threads,is to make considered comment,which is all Turtlebay was doing,so there's no reason why either of us should have to"give it a rest" least of all at your instruction,and especially in the light of your admission to preaching.[/p][/quote]Coming through the new junction at the Itchen bridge at about 19:15, yclist in front of me in the cycle lane waiting at the lights, they change and then a taxi almost hits them while turning left and the cyclist was going straight on AND in the process, cut across in front of me at the same time, me and the other cyclist also had lights on, does the cabbie's incompetence mean me and the other cyclist shouldn't have been on the road without a licence for our bikes or should the cabby be retested as they were at fault?[/p][/quote]You've lost me Ginge,I should take it to citizens advice if I were you.[/p][/quote]Exactly. If you're lost by that you really shouldn't be commenting on what cyclists/drivers should/shouldn't be doing. Cabbie should have an eye test & be forced to take a drivers awareness course. As if. camerajuan
  • Score: 2

12:07pm Tue 18 Mar 14

charrlee says...

The only cyclists I find a problem are the ones who turn up here everyday "pedalling" their usual "I-think-it-so-it-mu
st-be-true" rhetoric, backed up with extra-contextual quotes from obscure documents. No ordinary forum user is going to get these highly-trained, HFA pro-cycling guerrillas to give any quarter as it conflicts with their propaganda assault programme.

However there is no way any of them can reasonably argue against these proposals :

ALL road users must pass national proficiency tests dedicated to each and every mode of transport they wish to use.

ALL road users must carry identification that is clearly visible to CCTV at all times. That would be registration plates for vehicles and motorbikes, and a registration shirt for cyclists.

ALL road users must pay a licence fee and insurance.

Those requirements would accord equality of status to ALL road users.
The only cyclists I find a problem are the ones who turn up here everyday "pedalling" their usual "I-think-it-so-it-mu st-be-true" rhetoric, backed up with extra-contextual quotes from obscure documents. No ordinary forum user is going to get these highly-trained, HFA pro-cycling guerrillas to give any quarter as it conflicts with their propaganda assault programme. However there is no way any of them can reasonably argue against these proposals : ALL road users must pass national proficiency tests dedicated to each and every mode of transport they wish to use. ALL road users must carry identification that is clearly visible to CCTV at all times. That would be registration plates for vehicles and motorbikes, and a registration shirt for cyclists. ALL road users must pay a licence fee and insurance. Those requirements would accord equality of status to ALL road users. charrlee
  • Score: -3

4:34pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

charrlee wrote:
The only cyclists I find a problem are the ones who turn up here everyday "pedalling" their usual "I-think-it-so-it-mu

st-be-true" rhetoric, backed up with extra-contextual quotes from obscure documents. No ordinary forum user is going to get these highly-trained, HFA pro-cycling guerrillas to give any quarter as it conflicts with their propaganda assault programme.

However there is no way any of them can reasonably argue against these proposals :

ALL road users must pass national proficiency tests dedicated to each and every mode of transport they wish to use.

ALL road users must carry identification that is clearly visible to CCTV at all times. That would be registration plates for vehicles and motorbikes, and a registration shirt for cyclists.

ALL road users must pay a licence fee and insurance.

Those requirements would accord equality of status to ALL road users.
In a nutshell Charrlee! Back of the net!
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: The only cyclists I find a problem are the ones who turn up here everyday "pedalling" their usual "I-think-it-so-it-mu st-be-true" rhetoric, backed up with extra-contextual quotes from obscure documents. No ordinary forum user is going to get these highly-trained, HFA pro-cycling guerrillas to give any quarter as it conflicts with their propaganda assault programme. However there is no way any of them can reasonably argue against these proposals : ALL road users must pass national proficiency tests dedicated to each and every mode of transport they wish to use. ALL road users must carry identification that is clearly visible to CCTV at all times. That would be registration plates for vehicles and motorbikes, and a registration shirt for cyclists. ALL road users must pay a licence fee and insurance. Those requirements would accord equality of status to ALL road users.[/p][/quote]In a nutshell Charrlee! Back of the net! Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -1

4:41pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Turtlebay wrote:
As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves.

Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter!
Here here!
Shall we do the same with motorists?
Oh wait...
WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort.
Doesn't count Ginge,even car drivers have to have CBT,and pass a test within 2 years (or start again) to ride a motor bike.
All Turtle bay is saying,is that in the interest of their own safety(and that of other road users for that matter) so should cyclists.
Why? A cyclist is FAR less dangerous than a car or even a motorcycle, plus,they're mechanically(or electrically if electric motors alone power them to anything above 15mph) propelled vehicles, electric bicycles aren't included in licencing as they're usually electrically ASSISTED, those that can be propelled to more than 15mph by the motor alone(without the assistance of gravity), aren't normally road legal unless registered and is type approved, like there's an electric mountain bike capable of 50+mph on the motor, though it is able to be switched between road legal mode where you have to pedal along and competition mode where the motor works on it's own to throw you to 50mph, it also has regen braking.
So you're saying that there are no circumstances on this earth,that an untrained, untested person,in charge of a bicycle could ever be responsible for a situation,that would result in death or serious injury,to either themselves,or other road users or pedestrians?
Nobody is claiming this could never happen. The likelihood of it happening however, is minute compared to motor accidents - irrespective of user ratios - yet somehow cyclists are dubbed menaces.

They're not menaces. Statistical evidence proves it.
Where is anyone saying cyclists are a menace?
All Turtlebay was trying to point out,is that some cyclists are by default,a danger to themselves due their currently legally permissible untrained and untested state.
At the very least,a CBT certificate should be a minimum requirement,even if only for riders who are unable to produce any other form of road craft qualification documents.
Legally?!?! What are you on about?!?!

CBT for cycliing?! Doesn't exist and no amount of bleating will cause there to be one.

And as for nobody branding cyclists menaces, don't be so naive. You're not new to this forum.
Legally,anyone can jump on a bike without any training or testing whatsoever.
A CBT for cycling doesn't exist.. exactly my point CJ,glad you agree.
Can't ever recall having suggested that cyclists are a menace,although the fact that some people do,suggests that they have personal experience, and justification for their reasoning,and as I said before,Turtlebay was only suggesting that some cyclists were a menace to themselves (and by default to others)as a result of the lack of training or testing.
"Legally,anyone can jump on a bike without any training or testing whatsoever" - Yes, they can. There are no formal mandatory tests required. You would be shattering the Christmas's of millions of kids by incorporating one. Not to mention the financial implications involved to set up such a scheme. Waste of time and money and will make more people miserable.

"A CBT for cycling doesn't exist.. exactly my point CJ,glad you agree." - No there's not. We agree there well done. Not sure what you were hoping to achieve but we do agree.

"Can't ever recall having suggested that cyclists are a menace,although the fact that some people do,suggests that they have personal experience, and justification for their reasoning,and as I said before,Turtlebay was only suggesting that some cyclists were a menace to themselves (and by default to others)as a result of the lack of training or testing." - You may not have, but many people have and continue to do so. Because they once saw one jump a red light or had to swerve to get past one or some other ridiculous reason to hate an entire group of people. I don't hate all Germans because of Hitler or all North Koreans because of Kim Jong-Il or all TOTP presenters because of Sir Jimmy. There is training available however due to the minuscule risk to other road users caused by cyclists, there is no legal requirement to be tested. Therefore, give it a rest and realise that cycling is a permanent, legal, healthy and safe mode of transport. When that changes, and cycling becomes taxable, unsafe, dangerous and unhealthy, I will throw my hands up and stop preaching.
Well I think you'll find CJ,that the whole point of these threads,is to make considered comment,which is all Turtlebay was doing,so there's no reason why either of us should have to"give it a rest" least of all at your instruction,and especially in the light of your admission to preaching.
Coming through the new junction at the Itchen bridge at about 19:15, yclist in front of me in the cycle lane waiting at the lights, they change and then a taxi almost hits them while turning left and the cyclist was going straight on AND in the process, cut across in front of me at the same time, me and the other cyclist also had lights on, does the cabbie's incompetence mean me and the other cyclist shouldn't have been on the road without a licence for our bikes or should the cabby be retested as they were at fault?
You've lost me Ginge,I should take it to citizens advice if I were you.
Exactly. If you're lost by that you really shouldn't be commenting on what cyclists/drivers should/shouldn't be doing.

Cabbie should have an eye test & be forced to take a drivers awareness course. As if.
:0)...you make me smile.
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves. Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter![/p][/quote]Here here![/p][/quote]Shall we do the same with motorists? Oh wait... WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort.[/p][/quote]Doesn't count Ginge,even car drivers have to have CBT,and pass a test within 2 years (or start again) to ride a motor bike. All Turtle bay is saying,is that in the interest of their own safety(and that of other road users for that matter) so should cyclists.[/p][/quote]Why? A cyclist is FAR less dangerous than a car or even a motorcycle, plus,they're mechanically(or electrically if electric motors alone power them to anything above 15mph) propelled vehicles, electric bicycles aren't included in licencing as they're usually electrically ASSISTED, those that can be propelled to more than 15mph by the motor alone(without the assistance of gravity), aren't normally road legal unless registered and is type approved, like there's an electric mountain bike capable of 50+mph on the motor, though it is able to be switched between road legal mode where you have to pedal along and competition mode where the motor works on it's own to throw you to 50mph, it also has regen braking.[/p][/quote]So you're saying that there are no circumstances on this earth,that an untrained, untested person,in charge of a bicycle could ever be responsible for a situation,that would result in death or serious injury,to either themselves,or other road users or pedestrians?[/p][/quote]Nobody is claiming this could never happen. The likelihood of it happening however, is minute compared to motor accidents - irrespective of user ratios - yet somehow cyclists are dubbed menaces. They're not menaces. Statistical evidence proves it.[/p][/quote]Where is anyone saying cyclists are a menace? All Turtlebay was trying to point out,is that some cyclists are by default,a danger to themselves due their currently legally permissible untrained and untested state. At the very least,a CBT certificate should be a minimum requirement,even if only for riders who are unable to produce any other form of road craft qualification documents.[/p][/quote]Legally?!?! What are you on about?!?! CBT for cycliing?! Doesn't exist and no amount of bleating will cause there to be one. And as for nobody branding cyclists menaces, don't be so naive. You're not new to this forum.[/p][/quote]Legally,anyone can jump on a bike without any training or testing whatsoever. A CBT for cycling doesn't exist.. exactly my point CJ,glad you agree. Can't ever recall having suggested that cyclists are a menace,although the fact that some people do,suggests that they have personal experience, and justification for their reasoning,and as I said before,Turtlebay was only suggesting that some cyclists were a menace to themselves (and by default to others)as a result of the lack of training or testing.[/p][/quote]"Legally,anyone can jump on a bike without any training or testing whatsoever" - Yes, they can. There are no formal mandatory tests required. You would be shattering the Christmas's of millions of kids by incorporating one. Not to mention the financial implications involved to set up such a scheme. Waste of time and money and will make more people miserable. "A CBT for cycling doesn't exist.. exactly my point CJ,glad you agree." - No there's not. We agree there well done. Not sure what you were hoping to achieve but we do agree. "Can't ever recall having suggested that cyclists are a menace,although the fact that some people do,suggests that they have personal experience, and justification for their reasoning,and as I said before,Turtlebay was only suggesting that some cyclists were a menace to themselves (and by default to others)as a result of the lack of training or testing." - You may not have, but many people have and continue to do so. Because they once saw one jump a red light or had to swerve to get past one or some other ridiculous reason to hate an entire group of people. I don't hate all Germans because of Hitler or all North Koreans because of Kim Jong-Il or all TOTP presenters because of Sir Jimmy. There is training available however due to the minuscule risk to other road users caused by cyclists, there is no legal requirement to be tested. Therefore, give it a rest and realise that cycling is a permanent, legal, healthy and safe mode of transport. When that changes, and cycling becomes taxable, unsafe, dangerous and unhealthy, I will throw my hands up and stop preaching.[/p][/quote]Well I think you'll find CJ,that the whole point of these threads,is to make considered comment,which is all Turtlebay was doing,so there's no reason why either of us should have to"give it a rest" least of all at your instruction,and especially in the light of your admission to preaching.[/p][/quote]Coming through the new junction at the Itchen bridge at about 19:15, yclist in front of me in the cycle lane waiting at the lights, they change and then a taxi almost hits them while turning left and the cyclist was going straight on AND in the process, cut across in front of me at the same time, me and the other cyclist also had lights on, does the cabbie's incompetence mean me and the other cyclist shouldn't have been on the road without a licence for our bikes or should the cabby be retested as they were at fault?[/p][/quote]You've lost me Ginge,I should take it to citizens advice if I were you.[/p][/quote]Exactly. If you're lost by that you really shouldn't be commenting on what cyclists/drivers should/shouldn't be doing. Cabbie should have an eye test & be forced to take a drivers awareness course. As if.[/p][/quote]:0)...you make me smile. Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -2

5:22pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
charrlee wrote:
The only cyclists I find a problem are the ones who turn up here everyday "pedalling" their usual "I-think-it-so-it-mu


st-be-true" rhetoric, backed up with extra-contextual quotes from obscure documents. No ordinary forum user is going to get these highly-trained, HFA pro-cycling guerrillas to give any quarter as it conflicts with their propaganda assault programme.

However there is no way any of them can reasonably argue against these proposals :

ALL road users must pass national proficiency tests dedicated to each and every mode of transport they wish to use.

ALL road users must carry identification that is clearly visible to CCTV at all times. That would be registration plates for vehicles and motorbikes, and a registration shirt for cyclists.

ALL road users must pay a licence fee and insurance.

Those requirements would accord equality of status to ALL road users.
In a nutshell Charrlee! Back of the net!
Nah, it was wide of the goal posts.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: The only cyclists I find a problem are the ones who turn up here everyday "pedalling" their usual "I-think-it-so-it-mu st-be-true" rhetoric, backed up with extra-contextual quotes from obscure documents. No ordinary forum user is going to get these highly-trained, HFA pro-cycling guerrillas to give any quarter as it conflicts with their propaganda assault programme. However there is no way any of them can reasonably argue against these proposals : ALL road users must pass national proficiency tests dedicated to each and every mode of transport they wish to use. ALL road users must carry identification that is clearly visible to CCTV at all times. That would be registration plates for vehicles and motorbikes, and a registration shirt for cyclists. ALL road users must pay a licence fee and insurance. Those requirements would accord equality of status to ALL road users.[/p][/quote]In a nutshell Charrlee! Back of the net![/p][/quote]Nah, it was wide of the goal posts. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 0

11:49pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Drhysted says...

charrlee wrote:
The only cyclists I find a problem are the ones who turn up here everyday "pedalling" their usual "I-think-it-so-it-mu

st-be-true" rhetoric, backed up with extra-contextual quotes from obscure documents. No ordinary forum user is going to get these highly-trained, HFA pro-cycling guerrillas to give any quarter as it conflicts with their propaganda assault programme.

However there is no way any of them can reasonably argue against these proposals :

ALL road users must pass national proficiency tests dedicated to each and every mode of transport they wish to use.

ALL road users must carry identification that is clearly visible to CCTV at all times. That would be registration plates for vehicles and motorbikes, and a registration shirt for cyclists.

ALL road users must pay a licence fee and insurance.

Those requirements would accord equality of status to ALL road users.
I'm guessing here, so I may be wrong, but I get the feeling that you don't cycle, and don't actually know what you are on about.

For the record, I am licensed for various vehicles, all my vehicles both motorised and human powered are insured, and I pay VED on all my vehicles (the human powered ones are zero emissions so would be class A or for simple folk out there £0).
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: The only cyclists I find a problem are the ones who turn up here everyday "pedalling" their usual "I-think-it-so-it-mu st-be-true" rhetoric, backed up with extra-contextual quotes from obscure documents. No ordinary forum user is going to get these highly-trained, HFA pro-cycling guerrillas to give any quarter as it conflicts with their propaganda assault programme. However there is no way any of them can reasonably argue against these proposals : ALL road users must pass national proficiency tests dedicated to each and every mode of transport they wish to use. ALL road users must carry identification that is clearly visible to CCTV at all times. That would be registration plates for vehicles and motorbikes, and a registration shirt for cyclists. ALL road users must pay a licence fee and insurance. Those requirements would accord equality of status to ALL road users.[/p][/quote]I'm guessing here, so I may be wrong, but I get the feeling that you don't cycle, and don't actually know what you are on about. For the record, I am licensed for various vehicles, all my vehicles both motorised and human powered are insured, and I pay VED on all my vehicles (the human powered ones are zero emissions so would be class A or for simple folk out there £0). Drhysted
  • Score: 3

4:04pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Drhysted says...

charrlee wrote:
The only cyclists I find a problem are the ones who turn up here everyday "pedalling" their usual "I-think-it-so-it-mu

st-be-true" rhetoric, backed up with extra-contextual quotes from obscure documents. No ordinary forum user is going to get these highly-trained, HFA pro-cycling guerrillas to give any quarter as it conflicts with their propaganda assault programme.

However there is no way any of them can reasonably argue against these proposals :

ALL road users must pass national proficiency tests dedicated to each and every mode of transport they wish to use.

ALL road users must carry identification that is clearly visible to CCTV at all times. That would be registration plates for vehicles and motorbikes, and a registration shirt for cyclists.

ALL road users must pay a licence fee and insurance.

Those requirements would accord equality of status to ALL road users.
When I was just using the cycle for exercise I thought mildly similar to yourself.
Since I started commuting, and doing over 4000 miles a year on the road bike (it's called a road bike because it was designed for the road), I have had my thinking converted, and understand a lot of what the cyclists here keep trying to tell you.
I do not intentionally hold up traffic, but I do intentionally position myself in the position that best ensures my safety.
Over the last couple of years I have noticed the standard of driving has gotten worse. It's not just when cycling but also when driving. I think it may be because people are trying to do more than just drive, but fear that it maybe because cars have become so much more safe that people do not thing about crashing.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: The only cyclists I find a problem are the ones who turn up here everyday "pedalling" their usual "I-think-it-so-it-mu st-be-true" rhetoric, backed up with extra-contextual quotes from obscure documents. No ordinary forum user is going to get these highly-trained, HFA pro-cycling guerrillas to give any quarter as it conflicts with their propaganda assault programme. However there is no way any of them can reasonably argue against these proposals : ALL road users must pass national proficiency tests dedicated to each and every mode of transport they wish to use. ALL road users must carry identification that is clearly visible to CCTV at all times. That would be registration plates for vehicles and motorbikes, and a registration shirt for cyclists. ALL road users must pay a licence fee and insurance. Those requirements would accord equality of status to ALL road users.[/p][/quote]When I was just using the cycle for exercise I thought mildly similar to yourself. Since I started commuting, and doing over 4000 miles a year on the road bike (it's called a road bike because it was designed for the road), I have had my thinking converted, and understand a lot of what the cyclists here keep trying to tell you. I do not intentionally hold up traffic, but I do intentionally position myself in the position that best ensures my safety. Over the last couple of years I have noticed the standard of driving has gotten worse. It's not just when cycling but also when driving. I think it may be because people are trying to do more than just drive, but fear that it maybe because cars have become so much more safe that people do not thing about crashing. Drhysted
  • Score: 1

5:41pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

Drhysted wrote:
charrlee wrote:
The only cyclists I find a problem are the ones who turn up here everyday "pedalling" their usual "I-think-it-so-it-mu


st-be-true" rhetoric, backed up with extra-contextual quotes from obscure documents. No ordinary forum user is going to get these highly-trained, HFA pro-cycling guerrillas to give any quarter as it conflicts with their propaganda assault programme.

However there is no way any of them can reasonably argue against these proposals :

ALL road users must pass national proficiency tests dedicated to each and every mode of transport they wish to use.

ALL road users must carry identification that is clearly visible to CCTV at all times. That would be registration plates for vehicles and motorbikes, and a registration shirt for cyclists.

ALL road users must pay a licence fee and insurance.

Those requirements would accord equality of status to ALL road users.
When I was just using the cycle for exercise I thought mildly similar to yourself.
Since I started commuting, and doing over 4000 miles a year on the road bike (it's called a road bike because it was designed for the road), I have had my thinking converted, and understand a lot of what the cyclists here keep trying to tell you.
I do not intentionally hold up traffic, but I do intentionally position myself in the position that best ensures my safety.
Over the last couple of years I have noticed the standard of driving has gotten worse. It's not just when cycling but also when driving. I think it may be because people are trying to do more than just drive, but fear that it maybe because cars have become so much more safe that people do not thing about crashing.
So like Charrlee says,you can't reasonably argue against any of his points...?
[quote][p][bold]Drhysted[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: The only cyclists I find a problem are the ones who turn up here everyday "pedalling" their usual "I-think-it-so-it-mu st-be-true" rhetoric, backed up with extra-contextual quotes from obscure documents. No ordinary forum user is going to get these highly-trained, HFA pro-cycling guerrillas to give any quarter as it conflicts with their propaganda assault programme. However there is no way any of them can reasonably argue against these proposals : ALL road users must pass national proficiency tests dedicated to each and every mode of transport they wish to use. ALL road users must carry identification that is clearly visible to CCTV at all times. That would be registration plates for vehicles and motorbikes, and a registration shirt for cyclists. ALL road users must pay a licence fee and insurance. Those requirements would accord equality of status to ALL road users.[/p][/quote]When I was just using the cycle for exercise I thought mildly similar to yourself. Since I started commuting, and doing over 4000 miles a year on the road bike (it's called a road bike because it was designed for the road), I have had my thinking converted, and understand a lot of what the cyclists here keep trying to tell you. I do not intentionally hold up traffic, but I do intentionally position myself in the position that best ensures my safety. Over the last couple of years I have noticed the standard of driving has gotten worse. It's not just when cycling but also when driving. I think it may be because people are trying to do more than just drive, but fear that it maybe because cars have become so much more safe that people do not thing about crashing.[/p][/quote]So like Charrlee says,you can't reasonably argue against any of his points...? Positively4thStreet
  • Score: 0

5:55pm Wed 19 Mar 14

camerajuan says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Drhysted wrote:
charrlee wrote:
The only cyclists I find a problem are the ones who turn up here everyday "pedalling" their usual "I-think-it-so-it-mu



st-be-true" rhetoric, backed up with extra-contextual quotes from obscure documents. No ordinary forum user is going to get these highly-trained, HFA pro-cycling guerrillas to give any quarter as it conflicts with their propaganda assault programme.

However there is no way any of them can reasonably argue against these proposals :

ALL road users must pass national proficiency tests dedicated to each and every mode of transport they wish to use.

ALL road users must carry identification that is clearly visible to CCTV at all times. That would be registration plates for vehicles and motorbikes, and a registration shirt for cyclists.

ALL road users must pay a licence fee and insurance.

Those requirements would accord equality of status to ALL road users.
When I was just using the cycle for exercise I thought mildly similar to yourself.
Since I started commuting, and doing over 4000 miles a year on the road bike (it's called a road bike because it was designed for the road), I have had my thinking converted, and understand a lot of what the cyclists here keep trying to tell you.
I do not intentionally hold up traffic, but I do intentionally position myself in the position that best ensures my safety.
Over the last couple of years I have noticed the standard of driving has gotten worse. It's not just when cycling but also when driving. I think it may be because people are trying to do more than just drive, but fear that it maybe because cars have become so much more safe that people do not thing about crashing.
So like Charrlee says,you can't reasonably argue against any of his points...?
You can, but because of the general feel to cycling any kind of logic regarding this topic falls on deaf(ignorant) ears.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Drhysted[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: The only cyclists I find a problem are the ones who turn up here everyday "pedalling" their usual "I-think-it-so-it-mu st-be-true" rhetoric, backed up with extra-contextual quotes from obscure documents. No ordinary forum user is going to get these highly-trained, HFA pro-cycling guerrillas to give any quarter as it conflicts with their propaganda assault programme. However there is no way any of them can reasonably argue against these proposals : ALL road users must pass national proficiency tests dedicated to each and every mode of transport they wish to use. ALL road users must carry identification that is clearly visible to CCTV at all times. That would be registration plates for vehicles and motorbikes, and a registration shirt for cyclists. ALL road users must pay a licence fee and insurance. Those requirements would accord equality of status to ALL road users.[/p][/quote]When I was just using the cycle for exercise I thought mildly similar to yourself. Since I started commuting, and doing over 4000 miles a year on the road bike (it's called a road bike because it was designed for the road), I have had my thinking converted, and understand a lot of what the cyclists here keep trying to tell you. I do not intentionally hold up traffic, but I do intentionally position myself in the position that best ensures my safety. Over the last couple of years I have noticed the standard of driving has gotten worse. It's not just when cycling but also when driving. I think it may be because people are trying to do more than just drive, but fear that it maybe because cars have become so much more safe that people do not thing about crashing.[/p][/quote]So like Charrlee says,you can't reasonably argue against any of his points...?[/p][/quote]You can, but because of the general feel to cycling any kind of logic regarding this topic falls on deaf(ignorant) ears. camerajuan
  • Score: 1

5:57pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Drhysted says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Drhysted wrote:
charrlee wrote:
The only cyclists I find a problem are the ones who turn up here everyday "pedalling" their usual "I-think-it-so-it-mu



st-be-true" rhetoric, backed up with extra-contextual quotes from obscure documents. No ordinary forum user is going to get these highly-trained, HFA pro-cycling guerrillas to give any quarter as it conflicts with their propaganda assault programme.

However there is no way any of them can reasonably argue against these proposals :

ALL road users must pass national proficiency tests dedicated to each and every mode of transport they wish to use.

ALL road users must carry identification that is clearly visible to CCTV at all times. That would be registration plates for vehicles and motorbikes, and a registration shirt for cyclists.

ALL road users must pay a licence fee and insurance.

Those requirements would accord equality of status to ALL road users.
When I was just using the cycle for exercise I thought mildly similar to yourself.
Since I started commuting, and doing over 4000 miles a year on the road bike (it's called a road bike because it was designed for the road), I have had my thinking converted, and understand a lot of what the cyclists here keep trying to tell you.
I do not intentionally hold up traffic, but I do intentionally position myself in the position that best ensures my safety.
Over the last couple of years I have noticed the standard of driving has gotten worse. It's not just when cycling but also when driving. I think it may be because people are trying to do more than just drive, but fear that it maybe because cars have become so much more safe that people do not thing about crashing.
So like Charrlee says,you can't reasonably argue against any of his points...?
Yes I can, because now I know better.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Drhysted[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: The only cyclists I find a problem are the ones who turn up here everyday "pedalling" their usual "I-think-it-so-it-mu st-be-true" rhetoric, backed up with extra-contextual quotes from obscure documents. No ordinary forum user is going to get these highly-trained, HFA pro-cycling guerrillas to give any quarter as it conflicts with their propaganda assault programme. However there is no way any of them can reasonably argue against these proposals : ALL road users must pass national proficiency tests dedicated to each and every mode of transport they wish to use. ALL road users must carry identification that is clearly visible to CCTV at all times. That would be registration plates for vehicles and motorbikes, and a registration shirt for cyclists. ALL road users must pay a licence fee and insurance. Those requirements would accord equality of status to ALL road users.[/p][/quote]When I was just using the cycle for exercise I thought mildly similar to yourself. Since I started commuting, and doing over 4000 miles a year on the road bike (it's called a road bike because it was designed for the road), I have had my thinking converted, and understand a lot of what the cyclists here keep trying to tell you. I do not intentionally hold up traffic, but I do intentionally position myself in the position that best ensures my safety. Over the last couple of years I have noticed the standard of driving has gotten worse. It's not just when cycling but also when driving. I think it may be because people are trying to do more than just drive, but fear that it maybe because cars have become so much more safe that people do not thing about crashing.[/p][/quote]So like Charrlee says,you can't reasonably argue against any of his points...?[/p][/quote]Yes I can, because now I know better. Drhysted
  • Score: 0

5:27pm Fri 21 Mar 14

southamptonadi says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Drhysted wrote:
charrlee wrote:
The only cyclists I find a problem are the ones who turn up here everyday "pedalling" their usual "I-think-it-so-it-mu



st-be-true" rhetoric, backed up with extra-contextual quotes from obscure documents. No ordinary forum user is going to get these highly-trained, HFA pro-cycling guerrillas to give any quarter as it conflicts with their propaganda assault programme.

However there is no way any of them can reasonably argue against these proposals :

ALL road users must pass national proficiency tests dedicated to each and every mode of transport they wish to use.

ALL road users must carry identification that is clearly visible to CCTV at all times. That would be registration plates for vehicles and motorbikes, and a registration shirt for cyclists.

ALL road users must pay a licence fee and insurance.

Those requirements would accord equality of status to ALL road users.
When I was just using the cycle for exercise I thought mildly similar to yourself.
Since I started commuting, and doing over 4000 miles a year on the road bike (it's called a road bike because it was designed for the road), I have had my thinking converted, and understand a lot of what the cyclists here keep trying to tell you.
I do not intentionally hold up traffic, but I do intentionally position myself in the position that best ensures my safety.
Over the last couple of years I have noticed the standard of driving has gotten worse. It's not just when cycling but also when driving. I think it may be because people are trying to do more than just drive, but fear that it maybe because cars have become so much more safe that people do not thing about crashing.
So like Charrlee says,you can't reasonably argue against any of his points...?
I can argue against his some of his points.

I'm a cyclist that turns up on here and I don't peddle any I think so so it must be true jumbo jumbo. I leave that for others.

And as for licensing, registration etc, The law has tended to be quite clear on the testing issue: testing is proportional to power output. Adding a motor creates faster, more powerful vehicles so operators of motor vehicles are subjected to a form of test before being allowed to propel their machines on the public highway. It’s important to stress there’s no requirement for a motor vehicle operator to have formal lessons before starting to use the road under power, merely that they must sit an exam.

Road users propelled by engines often have a great deal of power at their disposal so, potentially, pose a risk of harming others. The compulsory examination of a motor vehicle operator happens just once and, as is plain for all to see, does not lead to automatic compliance with road laws. For instance, the majority of motorists admit to breaking speed limits and some do so habitually, at great risk to others.

Regrettably, cyclists also break road laws and, yes, such law breaking is often deemed to be behaviour common to all cyclists.

Given that cyclists do not have engines (apart from those who operate electric bikes, but that opens up a whole new can of worms) the law has not seen fit to require testing before cyclists start using the public highway, even though they operate what the law has considered a carriage since 1888. This carriage, ridden carefully by an unprotected operator who risks injury to their self, is deemed to be capable of causing little harm to others. In this respect cyclists are like pedestrians. Test cyclists who use the roads, and you’d have to test pedestrians who use the roads.

However, despite there being no legal requirement for cyclists to sit tests, a great many cyclists are given road training. Many children get Bikeability training at school and there are many cycle trainers around the UK who offer Bikeability training for adults.

It’s also worth pointing out that nearly ninety percent of cyclists own cars and so have passed the driving test.

But if they had brought in testing etc I never would of had a bike as a kid and neither would my seven year old who sometimes comes with me for little rides to the common.

That's a debate. Don't shoot me down I may agree win charlee somewhat as you are aware mr positive
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Drhysted[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: The only cyclists I find a problem are the ones who turn up here everyday "pedalling" their usual "I-think-it-so-it-mu st-be-true" rhetoric, backed up with extra-contextual quotes from obscure documents. No ordinary forum user is going to get these highly-trained, HFA pro-cycling guerrillas to give any quarter as it conflicts with their propaganda assault programme. However there is no way any of them can reasonably argue against these proposals : ALL road users must pass national proficiency tests dedicated to each and every mode of transport they wish to use. ALL road users must carry identification that is clearly visible to CCTV at all times. That would be registration plates for vehicles and motorbikes, and a registration shirt for cyclists. ALL road users must pay a licence fee and insurance. Those requirements would accord equality of status to ALL road users.[/p][/quote]When I was just using the cycle for exercise I thought mildly similar to yourself. Since I started commuting, and doing over 4000 miles a year on the road bike (it's called a road bike because it was designed for the road), I have had my thinking converted, and understand a lot of what the cyclists here keep trying to tell you. I do not intentionally hold up traffic, but I do intentionally position myself in the position that best ensures my safety. Over the last couple of years I have noticed the standard of driving has gotten worse. It's not just when cycling but also when driving. I think it may be because people are trying to do more than just drive, but fear that it maybe because cars have become so much more safe that people do not thing about crashing.[/p][/quote]So like Charrlee says,you can't reasonably argue against any of his points...?[/p][/quote]I can argue against his some of his points. I'm a cyclist that turns up on here and I don't peddle any I think so so it must be true jumbo jumbo. I leave that for others. And as for licensing, registration etc, The law has tended to be quite clear on the testing issue: testing is proportional to power output. Adding a motor creates faster, more powerful vehicles so operators of motor vehicles are subjected to a form of test before being allowed to propel their machines on the public highway. It’s important to stress there’s no requirement for a motor vehicle operator to have formal lessons before starting to use the road under power, merely that they must sit an exam. Road users propelled by engines often have a great deal of power at their disposal so, potentially, pose a risk of harming others. The compulsory examination of a motor vehicle operator happens just once and, as is plain for all to see, does not lead to automatic compliance with road laws. For instance, the majority of motorists admit to breaking speed limits and some do so habitually, at great risk to others. Regrettably, cyclists also break road laws and, yes, such law breaking is often deemed to be behaviour common to all cyclists. Given that cyclists do not have engines (apart from those who operate electric bikes, but that opens up a whole new can of worms) the law has not seen fit to require testing before cyclists start using the public highway, even though they operate what the law has considered a carriage since 1888. This carriage, ridden carefully by an unprotected operator who risks injury to their self, is deemed to be capable of causing little harm to others. In this respect cyclists are like pedestrians. Test cyclists who use the roads, and you’d have to test pedestrians who use the roads. However, despite there being no legal requirement for cyclists to sit tests, a great many cyclists are given road training. Many children get Bikeability training at school and there are many cycle trainers around the UK who offer Bikeability training for adults. It’s also worth pointing out that nearly ninety percent of cyclists own cars and so have passed the driving test. But if they had brought in testing etc I never would of had a bike as a kid and neither would my seven year old who sometimes comes with me for little rides to the common. That's a debate. Don't shoot me down I may agree win charlee somewhat as you are aware mr positive southamptonadi
  • Score: 0

5:27pm Fri 21 Mar 14

southamptonadi says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
Drhysted wrote:
charrlee wrote:
The only cyclists I find a problem are the ones who turn up here everyday "pedalling" their usual "I-think-it-so-it-mu



st-be-true" rhetoric, backed up with extra-contextual quotes from obscure documents. No ordinary forum user is going to get these highly-trained, HFA pro-cycling guerrillas to give any quarter as it conflicts with their propaganda assault programme.

However there is no way any of them can reasonably argue against these proposals :

ALL road users must pass national proficiency tests dedicated to each and every mode of transport they wish to use.

ALL road users must carry identification that is clearly visible to CCTV at all times. That would be registration plates for vehicles and motorbikes, and a registration shirt for cyclists.

ALL road users must pay a licence fee and insurance.

Those requirements would accord equality of status to ALL road users.
When I was just using the cycle for exercise I thought mildly similar to yourself.
Since I started commuting, and doing over 4000 miles a year on the road bike (it's called a road bike because it was designed for the road), I have had my thinking converted, and understand a lot of what the cyclists here keep trying to tell you.
I do not intentionally hold up traffic, but I do intentionally position myself in the position that best ensures my safety.
Over the last couple of years I have noticed the standard of driving has gotten worse. It's not just when cycling but also when driving. I think it may be because people are trying to do more than just drive, but fear that it maybe because cars have become so much more safe that people do not thing about crashing.
So like Charrlee says,you can't reasonably argue against any of his points...?
I can argue against his some of his points.

I'm a cyclist that turns up on here and I don't peddle any I think so so it must be true jumbo jumbo. I leave that for others.

And as for licensing, registration etc, The law has tended to be quite clear on the testing issue: testing is proportional to power output. Adding a motor creates faster, more powerful vehicles so operators of motor vehicles are subjected to a form of test before being allowed to propel their machines on the public highway. It’s important to stress there’s no requirement for a motor vehicle operator to have formal lessons before starting to use the road under power, merely that they must sit an exam.

Road users propelled by engines often have a great deal of power at their disposal so, potentially, pose a risk of harming others. The compulsory examination of a motor vehicle operator happens just once and, as is plain for all to see, does not lead to automatic compliance with road laws. For instance, the majority of motorists admit to breaking speed limits and some do so habitually, at great risk to others.

Regrettably, cyclists also break road laws and, yes, such law breaking is often deemed to be behaviour common to all cyclists.

Given that cyclists do not have engines (apart from those who operate electric bikes, but that opens up a whole new can of worms) the law has not seen fit to require testing before cyclists start using the public highway, even though they operate what the law has considered a carriage since 1888. This carriage, ridden carefully by an unprotected operator who risks injury to their self, is deemed to be capable of causing little harm to others. In this respect cyclists are like pedestrians. Test cyclists who use the roads, and you’d have to test pedestrians who use the roads.

However, despite there being no legal requirement for cyclists to sit tests, a great many cyclists are given road training. Many children get Bikeability training at school and there are many cycle trainers around the UK who offer Bikeability training for adults.

It’s also worth pointing out that nearly ninety percent of cyclists own cars and so have passed the driving test.

But if they had brought in testing etc I never would of had a bike as a kid and neither would my seven year old who sometimes comes with me for little rides to the common.

That's a debate. Don't shoot me down I may agree win charlee somewhat as you are aware mr positive
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Drhysted[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: The only cyclists I find a problem are the ones who turn up here everyday "pedalling" their usual "I-think-it-so-it-mu st-be-true" rhetoric, backed up with extra-contextual quotes from obscure documents. No ordinary forum user is going to get these highly-trained, HFA pro-cycling guerrillas to give any quarter as it conflicts with their propaganda assault programme. However there is no way any of them can reasonably argue against these proposals : ALL road users must pass national proficiency tests dedicated to each and every mode of transport they wish to use. ALL road users must carry identification that is clearly visible to CCTV at all times. That would be registration plates for vehicles and motorbikes, and a registration shirt for cyclists. ALL road users must pay a licence fee and insurance. Those requirements would accord equality of status to ALL road users.[/p][/quote]When I was just using the cycle for exercise I thought mildly similar to yourself. Since I started commuting, and doing over 4000 miles a year on the road bike (it's called a road bike because it was designed for the road), I have had my thinking converted, and understand a lot of what the cyclists here keep trying to tell you. I do not intentionally hold up traffic, but I do intentionally position myself in the position that best ensures my safety. Over the last couple of years I have noticed the standard of driving has gotten worse. It's not just when cycling but also when driving. I think it may be because people are trying to do more than just drive, but fear that it maybe because cars have become so much more safe that people do not thing about crashing.[/p][/quote]So like Charrlee says,you can't reasonably argue against any of his points...?[/p][/quote]I can argue against his some of his points. I'm a cyclist that turns up on here and I don't peddle any I think so so it must be true jumbo jumbo. I leave that for others. And as for licensing, registration etc, The law has tended to be quite clear on the testing issue: testing is proportional to power output. Adding a motor creates faster, more powerful vehicles so operators of motor vehicles are subjected to a form of test before being allowed to propel their machines on the public highway. It’s important to stress there’s no requirement for a motor vehicle operator to have formal lessons before starting to use the road under power, merely that they must sit an exam. Road users propelled by engines often have a great deal of power at their disposal so, potentially, pose a risk of harming others. The compulsory examination of a motor vehicle operator happens just once and, as is plain for all to see, does not lead to automatic compliance with road laws. For instance, the majority of motorists admit to breaking speed limits and some do so habitually, at great risk to others. Regrettably, cyclists also break road laws and, yes, such law breaking is often deemed to be behaviour common to all cyclists. Given that cyclists do not have engines (apart from those who operate electric bikes, but that opens up a whole new can of worms) the law has not seen fit to require testing before cyclists start using the public highway, even though they operate what the law has considered a carriage since 1888. This carriage, ridden carefully by an unprotected operator who risks injury to their self, is deemed to be capable of causing little harm to others. In this respect cyclists are like pedestrians. Test cyclists who use the roads, and you’d have to test pedestrians who use the roads. However, despite there being no legal requirement for cyclists to sit tests, a great many cyclists are given road training. Many children get Bikeability training at school and there are many cycle trainers around the UK who offer Bikeability training for adults. It’s also worth pointing out that nearly ninety percent of cyclists own cars and so have passed the driving test. But if they had brought in testing etc I never would of had a bike as a kid and neither would my seven year old who sometimes comes with me for little rides to the common. That's a debate. Don't shoot me down I may agree win charlee somewhat as you are aware mr positive southamptonadi
  • Score: 1

5:31pm Fri 21 Mar 14

southamptonadi says...

Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Positively4thStreet wrote:
Turtlebay wrote:
As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves.

Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter!
Here here!
Shall we do the same with motorists?
Oh wait...
WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort.
Doesn't count Ginge,even car drivers have to have CBT,and pass a test within 2 years (or start again) to ride a motor bike.
All Turtle bay is saying,is that in the interest of their own safety(and that of other road users for that matter) so should cyclists.
Why? A cyclist is FAR less dangerous than a car or even a motorcycle, plus,they're mechanically(or electrically if electric motors alone power them to anything above 15mph) propelled vehicles, electric bicycles aren't included in licencing as they're usually electrically ASSISTED, those that can be propelled to more than 15mph by the motor alone(without the assistance of gravity), aren't normally road legal unless registered and is type approved, like there's an electric mountain bike capable of 50+mph on the motor, though it is able to be switched between road legal mode where you have to pedal along and competition mode where the motor works on it's own to throw you to 50mph, it also has regen braking.
So you're saying that there are no circumstances on this earth,that an untrained, untested person,in charge of a bicycle could ever be responsible for a situation,that would result in death or serious injury,to either themselves,or other road users or pedestrians?
Nobody is claiming this could never happen. The likelihood of it happening however, is minute compared to motor accidents - irrespective of user ratios - yet somehow cyclists are dubbed menaces.

They're not menaces. Statistical evidence proves it.
Where is anyone saying cyclists are a menace?
All Turtlebay was trying to point out,is that some cyclists are by default,a danger to themselves due their currently legally permissible untrained and untested state.
At the very least,a CBT certificate should be a minimum requirement,even if only for riders who are unable to produce any other form of road craft qualification documents.
Legally?!?! What are you on about?!?!

CBT for cycliing?! Doesn't exist and no amount of bleating will cause there to be one.

And as for nobody branding cyclists menaces, don't be so naive. You're not new to this forum.
Legally,anyone can jump on a bike without any training or testing whatsoever.
A CBT for cycling doesn't exist.. exactly my point CJ,glad you agree.
Can't ever recall having suggested that cyclists are a menace,although the fact that some people do,suggests that they have personal experience, and justification for their reasoning,and as I said before,Turtlebay was only suggesting that some cyclists were a menace to themselves (and by default to others)as a result of the lack of training or testing.
"Legally,anyone can jump on a bike without any training or testing whatsoever" - Yes, they can. There are no formal mandatory tests required. You would be shattering the Christmas's of millions of kids by incorporating one. Not to mention the financial implications involved to set up such a scheme. Waste of time and money and will make more people miserable.

"A CBT for cycling doesn't exist.. exactly my point CJ,glad you agree." - No there's not. We agree there well done. Not sure what you were hoping to achieve but we do agree.

"Can't ever recall having suggested that cyclists are a menace,although the fact that some people do,suggests that they have personal experience, and justification for their reasoning,and as I said before,Turtlebay was only suggesting that some cyclists were a menace to themselves (and by default to others)as a result of the lack of training or testing." - You may not have, but many people have and continue to do so. Because they once saw one jump a red light or had to swerve to get past one or some other ridiculous reason to hate an entire group of people. I don't hate all Germans because of Hitler or all North Koreans because of Kim Jong-Il or all TOTP presenters because of Sir Jimmy. There is training available however due to the minuscule risk to other road users caused by cyclists, there is no legal requirement to be tested. Therefore, give it a rest and realise that cycling is a permanent, legal, healthy and safe mode of transport. When that changes, and cycling becomes taxable, unsafe, dangerous and unhealthy, I will throw my hands up and stop preaching.
Well I think you'll find CJ,that the whole point of these threads,is to make considered comment,which is all Turtlebay was doing,so there's no reason why either of us should have to"give it a rest" least of all at your instruction,and especially in the light of your admission to preaching.
He did make a valid point but I think if there a risk to themselves let them. I don't care if they commit suicide.i do care as a pedestrian, a cyclist and a driver that many motorists are a danger to OTHERS. That is also a valid point.
[quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Positively4thStreet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: As someone who is a professional driver of lorries I state from daily observations that most cyclists are a danger to themselves. Until they are forced to do a driving test first before using a bicycle on a public road, that includes knowledge of the Highway Code and they demonstrate their understanding of that Code in practice, then I agree with Ross Ansell’s letter![/p][/quote]Here here![/p][/quote]Shall we do the same with motorists? Oh wait... WE DO and many are as bad, if not WORSE than if they didn't get forced to take lessons and stuff before driving, also, most cyclists like myself hold a licence of some sort.[/p][/quote]Doesn't count Ginge,even car drivers have to have CBT,and pass a test within 2 years (or start again) to ride a motor bike. All Turtle bay is saying,is that in the interest of their own safety(and that of other road users for that matter) so should cyclists.[/p][/quote]Why? A cyclist is FAR less dangerous than a car or even a motorcycle, plus,they're mechanically(or electrically if electric motors alone power them to anything above 15mph) propelled vehicles, electric bicycles aren't included in licencing as they're usually electrically ASSISTED, those that can be propelled to more than 15mph by the motor alone(without the assistance of gravity), aren't normally road legal unless registered and is type approved, like there's an electric mountain bike capable of 50+mph on the motor, though it is able to be switched between road legal mode where you have to pedal along and competition mode where the motor works on it's own to throw you to 50mph, it also has regen braking.[/p][/quote]So you're saying that there are no circumstances on this earth,that an untrained, untested person,in charge of a bicycle could ever be responsible for a situation,that would result in death or serious injury,to either themselves,or other road users or pedestrians?[/p][/quote]Nobody is claiming this could never happen. The likelihood of it happening however, is minute compared to motor accidents - irrespective of user ratios - yet somehow cyclists are dubbed menaces. They're not menaces. Statistical evidence proves it.[/p][/quote]Where is anyone saying cyclists are a menace? All Turtlebay was trying to point out,is that some cyclists are by default,a danger to themselves due their currently legally permissible untrained and untested state. At the very least,a CBT certificate should be a minimum requirement,even if only for riders who are unable to produce any other form of road craft qualification documents.[/p][/quote]Legally?!?! What are you on about?!?! CBT for cycliing?! Doesn't exist and no amount of bleating will cause there to be one. And as for nobody branding cyclists menaces, don't be so naive. You're not new to this forum.[/p][/quote]Legally,anyone can jump on a bike without any training or testing whatsoever. A CBT for cycling doesn't exist.. exactly my point CJ,glad you agree. Can't ever recall having suggested that cyclists are a menace,although the fact that some people do,suggests that they have personal experience, and justification for their reasoning,and as I said before,Turtlebay was only suggesting that some cyclists were a menace to themselves (and by default to others)as a result of the lack of training or testing.[/p][/quote]"Legally,anyone can jump on a bike without any training or testing whatsoever" - Yes, they can. There are no formal mandatory tests required. You would be shattering the Christmas's of millions of kids by incorporating one. Not to mention the financial implications involved to set up such a scheme. Waste of time and money and will make more people miserable. "A CBT for cycling doesn't exist.. exactly my point CJ,glad you agree." - No there's not. We agree there well done. Not sure what you were hoping to achieve but we do agree. "Can't ever recall having suggested that cyclists are a menace,although the fact that some people do,suggests that they have personal experience, and justification for their reasoning,and as I said before,Turtlebay was only suggesting that some cyclists were a menace to themselves (and by default to others)as a result of the lack of training or testing." - You may not have, but many people have and continue to do so. Because they once saw one jump a red light or had to swerve to get past one or some other ridiculous reason to hate an entire group of people. I don't hate all Germans because of Hitler or all North Koreans because of Kim Jong-Il or all TOTP presenters because of Sir Jimmy. There is training available however due to the minuscule risk to other road users caused by cyclists, there is no legal requirement to be tested. Therefore, give it a rest and realise that cycling is a permanent, legal, healthy and safe mode of transport. When that changes, and cycling becomes taxable, unsafe, dangerous and unhealthy, I will throw my hands up and stop preaching.[/p][/quote]Well I think you'll find CJ,that the whole point of these threads,is to make considered comment,which is all Turtlebay was doing,so there's no reason why either of us should have to"give it a rest" least of all at your instruction,and especially in the light of your admission to preaching.[/p][/quote]He did make a valid point but I think if there a risk to themselves let them. I don't care if they commit suicide.i do care as a pedestrian, a cyclist and a driver that many motorists are a danger to OTHERS. That is also a valid point. southamptonadi
  • Score: 3

6:09pm Tue 25 Mar 14

From the sidelines says...

Inform Al wrote:
downfader wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
downfader wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
I ride a bike on the rare occasions that I forget my aversion to excercise, but I would not accompany the idiot I saw cycling in the middle of Winchester Road a couple of days ago holding up the traffic, when there is a very wide cycle lane there.
Ahh Winchester road. Last time I rode up there I couldnt actually get in the cycle lane due to all the parked cars. Grrr....

Question - was the rider heading downhill? Eg towards the Range/Halfords before the roundabout? I've been able to do a good 35mph there, yet you'll still get passed by drivers.
No, he was going uphill, the cycle lane was clear and he was doing about 20 mph. He appeared to be one of the lycra clad brigade that thinks he owns the road. Most cyclists have more sense.
How do you know he thinks he owns the road? Has he just passed parked cars (that are pretty much always there when I pass the place)? Was there something else in the cycle lane? Was he approaching a junction? (Called visibility management sometimes)

I could go on. 20mph is a reasonable speed. Cyclecraft advises to move towards the flow of traffic at such speeds. As does Effective Traffic Riding from the British Cycling instruction team.

http://www.britishcy


cling.org.uk/commuti


ng/article/trav20111


121-Effective-Traffi


c-Riding-home0
There were no parked cars on that side of the road, if there was a reasonable reason for him being in the middle of the road I would have said so, as I neither condemn of give excuses without knowing all the facts. Cycling at about 20mph deliberately holding up traffic that is able and allowed to do 30 mph is totally pig ignorant. Most cyclists with more than one brain cell will agree with this.
It is appropriate to claim the lane.

A brief perusal of 'Cyclecraft' will explain this to you.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: I ride a bike on the rare occasions that I forget my aversion to excercise, but I would not accompany the idiot I saw cycling in the middle of Winchester Road a couple of days ago holding up the traffic, when there is a very wide cycle lane there.[/p][/quote]Ahh Winchester road. Last time I rode up there I couldnt actually get in the cycle lane due to all the parked cars. Grrr.... Question - was the rider heading downhill? Eg towards the Range/Halfords before the roundabout? I've been able to do a good 35mph there, yet you'll still get passed by drivers.[/p][/quote]No, he was going uphill, the cycle lane was clear and he was doing about 20 mph. He appeared to be one of the lycra clad brigade that thinks he owns the road. Most cyclists have more sense.[/p][/quote]How do you know he thinks he owns the road? Has he just passed parked cars (that are pretty much always there when I pass the place)? Was there something else in the cycle lane? Was he approaching a junction? (Called visibility management sometimes) I could go on. 20mph is a reasonable speed. Cyclecraft advises to move towards the flow of traffic at such speeds. As does Effective Traffic Riding from the British Cycling instruction team. http://www.britishcy cling.org.uk/commuti ng/article/trav20111 121-Effective-Traffi c-Riding-home0[/p][/quote]There were no parked cars on that side of the road, if there was a reasonable reason for him being in the middle of the road I would have said so, as I neither condemn of give excuses without knowing all the facts. Cycling at about 20mph deliberately holding up traffic that is able and allowed to do 30 mph is totally pig ignorant. Most cyclists with more than one brain cell will agree with this.[/p][/quote]It is appropriate to claim the lane. A brief perusal of 'Cyclecraft' will explain this to you. From the sidelines
  • Score: 0

6:12pm Tue 25 Mar 14

From the sidelines says...

charrlee wrote:
The only cyclists I find a problem are the ones who turn up here everyday "pedalling" their usual "I-think-it-so-it-mu

st-be-true" rhetoric, backed up with extra-contextual quotes from obscure documents. No ordinary forum user is going to get these highly-trained, HFA pro-cycling guerrillas to give any quarter as it conflicts with their propaganda assault programme.

However there is no way any of them can reasonably argue against these proposals :

ALL road users must pass national proficiency tests dedicated to each and every mode of transport they wish to use.

ALL road users must carry identification that is clearly visible to CCTV at all times. That would be registration plates for vehicles and motorbikes, and a registration shirt for cyclists.

ALL road users must pay a licence fee and insurance.

Those requirements would accord equality of status to ALL road users.
Pedestrians are road users.

You haven't thought this through.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: The only cyclists I find a problem are the ones who turn up here everyday "pedalling" their usual "I-think-it-so-it-mu st-be-true" rhetoric, backed up with extra-contextual quotes from obscure documents. No ordinary forum user is going to get these highly-trained, HFA pro-cycling guerrillas to give any quarter as it conflicts with their propaganda assault programme. However there is no way any of them can reasonably argue against these proposals : ALL road users must pass national proficiency tests dedicated to each and every mode of transport they wish to use. ALL road users must carry identification that is clearly visible to CCTV at all times. That would be registration plates for vehicles and motorbikes, and a registration shirt for cyclists. ALL road users must pay a licence fee and insurance. Those requirements would accord equality of status to ALL road users.[/p][/quote]Pedestrians are road users. You haven't thought this through. From the sidelines
  • Score: 0

8:47pm Tue 25 Mar 14

Inform Al says...

From the sidelines wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
downfader wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
downfader wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
I ride a bike on the rare occasions that I forget my aversion to excercise, but I would not accompany the idiot I saw cycling in the middle of Winchester Road a couple of days ago holding up the traffic, when there is a very wide cycle lane there.
Ahh Winchester road. Last time I rode up there I couldnt actually get in the cycle lane due to all the parked cars. Grrr....

Question - was the rider heading downhill? Eg towards the Range/Halfords before the roundabout? I've been able to do a good 35mph there, yet you'll still get passed by drivers.
No, he was going uphill, the cycle lane was clear and he was doing about 20 mph. He appeared to be one of the lycra clad brigade that thinks he owns the road. Most cyclists have more sense.
How do you know he thinks he owns the road? Has he just passed parked cars (that are pretty much always there when I pass the place)? Was there something else in the cycle lane? Was he approaching a junction? (Called visibility management sometimes)

I could go on. 20mph is a reasonable speed. Cyclecraft advises to move towards the flow of traffic at such speeds. As does Effective Traffic Riding from the British Cycling instruction team.

http://www.britishcy



cling.org.uk/commuti



ng/article/trav20111



121-Effective-Traffi



c-Riding-home0
There were no parked cars on that side of the road, if there was a reasonable reason for him being in the middle of the road I would have said so, as I neither condemn of give excuses without knowing all the facts. Cycling at about 20mph deliberately holding up traffic that is able and allowed to do 30 mph is totally pig ignorant. Most cyclists with more than one brain cell will agree with this.
It is appropriate to claim the lane.

A brief perusal of 'Cyclecraft' will explain this to you.
Only if you are a totally ignorant self serving basket case.
[quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: I ride a bike on the rare occasions that I forget my aversion to excercise, but I would not accompany the idiot I saw cycling in the middle of Winchester Road a couple of days ago holding up the traffic, when there is a very wide cycle lane there.[/p][/quote]Ahh Winchester road. Last time I rode up there I couldnt actually get in the cycle lane due to all the parked cars. Grrr.... Question - was the rider heading downhill? Eg towards the Range/Halfords before the roundabout? I've been able to do a good 35mph there, yet you'll still get passed by drivers.[/p][/quote]No, he was going uphill, the cycle lane was clear and he was doing about 20 mph. He appeared to be one of the lycra clad brigade that thinks he owns the road. Most cyclists have more sense.[/p][/quote]How do you know he thinks he owns the road? Has he just passed parked cars (that are pretty much always there when I pass the place)? Was there something else in the cycle lane? Was he approaching a junction? (Called visibility management sometimes) I could go on. 20mph is a reasonable speed. Cyclecraft advises to move towards the flow of traffic at such speeds. As does Effective Traffic Riding from the British Cycling instruction team. http://www.britishcy cling.org.uk/commuti ng/article/trav20111 121-Effective-Traffi c-Riding-home0[/p][/quote]There were no parked cars on that side of the road, if there was a reasonable reason for him being in the middle of the road I would have said so, as I neither condemn of give excuses without knowing all the facts. Cycling at about 20mph deliberately holding up traffic that is able and allowed to do 30 mph is totally pig ignorant. Most cyclists with more than one brain cell will agree with this.[/p][/quote]It is appropriate to claim the lane. A brief perusal of 'Cyclecraft' will explain this to you.[/p][/quote]Only if you are a totally ignorant self serving basket case. Inform Al
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree