The ArgusCycle campaign group Bricycles answer your questions (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Cycle campaign group Bricycles answer your questions

The Argus: Cycle campaign group Bricycles answer your questions Cycle campaign group Bricycles answer your questions

Cycling has rarely been far from the headlines in recent years, be it Olympic exploits, tragic road deaths or cycle path improvements.

And as more and more people take to the saddle the debate over safer cycling has been gaining pace. 

This week Tony Green of Brighton and Hove cycle campaign group Bricycles has agreed to answer your questions. 

Leave your questions below or email finn.scott-delany@theargus.co.uk 

Comments (41)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:12pm Wed 15 Jan 14

SexualHarassmentPanda says...

"Cycling has rarely been far from the headlines in recent years"

Yes, it's almost as if some news companies are disproportionately obsessed with the subject.
"Cycling has rarely been far from the headlines in recent years" Yes, it's almost as if some news companies are disproportionately obsessed with the subject. SexualHarassmentPanda
  • Score: 5

2:20pm Wed 15 Jan 14

brightonline says...

Would be nice to put the Argus on the spot and ask some probing questions!
Would be nice to put the Argus on the spot and ask some probing questions! brightonline
  • Score: 4

2:49pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Brighton1000 says...

Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site:

No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't.
Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site: No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't. Brighton1000
  • Score: 0

3:32pm Wed 15 Jan 14

peterthomas says...

Brighton1000 wrote:
Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site:

No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't.
Stunning stuff I have to say..."it's common sense to use the pavement" and a reference to the "plight of the cyclist" not recognising which is "our problem"??? You need to take more water with it - I have been F'd and Blinded at on several occasions when nearly knocked for six by cyclists moving at high speed on pavements within yards of obscenely expensive cycle lane developments. EVERY SINGLE DAY I see red light jumping/no lights/headphones on/wrong way down one way streets etc etc. Car drivers are legally required to be identifiable/pay vehicle tax and insured - the cotton wooled cyclist is not - time for a change , then maybe the holier than thou drivel may cease?
[quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site: No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't.[/p][/quote]Stunning stuff I have to say..."it's common sense to use the pavement" and a reference to the "plight of the cyclist" not recognising which is "our problem"??? You need to take more water with it - I have been F'd and Blinded at on several occasions when nearly knocked for six by cyclists moving at high speed on pavements within yards of obscenely expensive cycle lane developments. EVERY SINGLE DAY I see red light jumping/no lights/headphones on/wrong way down one way streets etc etc. Car drivers are legally required to be identifiable/pay vehicle tax and insured - the cotton wooled cyclist is not - time for a change , then maybe the holier than thou drivel may cease? peterthomas
  • Score: 7

3:48pm Wed 15 Jan 14

peterthomas says...

SexualHarassmentPand
a
wrote:
"Cycling has rarely been far from the headlines in recent years"

Yes, it's almost as if some news companies are disproportionately obsessed with the subject.
True but I guess when you have hundreds of people breaking the law every day and going unpunished it may warrant a degree of media coverage?
[quote][p][bold]SexualHarassmentPand a[/bold] wrote: "Cycling has rarely been far from the headlines in recent years" Yes, it's almost as if some news companies are disproportionately obsessed with the subject.[/p][/quote]True but I guess when you have hundreds of people breaking the law every day and going unpunished it may warrant a degree of media coverage? peterthomas
  • Score: 6

3:52pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Brightonscouse2 says...

peterthomas wrote:
SexualHarassmentPand

a
wrote:
"Cycling has rarely been far from the headlines in recent years"

Yes, it's almost as if some news companies are disproportionately obsessed with the subject.
True but I guess when you have hundreds of people breaking the law every day and going unpunished it may warrant a degree of media coverage?
You can quantify these 'hundreds of people breaking the law & going unpunished'?
[quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SexualHarassmentPand a[/bold] wrote: "Cycling has rarely been far from the headlines in recent years" Yes, it's almost as if some news companies are disproportionately obsessed with the subject.[/p][/quote]True but I guess when you have hundreds of people breaking the law every day and going unpunished it may warrant a degree of media coverage?[/p][/quote]You can quantify these 'hundreds of people breaking the law & going unpunished'? Brightonscouse2
  • Score: -3

4:00pm Wed 15 Jan 14

brighton bluenose says...

peterthomas wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site:

No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't.
Stunning stuff I have to say..."it's common sense to use the pavement" and a reference to the "plight of the cyclist" not recognising which is "our problem"??? You need to take more water with it - I have been F'd and Blinded at on several occasions when nearly knocked for six by cyclists moving at high speed on pavements within yards of obscenely expensive cycle lane developments. EVERY SINGLE DAY I see red light jumping/no lights/headphones on/wrong way down one way streets etc etc. Car drivers are legally required to be identifiable/pay vehicle tax and insured - the cotton wooled cyclist is not - time for a change , then maybe the holier than thou drivel may cease?
You sound very angry Peter - perhaps you should get yourself a bike and suffer some of the danger, impatience and abuse that cyclists regularly suffer from brain-dead motorists! The majority of car-drivers are, of course, sensible and courteous, but there is a fair minority who do not give a flying **** about cyclists - or other road-users come to that!!
Not quite sure where the 'cotton-woolled' cyclist bit comes from - as it is quite often the cyclist (or the motor-cyclist) who ends up under the wheels of a car as the driver is unaware of whats going on around them! Perhaps you can give us the stats on cyclists causing serious injury or death to motorists?!!
[quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site: No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't.[/p][/quote]Stunning stuff I have to say..."it's common sense to use the pavement" and a reference to the "plight of the cyclist" not recognising which is "our problem"??? You need to take more water with it - I have been F'd and Blinded at on several occasions when nearly knocked for six by cyclists moving at high speed on pavements within yards of obscenely expensive cycle lane developments. EVERY SINGLE DAY I see red light jumping/no lights/headphones on/wrong way down one way streets etc etc. Car drivers are legally required to be identifiable/pay vehicle tax and insured - the cotton wooled cyclist is not - time for a change , then maybe the holier than thou drivel may cease?[/p][/quote]You sound very angry Peter - perhaps you should get yourself a bike and suffer some of the danger, impatience and abuse that cyclists regularly suffer from brain-dead motorists! The majority of car-drivers are, of course, sensible and courteous, but there is a fair minority who do not give a flying **** about cyclists - or other road-users come to that!! Not quite sure where the 'cotton-woolled' cyclist bit comes from - as it is quite often the cyclist (or the motor-cyclist) who ends up under the wheels of a car as the driver is unaware of whats going on around them! Perhaps you can give us the stats on cyclists causing serious injury or death to motorists?!! brighton bluenose
  • Score: -4

4:06pm Wed 15 Jan 14

gheese77 says...

peterthomas wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site:

No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't.
Stunning stuff I have to say..."it's common sense to use the pavement" and a reference to the "plight of the cyclist" not recognising which is "our problem"??? You need to take more water with it - I have been F'd and Blinded at on several occasions when nearly knocked for six by cyclists moving at high speed on pavements within yards of obscenely expensive cycle lane developments. EVERY SINGLE DAY I see red light jumping/no lights/headphones on/wrong way down one way streets etc etc. Car drivers are legally required to be identifiable/pay vehicle tax and insured - the cotton wooled cyclist is not - time for a change , then maybe the holier than thou drivel may cease?
I can guarantee that everyday I will see a motorist BREAKING THE SPEED LIMIT. This does not mean that I consider all drivers lunatic criiminals, There are obviously some bad drivers amongst the good law abiding safe ones. How come people cannot apply the same sensible logic when it comes to cyclists? if you see a cyclist go through a red light it does not mean that all cyclists go through red lights, the same applies to pavements etc..
[quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site: No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't.[/p][/quote]Stunning stuff I have to say..."it's common sense to use the pavement" and a reference to the "plight of the cyclist" not recognising which is "our problem"??? You need to take more water with it - I have been F'd and Blinded at on several occasions when nearly knocked for six by cyclists moving at high speed on pavements within yards of obscenely expensive cycle lane developments. EVERY SINGLE DAY I see red light jumping/no lights/headphones on/wrong way down one way streets etc etc. Car drivers are legally required to be identifiable/pay vehicle tax and insured - the cotton wooled cyclist is not - time for a change , then maybe the holier than thou drivel may cease?[/p][/quote]I can guarantee that everyday I will see a motorist BREAKING THE SPEED LIMIT. This does not mean that I consider all drivers lunatic criiminals, There are obviously some bad drivers amongst the good law abiding safe ones. How come people cannot apply the same sensible logic when it comes to cyclists? if you see a cyclist go through a red light it does not mean that all cyclists go through red lights, the same applies to pavements etc.. gheese77
  • Score: 5

4:18pm Wed 15 Jan 14

peterthomas says...

Brightonscouse2 wrote:
peterthomas wrote:
SexualHarassmentPand


a
wrote:
"Cycling has rarely been far from the headlines in recent years"

Yes, it's almost as if some news companies are disproportionately obsessed with the subject.
True but I guess when you have hundreds of people breaking the law every day and going unpunished it may warrant a degree of media coverage?
You can quantify these 'hundreds of people breaking the law & going unpunished'?
Yep - come out one morning - I'll pay for the coffee - are you seriously suggesting that this isn't the case??
[quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SexualHarassmentPand a[/bold] wrote: "Cycling has rarely been far from the headlines in recent years" Yes, it's almost as if some news companies are disproportionately obsessed with the subject.[/p][/quote]True but I guess when you have hundreds of people breaking the law every day and going unpunished it may warrant a degree of media coverage?[/p][/quote]You can quantify these 'hundreds of people breaking the law & going unpunished'?[/p][/quote]Yep - come out one morning - I'll pay for the coffee - are you seriously suggesting that this isn't the case?? peterthomas
  • Score: 0

4:21pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Brighton1000 says...

gheese77 wrote:
peterthomas wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site:

No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't.
Stunning stuff I have to say..."it's common sense to use the pavement" and a reference to the "plight of the cyclist" not recognising which is "our problem"??? You need to take more water with it - I have been F'd and Blinded at on several occasions when nearly knocked for six by cyclists moving at high speed on pavements within yards of obscenely expensive cycle lane developments. EVERY SINGLE DAY I see red light jumping/no lights/headphones on/wrong way down one way streets etc etc. Car drivers are legally required to be identifiable/pay vehicle tax and insured - the cotton wooled cyclist is not - time for a change , then maybe the holier than thou drivel may cease?
I can guarantee that everyday I will see a motorist BREAKING THE SPEED LIMIT. This does not mean that I consider all drivers lunatic criiminals, There are obviously some bad drivers amongst the good law abiding safe ones. How come people cannot apply the same sensible logic when it comes to cyclists? if you see a cyclist go through a red light it does not mean that all cyclists go through red lights, the same applies to pavements etc..
The difference is if a motorist breaks the speed limit or runs a red or drives carlessly, They can be traced and fined and dealt with. Seeing as cyclists cant, they adopt the 'not my problem' attitude. Im not saying all cyclists are to blame, just the majority.
[quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site: No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't.[/p][/quote]Stunning stuff I have to say..."it's common sense to use the pavement" and a reference to the "plight of the cyclist" not recognising which is "our problem"??? You need to take more water with it - I have been F'd and Blinded at on several occasions when nearly knocked for six by cyclists moving at high speed on pavements within yards of obscenely expensive cycle lane developments. EVERY SINGLE DAY I see red light jumping/no lights/headphones on/wrong way down one way streets etc etc. Car drivers are legally required to be identifiable/pay vehicle tax and insured - the cotton wooled cyclist is not - time for a change , then maybe the holier than thou drivel may cease?[/p][/quote]I can guarantee that everyday I will see a motorist BREAKING THE SPEED LIMIT. This does not mean that I consider all drivers lunatic criiminals, There are obviously some bad drivers amongst the good law abiding safe ones. How come people cannot apply the same sensible logic when it comes to cyclists? if you see a cyclist go through a red light it does not mean that all cyclists go through red lights, the same applies to pavements etc..[/p][/quote]The difference is if a motorist breaks the speed limit or runs a red or drives carlessly, They can be traced and fined and dealt with. Seeing as cyclists cant, they adopt the 'not my problem' attitude. Im not saying all cyclists are to blame, just the majority. Brighton1000
  • Score: 3

4:28pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Brightonscouse2 says...

peterthomas wrote:
Brightonscouse2 wrote:
peterthomas wrote:
SexualHarassmentPand



a
wrote:
"Cycling has rarely been far from the headlines in recent years"

Yes, it's almost as if some news companies are disproportionately obsessed with the subject.
True but I guess when you have hundreds of people breaking the law every day and going unpunished it may warrant a degree of media coverage?
You can quantify these 'hundreds of people breaking the law & going unpunished'?
Yep - come out one morning - I'll pay for the coffee - are you seriously suggesting that this isn't the case??
I'm not denying that some cyclists break the laws of the road, as do some motorists. I'm questioning your claim that 'hundreds' every day are doing so.

How do you reach such a figure?
[quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SexualHarassmentPand a[/bold] wrote: "Cycling has rarely been far from the headlines in recent years" Yes, it's almost as if some news companies are disproportionately obsessed with the subject.[/p][/quote]True but I guess when you have hundreds of people breaking the law every day and going unpunished it may warrant a degree of media coverage?[/p][/quote]You can quantify these 'hundreds of people breaking the law & going unpunished'?[/p][/quote]Yep - come out one morning - I'll pay for the coffee - are you seriously suggesting that this isn't the case??[/p][/quote]I'm not denying that some cyclists break the laws of the road, as do some motorists. I'm questioning your claim that 'hundreds' every day are doing so. How do you reach such a figure? Brightonscouse2
  • Score: 0

4:32pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Brightonscouse2 says...

Brighton1000 wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
peterthomas wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site:

No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't.
Stunning stuff I have to say..."it's common sense to use the pavement" and a reference to the "plight of the cyclist" not recognising which is "our problem"??? You need to take more water with it - I have been F'd and Blinded at on several occasions when nearly knocked for six by cyclists moving at high speed on pavements within yards of obscenely expensive cycle lane developments. EVERY SINGLE DAY I see red light jumping/no lights/headphones on/wrong way down one way streets etc etc. Car drivers are legally required to be identifiable/pay vehicle tax and insured - the cotton wooled cyclist is not - time for a change , then maybe the holier than thou drivel may cease?
I can guarantee that everyday I will see a motorist BREAKING THE SPEED LIMIT. This does not mean that I consider all drivers lunatic criiminals, There are obviously some bad drivers amongst the good law abiding safe ones. How come people cannot apply the same sensible logic when it comes to cyclists? if you see a cyclist go through a red light it does not mean that all cyclists go through red lights, the same applies to pavements etc..
The difference is if a motorist breaks the speed limit or runs a red or drives carlessly, They can be traced and fined and dealt with. Seeing as cyclists cant, they adopt the 'not my problem' attitude. Im not saying all cyclists are to blame, just the majority.
In saying the majority are to blame you are, by default, saying that cyclists (plural) are to blame.

I've noticed you on this and the other story on cyclists, the shame one. Your absence on the 3rd cycling story on this site, the hit & run one, is conspicuous to say the least.
[quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site: No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't.[/p][/quote]Stunning stuff I have to say..."it's common sense to use the pavement" and a reference to the "plight of the cyclist" not recognising which is "our problem"??? You need to take more water with it - I have been F'd and Blinded at on several occasions when nearly knocked for six by cyclists moving at high speed on pavements within yards of obscenely expensive cycle lane developments. EVERY SINGLE DAY I see red light jumping/no lights/headphones on/wrong way down one way streets etc etc. Car drivers are legally required to be identifiable/pay vehicle tax and insured - the cotton wooled cyclist is not - time for a change , then maybe the holier than thou drivel may cease?[/p][/quote]I can guarantee that everyday I will see a motorist BREAKING THE SPEED LIMIT. This does not mean that I consider all drivers lunatic criiminals, There are obviously some bad drivers amongst the good law abiding safe ones. How come people cannot apply the same sensible logic when it comes to cyclists? if you see a cyclist go through a red light it does not mean that all cyclists go through red lights, the same applies to pavements etc..[/p][/quote]The difference is if a motorist breaks the speed limit or runs a red or drives carlessly, They can be traced and fined and dealt with. Seeing as cyclists cant, they adopt the 'not my problem' attitude. Im not saying all cyclists are to blame, just the majority.[/p][/quote]In saying the majority are to blame you are, by default, saying that cyclists (plural) are to blame. I've noticed you on this and the other story on cyclists, the shame one. Your absence on the 3rd cycling story on this site, the hit & run one, is conspicuous to say the least. Brightonscouse2
  • Score: -2

4:33pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Brighton1000 says...

Brightonscouse2 wrote:
peterthomas wrote:
Brightonscouse2 wrote:
peterthomas wrote:
SexualHarassmentPand




a
wrote:
"Cycling has rarely been far from the headlines in recent years"

Yes, it's almost as if some news companies are disproportionately obsessed with the subject.
True but I guess when you have hundreds of people breaking the law every day and going unpunished it may warrant a degree of media coverage?
You can quantify these 'hundreds of people breaking the law & going unpunished'?
Yep - come out one morning - I'll pay for the coffee - are you seriously suggesting that this isn't the case??
I'm not denying that some cyclists break the laws of the road, as do some motorists. I'm questioning your claim that 'hundreds' every day are doing so.

How do you reach such a figure?
Hes probably applying a bit of common sense i imagine
[quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SexualHarassmentPand a[/bold] wrote: "Cycling has rarely been far from the headlines in recent years" Yes, it's almost as if some news companies are disproportionately obsessed with the subject.[/p][/quote]True but I guess when you have hundreds of people breaking the law every day and going unpunished it may warrant a degree of media coverage?[/p][/quote]You can quantify these 'hundreds of people breaking the law & going unpunished'?[/p][/quote]Yep - come out one morning - I'll pay for the coffee - are you seriously suggesting that this isn't the case??[/p][/quote]I'm not denying that some cyclists break the laws of the road, as do some motorists. I'm questioning your claim that 'hundreds' every day are doing so. How do you reach such a figure?[/p][/quote]Hes probably applying a bit of common sense i imagine Brighton1000
  • Score: 3

4:36pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Brighton1000 says...

Brightonscouse2 wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
peterthomas wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site:

No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't.
Stunning stuff I have to say..."it's common sense to use the pavement" and a reference to the "plight of the cyclist" not recognising which is "our problem"??? You need to take more water with it - I have been F'd and Blinded at on several occasions when nearly knocked for six by cyclists moving at high speed on pavements within yards of obscenely expensive cycle lane developments. EVERY SINGLE DAY I see red light jumping/no lights/headphones on/wrong way down one way streets etc etc. Car drivers are legally required to be identifiable/pay vehicle tax and insured - the cotton wooled cyclist is not - time for a change , then maybe the holier than thou drivel may cease?
I can guarantee that everyday I will see a motorist BREAKING THE SPEED LIMIT. This does not mean that I consider all drivers lunatic criiminals, There are obviously some bad drivers amongst the good law abiding safe ones. How come people cannot apply the same sensible logic when it comes to cyclists? if you see a cyclist go through a red light it does not mean that all cyclists go through red lights, the same applies to pavements etc..
The difference is if a motorist breaks the speed limit or runs a red or drives carlessly, They can be traced and fined and dealt with. Seeing as cyclists cant, they adopt the 'not my problem' attitude. Im not saying all cyclists are to blame, just the majority.
In saying the majority are to blame you are, by default, saying that cyclists (plural) are to blame.

I've noticed you on this and the other story on cyclists, the shame one. Your absence on the 3rd cycling story on this site, the hit & run one, is conspicuous to say the least.
Why would I feel the need to comment on a hit and run when its left someone seriously injured? I dont make light of such incidents and casting unwated opinions on a hit and run is not something I feel comfortable with. In fact my original post on here was asking the chap from Bricycles to comment on a verbatem comment from a cyclist. Which was antagonistic and summed up cyclists attitudes to other road users. The fact is (and you cant avoid it), is that cyclists have no recourse for their actions, and this creates a 'not my problem' attitude, Like it or not, that is not subjective, that is fact.
[quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site: No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't.[/p][/quote]Stunning stuff I have to say..."it's common sense to use the pavement" and a reference to the "plight of the cyclist" not recognising which is "our problem"??? You need to take more water with it - I have been F'd and Blinded at on several occasions when nearly knocked for six by cyclists moving at high speed on pavements within yards of obscenely expensive cycle lane developments. EVERY SINGLE DAY I see red light jumping/no lights/headphones on/wrong way down one way streets etc etc. Car drivers are legally required to be identifiable/pay vehicle tax and insured - the cotton wooled cyclist is not - time for a change , then maybe the holier than thou drivel may cease?[/p][/quote]I can guarantee that everyday I will see a motorist BREAKING THE SPEED LIMIT. This does not mean that I consider all drivers lunatic criiminals, There are obviously some bad drivers amongst the good law abiding safe ones. How come people cannot apply the same sensible logic when it comes to cyclists? if you see a cyclist go through a red light it does not mean that all cyclists go through red lights, the same applies to pavements etc..[/p][/quote]The difference is if a motorist breaks the speed limit or runs a red or drives carlessly, They can be traced and fined and dealt with. Seeing as cyclists cant, they adopt the 'not my problem' attitude. Im not saying all cyclists are to blame, just the majority.[/p][/quote]In saying the majority are to blame you are, by default, saying that cyclists (plural) are to blame. I've noticed you on this and the other story on cyclists, the shame one. Your absence on the 3rd cycling story on this site, the hit & run one, is conspicuous to say the least.[/p][/quote]Why would I feel the need to comment on a hit and run when its left someone seriously injured? I dont make light of such incidents and casting unwated opinions on a hit and run is not something I feel comfortable with. In fact my original post on here was asking the chap from Bricycles to comment on a verbatem comment from a cyclist. Which was antagonistic and summed up cyclists attitudes to other road users. The fact is (and you cant avoid it), is that cyclists have no recourse for their actions, and this creates a 'not my problem' attitude, Like it or not, that is not subjective, that is fact. Brighton1000
  • Score: 4

4:42pm Wed 15 Jan 14

gheese77 says...

Brighton1000 wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
peterthomas wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site:

No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't.
Stunning stuff I have to say..."it's common sense to use the pavement" and a reference to the "plight of the cyclist" not recognising which is "our problem"??? You need to take more water with it - I have been F'd and Blinded at on several occasions when nearly knocked for six by cyclists moving at high speed on pavements within yards of obscenely expensive cycle lane developments. EVERY SINGLE DAY I see red light jumping/no lights/headphones on/wrong way down one way streets etc etc. Car drivers are legally required to be identifiable/pay vehicle tax and insured - the cotton wooled cyclist is not - time for a change , then maybe the holier than thou drivel may cease?
I can guarantee that everyday I will see a motorist BREAKING THE SPEED LIMIT. This does not mean that I consider all drivers lunatic criiminals, There are obviously some bad drivers amongst the good law abiding safe ones. How come people cannot apply the same sensible logic when it comes to cyclists? if you see a cyclist go through a red light it does not mean that all cyclists go through red lights, the same applies to pavements etc..
The difference is if a motorist breaks the speed limit or runs a red or drives carlessly, They can be traced and fined and dealt with. Seeing as cyclists cant, they adopt the 'not my problem' attitude. Im not saying all cyclists are to blame, just the majority.
But they aren't dealt with ! Only a extremely small proportion of speeding offences actually result in a conviction, and this is for speeding, an offence that obviously presents a danger to others.
[quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site: No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't.[/p][/quote]Stunning stuff I have to say..."it's common sense to use the pavement" and a reference to the "plight of the cyclist" not recognising which is "our problem"??? You need to take more water with it - I have been F'd and Blinded at on several occasions when nearly knocked for six by cyclists moving at high speed on pavements within yards of obscenely expensive cycle lane developments. EVERY SINGLE DAY I see red light jumping/no lights/headphones on/wrong way down one way streets etc etc. Car drivers are legally required to be identifiable/pay vehicle tax and insured - the cotton wooled cyclist is not - time for a change , then maybe the holier than thou drivel may cease?[/p][/quote]I can guarantee that everyday I will see a motorist BREAKING THE SPEED LIMIT. This does not mean that I consider all drivers lunatic criiminals, There are obviously some bad drivers amongst the good law abiding safe ones. How come people cannot apply the same sensible logic when it comes to cyclists? if you see a cyclist go through a red light it does not mean that all cyclists go through red lights, the same applies to pavements etc..[/p][/quote]The difference is if a motorist breaks the speed limit or runs a red or drives carlessly, They can be traced and fined and dealt with. Seeing as cyclists cant, they adopt the 'not my problem' attitude. Im not saying all cyclists are to blame, just the majority.[/p][/quote]But they aren't dealt with ! Only a extremely small proportion of speeding offences actually result in a conviction, and this is for speeding, an offence that obviously presents a danger to others. gheese77
  • Score: 1

4:48pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Brightonscouse2 says...

Brighton1000 wrote:
Brightonscouse2 wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
peterthomas wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site:

No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't.
Stunning stuff I have to say..."it's common sense to use the pavement" and a reference to the "plight of the cyclist" not recognising which is "our problem"??? You need to take more water with it - I have been F'd and Blinded at on several occasions when nearly knocked for six by cyclists moving at high speed on pavements within yards of obscenely expensive cycle lane developments. EVERY SINGLE DAY I see red light jumping/no lights/headphones on/wrong way down one way streets etc etc. Car drivers are legally required to be identifiable/pay vehicle tax and insured - the cotton wooled cyclist is not - time for a change , then maybe the holier than thou drivel may cease?
I can guarantee that everyday I will see a motorist BREAKING THE SPEED LIMIT. This does not mean that I consider all drivers lunatic criiminals, There are obviously some bad drivers amongst the good law abiding safe ones. How come people cannot apply the same sensible logic when it comes to cyclists? if you see a cyclist go through a red light it does not mean that all cyclists go through red lights, the same applies to pavements etc..
The difference is if a motorist breaks the speed limit or runs a red or drives carlessly, They can be traced and fined and dealt with. Seeing as cyclists cant, they adopt the 'not my problem' attitude. Im not saying all cyclists are to blame, just the majority.
In saying the majority are to blame you are, by default, saying that cyclists (plural) are to blame.

I've noticed you on this and the other story on cyclists, the shame one. Your absence on the 3rd cycling story on this site, the hit & run one, is conspicuous to say the least.
Why would I feel the need to comment on a hit and run when its left someone seriously injured? I dont make light of such incidents and casting unwated opinions on a hit and run is not something I feel comfortable with. In fact my original post on here was asking the chap from Bricycles to comment on a verbatem comment from a cyclist. Which was antagonistic and summed up cyclists attitudes to other road users. The fact is (and you cant avoid it), is that cyclists have no recourse for their actions, and this creates a 'not my problem' attitude, Like it or not, that is not subjective, that is fact.
Thought as much. You're quick enough to apply anecdotal & generalised criticism to cyclists. When it's an incident involving a motorist you go all quiet. Quite sad really.

In this 'cyclists' vs 'motorists' debate it's the likes of you that perpetuate myths and untruths. Yes there are cyclists that don't abide by the rules. Yes they should be punished. The same applies for motorists. But a bit of perspective is needed. You need to consider the comparable amount of deaths/injuries each form of transport is responsible for, the amount of pollution produced & the contribution towards wear & tear on the road (everyone contributes to this equally regardless of damage, or lack of, caused).

The reaction to cyclists, given all of the above, compared to motoring offences is disproportionate and quite frankly ridiculous.
[quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site: No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't.[/p][/quote]Stunning stuff I have to say..."it's common sense to use the pavement" and a reference to the "plight of the cyclist" not recognising which is "our problem"??? You need to take more water with it - I have been F'd and Blinded at on several occasions when nearly knocked for six by cyclists moving at high speed on pavements within yards of obscenely expensive cycle lane developments. EVERY SINGLE DAY I see red light jumping/no lights/headphones on/wrong way down one way streets etc etc. Car drivers are legally required to be identifiable/pay vehicle tax and insured - the cotton wooled cyclist is not - time for a change , then maybe the holier than thou drivel may cease?[/p][/quote]I can guarantee that everyday I will see a motorist BREAKING THE SPEED LIMIT. This does not mean that I consider all drivers lunatic criiminals, There are obviously some bad drivers amongst the good law abiding safe ones. How come people cannot apply the same sensible logic when it comes to cyclists? if you see a cyclist go through a red light it does not mean that all cyclists go through red lights, the same applies to pavements etc..[/p][/quote]The difference is if a motorist breaks the speed limit or runs a red or drives carlessly, They can be traced and fined and dealt with. Seeing as cyclists cant, they adopt the 'not my problem' attitude. Im not saying all cyclists are to blame, just the majority.[/p][/quote]In saying the majority are to blame you are, by default, saying that cyclists (plural) are to blame. I've noticed you on this and the other story on cyclists, the shame one. Your absence on the 3rd cycling story on this site, the hit & run one, is conspicuous to say the least.[/p][/quote]Why would I feel the need to comment on a hit and run when its left someone seriously injured? I dont make light of such incidents and casting unwated opinions on a hit and run is not something I feel comfortable with. In fact my original post on here was asking the chap from Bricycles to comment on a verbatem comment from a cyclist. Which was antagonistic and summed up cyclists attitudes to other road users. The fact is (and you cant avoid it), is that cyclists have no recourse for their actions, and this creates a 'not my problem' attitude, Like it or not, that is not subjective, that is fact.[/p][/quote]Thought as much. You're quick enough to apply anecdotal & generalised criticism to cyclists. When it's an incident involving a motorist you go all quiet. Quite sad really. In this 'cyclists' vs 'motorists' debate it's the likes of you that perpetuate myths and untruths. Yes there are cyclists that don't abide by the rules. Yes they should be punished. The same applies for motorists. But a bit of perspective is needed. You need to consider the comparable amount of deaths/injuries each form of transport is responsible for, the amount of pollution produced & the contribution towards wear & tear on the road (everyone contributes to this equally regardless of damage, or lack of, caused). The reaction to cyclists, given all of the above, compared to motoring offences is disproportionate and quite frankly ridiculous. Brightonscouse2
  • Score: 0

5:08pm Wed 15 Jan 14

peterthomas says...

Brightonscouse2 wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Brightonscouse2 wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
peterthomas wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site:

No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't.
Stunning stuff I have to say..."it's common sense to use the pavement" and a reference to the "plight of the cyclist" not recognising which is "our problem"??? You need to take more water with it - I have been F'd and Blinded at on several occasions when nearly knocked for six by cyclists moving at high speed on pavements within yards of obscenely expensive cycle lane developments. EVERY SINGLE DAY I see red light jumping/no lights/headphones on/wrong way down one way streets etc etc. Car drivers are legally required to be identifiable/pay vehicle tax and insured - the cotton wooled cyclist is not - time for a change , then maybe the holier than thou drivel may cease?
I can guarantee that everyday I will see a motorist BREAKING THE SPEED LIMIT. This does not mean that I consider all drivers lunatic criiminals, There are obviously some bad drivers amongst the good law abiding safe ones. How come people cannot apply the same sensible logic when it comes to cyclists? if you see a cyclist go through a red light it does not mean that all cyclists go through red lights, the same applies to pavements etc..
The difference is if a motorist breaks the speed limit or runs a red or drives carlessly, They can be traced and fined and dealt with. Seeing as cyclists cant, they adopt the 'not my problem' attitude. Im not saying all cyclists are to blame, just the majority.
In saying the majority are to blame you are, by default, saying that cyclists (plural) are to blame.

I've noticed you on this and the other story on cyclists, the shame one. Your absence on the 3rd cycling story on this site, the hit & run one, is conspicuous to say the least.
Why would I feel the need to comment on a hit and run when its left someone seriously injured? I dont make light of such incidents and casting unwated opinions on a hit and run is not something I feel comfortable with. In fact my original post on here was asking the chap from Bricycles to comment on a verbatem comment from a cyclist. Which was antagonistic and summed up cyclists attitudes to other road users. The fact is (and you cant avoid it), is that cyclists have no recourse for their actions, and this creates a 'not my problem' attitude, Like it or not, that is not subjective, that is fact.
Thought as much. You're quick enough to apply anecdotal & generalised criticism to cyclists. When it's an incident involving a motorist you go all quiet. Quite sad really.

In this 'cyclists' vs 'motorists' debate it's the likes of you that perpetuate myths and untruths. Yes there are cyclists that don't abide by the rules. Yes they should be punished. The same applies for motorists. But a bit of perspective is needed. You need to consider the comparable amount of deaths/injuries each form of transport is responsible for, the amount of pollution produced & the contribution towards wear & tear on the road (everyone contributes to this equally regardless of damage, or lack of, caused).

The reaction to cyclists, given all of the above, compared to motoring offences is disproportionate and quite frankly ridiculous.
Last comment correct but at the risk of stating the obvious the reason there are many more motoring offences is that motorists are - as highlighted above - identifiable - cyclists are not - and the levels of expenditure on schemes which it would appear cyclists don't want/need/require ( it's common sense to cycle on the pavement ) is an insult to us all - cyclists included!!
[quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site: No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't.[/p][/quote]Stunning stuff I have to say..."it's common sense to use the pavement" and a reference to the "plight of the cyclist" not recognising which is "our problem"??? You need to take more water with it - I have been F'd and Blinded at on several occasions when nearly knocked for six by cyclists moving at high speed on pavements within yards of obscenely expensive cycle lane developments. EVERY SINGLE DAY I see red light jumping/no lights/headphones on/wrong way down one way streets etc etc. Car drivers are legally required to be identifiable/pay vehicle tax and insured - the cotton wooled cyclist is not - time for a change , then maybe the holier than thou drivel may cease?[/p][/quote]I can guarantee that everyday I will see a motorist BREAKING THE SPEED LIMIT. This does not mean that I consider all drivers lunatic criiminals, There are obviously some bad drivers amongst the good law abiding safe ones. How come people cannot apply the same sensible logic when it comes to cyclists? if you see a cyclist go through a red light it does not mean that all cyclists go through red lights, the same applies to pavements etc..[/p][/quote]The difference is if a motorist breaks the speed limit or runs a red or drives carlessly, They can be traced and fined and dealt with. Seeing as cyclists cant, they adopt the 'not my problem' attitude. Im not saying all cyclists are to blame, just the majority.[/p][/quote]In saying the majority are to blame you are, by default, saying that cyclists (plural) are to blame. I've noticed you on this and the other story on cyclists, the shame one. Your absence on the 3rd cycling story on this site, the hit & run one, is conspicuous to say the least.[/p][/quote]Why would I feel the need to comment on a hit and run when its left someone seriously injured? I dont make light of such incidents and casting unwated opinions on a hit and run is not something I feel comfortable with. In fact my original post on here was asking the chap from Bricycles to comment on a verbatem comment from a cyclist. Which was antagonistic and summed up cyclists attitudes to other road users. The fact is (and you cant avoid it), is that cyclists have no recourse for their actions, and this creates a 'not my problem' attitude, Like it or not, that is not subjective, that is fact.[/p][/quote]Thought as much. You're quick enough to apply anecdotal & generalised criticism to cyclists. When it's an incident involving a motorist you go all quiet. Quite sad really. In this 'cyclists' vs 'motorists' debate it's the likes of you that perpetuate myths and untruths. Yes there are cyclists that don't abide by the rules. Yes they should be punished. The same applies for motorists. But a bit of perspective is needed. You need to consider the comparable amount of deaths/injuries each form of transport is responsible for, the amount of pollution produced & the contribution towards wear & tear on the road (everyone contributes to this equally regardless of damage, or lack of, caused). The reaction to cyclists, given all of the above, compared to motoring offences is disproportionate and quite frankly ridiculous.[/p][/quote]Last comment correct but at the risk of stating the obvious the reason there are many more motoring offences is that motorists are - as highlighted above - identifiable - cyclists are not - and the levels of expenditure on schemes which it would appear cyclists don't want/need/require ( it's common sense to cycle on the pavement ) is an insult to us all - cyclists included!! peterthomas
  • Score: 2

5:08pm Wed 15 Jan 14

peterthomas says...

Brightonscouse2 wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Brightonscouse2 wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
peterthomas wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site:

No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't.
Stunning stuff I have to say..."it's common sense to use the pavement" and a reference to the "plight of the cyclist" not recognising which is "our problem"??? You need to take more water with it - I have been F'd and Blinded at on several occasions when nearly knocked for six by cyclists moving at high speed on pavements within yards of obscenely expensive cycle lane developments. EVERY SINGLE DAY I see red light jumping/no lights/headphones on/wrong way down one way streets etc etc. Car drivers are legally required to be identifiable/pay vehicle tax and insured - the cotton wooled cyclist is not - time for a change , then maybe the holier than thou drivel may cease?
I can guarantee that everyday I will see a motorist BREAKING THE SPEED LIMIT. This does not mean that I consider all drivers lunatic criiminals, There are obviously some bad drivers amongst the good law abiding safe ones. How come people cannot apply the same sensible logic when it comes to cyclists? if you see a cyclist go through a red light it does not mean that all cyclists go through red lights, the same applies to pavements etc..
The difference is if a motorist breaks the speed limit or runs a red or drives carlessly, They can be traced and fined and dealt with. Seeing as cyclists cant, they adopt the 'not my problem' attitude. Im not saying all cyclists are to blame, just the majority.
In saying the majority are to blame you are, by default, saying that cyclists (plural) are to blame.

I've noticed you on this and the other story on cyclists, the shame one. Your absence on the 3rd cycling story on this site, the hit & run one, is conspicuous to say the least.
Why would I feel the need to comment on a hit and run when its left someone seriously injured? I dont make light of such incidents and casting unwated opinions on a hit and run is not something I feel comfortable with. In fact my original post on here was asking the chap from Bricycles to comment on a verbatem comment from a cyclist. Which was antagonistic and summed up cyclists attitudes to other road users. The fact is (and you cant avoid it), is that cyclists have no recourse for their actions, and this creates a 'not my problem' attitude, Like it or not, that is not subjective, that is fact.
Thought as much. You're quick enough to apply anecdotal & generalised criticism to cyclists. When it's an incident involving a motorist you go all quiet. Quite sad really.

In this 'cyclists' vs 'motorists' debate it's the likes of you that perpetuate myths and untruths. Yes there are cyclists that don't abide by the rules. Yes they should be punished. The same applies for motorists. But a bit of perspective is needed. You need to consider the comparable amount of deaths/injuries each form of transport is responsible for, the amount of pollution produced & the contribution towards wear & tear on the road (everyone contributes to this equally regardless of damage, or lack of, caused).

The reaction to cyclists, given all of the above, compared to motoring offences is disproportionate and quite frankly ridiculous.
Last comment correct but at the risk of stating the obvious the reason there are many more motoring offences is that motorists are - as highlighted above - identifiable - cyclists are not - and the levels of expenditure on schemes which it would appear cyclists don't want/need/require ( it's common sense to cycle on the pavement ) is an insult to us all - cyclists included!!
[quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site: No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't.[/p][/quote]Stunning stuff I have to say..."it's common sense to use the pavement" and a reference to the "plight of the cyclist" not recognising which is "our problem"??? You need to take more water with it - I have been F'd and Blinded at on several occasions when nearly knocked for six by cyclists moving at high speed on pavements within yards of obscenely expensive cycle lane developments. EVERY SINGLE DAY I see red light jumping/no lights/headphones on/wrong way down one way streets etc etc. Car drivers are legally required to be identifiable/pay vehicle tax and insured - the cotton wooled cyclist is not - time for a change , then maybe the holier than thou drivel may cease?[/p][/quote]I can guarantee that everyday I will see a motorist BREAKING THE SPEED LIMIT. This does not mean that I consider all drivers lunatic criiminals, There are obviously some bad drivers amongst the good law abiding safe ones. How come people cannot apply the same sensible logic when it comes to cyclists? if you see a cyclist go through a red light it does not mean that all cyclists go through red lights, the same applies to pavements etc..[/p][/quote]The difference is if a motorist breaks the speed limit or runs a red or drives carlessly, They can be traced and fined and dealt with. Seeing as cyclists cant, they adopt the 'not my problem' attitude. Im not saying all cyclists are to blame, just the majority.[/p][/quote]In saying the majority are to blame you are, by default, saying that cyclists (plural) are to blame. I've noticed you on this and the other story on cyclists, the shame one. Your absence on the 3rd cycling story on this site, the hit & run one, is conspicuous to say the least.[/p][/quote]Why would I feel the need to comment on a hit and run when its left someone seriously injured? I dont make light of such incidents and casting unwated opinions on a hit and run is not something I feel comfortable with. In fact my original post on here was asking the chap from Bricycles to comment on a verbatem comment from a cyclist. Which was antagonistic and summed up cyclists attitudes to other road users. The fact is (and you cant avoid it), is that cyclists have no recourse for their actions, and this creates a 'not my problem' attitude, Like it or not, that is not subjective, that is fact.[/p][/quote]Thought as much. You're quick enough to apply anecdotal & generalised criticism to cyclists. When it's an incident involving a motorist you go all quiet. Quite sad really. In this 'cyclists' vs 'motorists' debate it's the likes of you that perpetuate myths and untruths. Yes there are cyclists that don't abide by the rules. Yes they should be punished. The same applies for motorists. But a bit of perspective is needed. You need to consider the comparable amount of deaths/injuries each form of transport is responsible for, the amount of pollution produced & the contribution towards wear & tear on the road (everyone contributes to this equally regardless of damage, or lack of, caused). The reaction to cyclists, given all of the above, compared to motoring offences is disproportionate and quite frankly ridiculous.[/p][/quote]Last comment correct but at the risk of stating the obvious the reason there are many more motoring offences is that motorists are - as highlighted above - identifiable - cyclists are not - and the levels of expenditure on schemes which it would appear cyclists don't want/need/require ( it's common sense to cycle on the pavement ) is an insult to us all - cyclists included!! peterthomas
  • Score: 0

5:09pm Wed 15 Jan 14

peterthomas says...

Brightonscouse2 wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Brightonscouse2 wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
peterthomas wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site:

No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't.
Stunning stuff I have to say..."it's common sense to use the pavement" and a reference to the "plight of the cyclist" not recognising which is "our problem"??? You need to take more water with it - I have been F'd and Blinded at on several occasions when nearly knocked for six by cyclists moving at high speed on pavements within yards of obscenely expensive cycle lane developments. EVERY SINGLE DAY I see red light jumping/no lights/headphones on/wrong way down one way streets etc etc. Car drivers are legally required to be identifiable/pay vehicle tax and insured - the cotton wooled cyclist is not - time for a change , then maybe the holier than thou drivel may cease?
I can guarantee that everyday I will see a motorist BREAKING THE SPEED LIMIT. This does not mean that I consider all drivers lunatic criiminals, There are obviously some bad drivers amongst the good law abiding safe ones. How come people cannot apply the same sensible logic when it comes to cyclists? if you see a cyclist go through a red light it does not mean that all cyclists go through red lights, the same applies to pavements etc..
The difference is if a motorist breaks the speed limit or runs a red or drives carlessly, They can be traced and fined and dealt with. Seeing as cyclists cant, they adopt the 'not my problem' attitude. Im not saying all cyclists are to blame, just the majority.
In saying the majority are to blame you are, by default, saying that cyclists (plural) are to blame.

I've noticed you on this and the other story on cyclists, the shame one. Your absence on the 3rd cycling story on this site, the hit & run one, is conspicuous to say the least.
Why would I feel the need to comment on a hit and run when its left someone seriously injured? I dont make light of such incidents and casting unwated opinions on a hit and run is not something I feel comfortable with. In fact my original post on here was asking the chap from Bricycles to comment on a verbatem comment from a cyclist. Which was antagonistic and summed up cyclists attitudes to other road users. The fact is (and you cant avoid it), is that cyclists have no recourse for their actions, and this creates a 'not my problem' attitude, Like it or not, that is not subjective, that is fact.
Thought as much. You're quick enough to apply anecdotal & generalised criticism to cyclists. When it's an incident involving a motorist you go all quiet. Quite sad really.

In this 'cyclists' vs 'motorists' debate it's the likes of you that perpetuate myths and untruths. Yes there are cyclists that don't abide by the rules. Yes they should be punished. The same applies for motorists. But a bit of perspective is needed. You need to consider the comparable amount of deaths/injuries each form of transport is responsible for, the amount of pollution produced & the contribution towards wear & tear on the road (everyone contributes to this equally regardless of damage, or lack of, caused).

The reaction to cyclists, given all of the above, compared to motoring offences is disproportionate and quite frankly ridiculous.
Last comment correct but at the risk of stating the obvious the reason there are many more motoring offences is that motorists are - as highlighted above - identifiable - cyclists are not - and the levels of expenditure on schemes which it would appear cyclists don't want/need/require ( it's common sense to cycle on the pavement ) is an insult to us all - cyclists included!!
[quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site: No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't.[/p][/quote]Stunning stuff I have to say..."it's common sense to use the pavement" and a reference to the "plight of the cyclist" not recognising which is "our problem"??? You need to take more water with it - I have been F'd and Blinded at on several occasions when nearly knocked for six by cyclists moving at high speed on pavements within yards of obscenely expensive cycle lane developments. EVERY SINGLE DAY I see red light jumping/no lights/headphones on/wrong way down one way streets etc etc. Car drivers are legally required to be identifiable/pay vehicle tax and insured - the cotton wooled cyclist is not - time for a change , then maybe the holier than thou drivel may cease?[/p][/quote]I can guarantee that everyday I will see a motorist BREAKING THE SPEED LIMIT. This does not mean that I consider all drivers lunatic criiminals, There are obviously some bad drivers amongst the good law abiding safe ones. How come people cannot apply the same sensible logic when it comes to cyclists? if you see a cyclist go through a red light it does not mean that all cyclists go through red lights, the same applies to pavements etc..[/p][/quote]The difference is if a motorist breaks the speed limit or runs a red or drives carlessly, They can be traced and fined and dealt with. Seeing as cyclists cant, they adopt the 'not my problem' attitude. Im not saying all cyclists are to blame, just the majority.[/p][/quote]In saying the majority are to blame you are, by default, saying that cyclists (plural) are to blame. I've noticed you on this and the other story on cyclists, the shame one. Your absence on the 3rd cycling story on this site, the hit & run one, is conspicuous to say the least.[/p][/quote]Why would I feel the need to comment on a hit and run when its left someone seriously injured? I dont make light of such incidents and casting unwated opinions on a hit and run is not something I feel comfortable with. In fact my original post on here was asking the chap from Bricycles to comment on a verbatem comment from a cyclist. Which was antagonistic and summed up cyclists attitudes to other road users. The fact is (and you cant avoid it), is that cyclists have no recourse for their actions, and this creates a 'not my problem' attitude, Like it or not, that is not subjective, that is fact.[/p][/quote]Thought as much. You're quick enough to apply anecdotal & generalised criticism to cyclists. When it's an incident involving a motorist you go all quiet. Quite sad really. In this 'cyclists' vs 'motorists' debate it's the likes of you that perpetuate myths and untruths. Yes there are cyclists that don't abide by the rules. Yes they should be punished. The same applies for motorists. But a bit of perspective is needed. You need to consider the comparable amount of deaths/injuries each form of transport is responsible for, the amount of pollution produced & the contribution towards wear & tear on the road (everyone contributes to this equally regardless of damage, or lack of, caused). The reaction to cyclists, given all of the above, compared to motoring offences is disproportionate and quite frankly ridiculous.[/p][/quote]Last comment correct but at the risk of stating the obvious the reason there are many more motoring offences is that motorists are - as highlighted above - identifiable - cyclists are not - and the levels of expenditure on schemes which it would appear cyclists don't want/need/require ( it's common sense to cycle on the pavement ) is an insult to us all - cyclists included!! peterthomas
  • Score: 0

5:10pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Brighton1000 says...

gheese77 wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
peterthomas wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site:

No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't.
Stunning stuff I have to say..."it's common sense to use the pavement" and a reference to the "plight of the cyclist" not recognising which is "our problem"??? You need to take more water with it - I have been F'd and Blinded at on several occasions when nearly knocked for six by cyclists moving at high speed on pavements within yards of obscenely expensive cycle lane developments. EVERY SINGLE DAY I see red light jumping/no lights/headphones on/wrong way down one way streets etc etc. Car drivers are legally required to be identifiable/pay vehicle tax and insured - the cotton wooled cyclist is not - time for a change , then maybe the holier than thou drivel may cease?
I can guarantee that everyday I will see a motorist BREAKING THE SPEED LIMIT. This does not mean that I consider all drivers lunatic criiminals, There are obviously some bad drivers amongst the good law abiding safe ones. How come people cannot apply the same sensible logic when it comes to cyclists? if you see a cyclist go through a red light it does not mean that all cyclists go through red lights, the same applies to pavements etc..
The difference is if a motorist breaks the speed limit or runs a red or drives carlessly, They can be traced and fined and dealt with. Seeing as cyclists cant, they adopt the 'not my problem' attitude. Im not saying all cyclists are to blame, just the majority.
But they aren't dealt with ! Only a extremely small proportion of speeding offences actually result in a conviction, and this is for speeding, an offence that obviously presents a danger to others.
How many driving offences are punished v cycling?
[quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site: No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't.[/p][/quote]Stunning stuff I have to say..."it's common sense to use the pavement" and a reference to the "plight of the cyclist" not recognising which is "our problem"??? You need to take more water with it - I have been F'd and Blinded at on several occasions when nearly knocked for six by cyclists moving at high speed on pavements within yards of obscenely expensive cycle lane developments. EVERY SINGLE DAY I see red light jumping/no lights/headphones on/wrong way down one way streets etc etc. Car drivers are legally required to be identifiable/pay vehicle tax and insured - the cotton wooled cyclist is not - time for a change , then maybe the holier than thou drivel may cease?[/p][/quote]I can guarantee that everyday I will see a motorist BREAKING THE SPEED LIMIT. This does not mean that I consider all drivers lunatic criiminals, There are obviously some bad drivers amongst the good law abiding safe ones. How come people cannot apply the same sensible logic when it comes to cyclists? if you see a cyclist go through a red light it does not mean that all cyclists go through red lights, the same applies to pavements etc..[/p][/quote]The difference is if a motorist breaks the speed limit or runs a red or drives carlessly, They can be traced and fined and dealt with. Seeing as cyclists cant, they adopt the 'not my problem' attitude. Im not saying all cyclists are to blame, just the majority.[/p][/quote]But they aren't dealt with ! Only a extremely small proportion of speeding offences actually result in a conviction, and this is for speeding, an offence that obviously presents a danger to others.[/p][/quote]How many driving offences are punished v cycling? Brighton1000
  • Score: 1

5:26pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Brightonscouse2 says...

peterthomas wrote:
Brightonscouse2 wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Brightonscouse2 wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
peterthomas wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site:

No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't.
Stunning stuff I have to say..."it's common sense to use the pavement" and a reference to the "plight of the cyclist" not recognising which is "our problem"??? You need to take more water with it - I have been F'd and Blinded at on several occasions when nearly knocked for six by cyclists moving at high speed on pavements within yards of obscenely expensive cycle lane developments. EVERY SINGLE DAY I see red light jumping/no lights/headphones on/wrong way down one way streets etc etc. Car drivers are legally required to be identifiable/pay vehicle tax and insured - the cotton wooled cyclist is not - time for a change , then maybe the holier than thou drivel may cease?
I can guarantee that everyday I will see a motorist BREAKING THE SPEED LIMIT. This does not mean that I consider all drivers lunatic criiminals, There are obviously some bad drivers amongst the good law abiding safe ones. How come people cannot apply the same sensible logic when it comes to cyclists? if you see a cyclist go through a red light it does not mean that all cyclists go through red lights, the same applies to pavements etc..
The difference is if a motorist breaks the speed limit or runs a red or drives carlessly, They can be traced and fined and dealt with. Seeing as cyclists cant, they adopt the 'not my problem' attitude. Im not saying all cyclists are to blame, just the majority.
In saying the majority are to blame you are, by default, saying that cyclists (plural) are to blame.

I've noticed you on this and the other story on cyclists, the shame one. Your absence on the 3rd cycling story on this site, the hit & run one, is conspicuous to say the least.
Why would I feel the need to comment on a hit and run when its left someone seriously injured? I dont make light of such incidents and casting unwated opinions on a hit and run is not something I feel comfortable with. In fact my original post on here was asking the chap from Bricycles to comment on a verbatem comment from a cyclist. Which was antagonistic and summed up cyclists attitudes to other road users. The fact is (and you cant avoid it), is that cyclists have no recourse for their actions, and this creates a 'not my problem' attitude, Like it or not, that is not subjective, that is fact.
Thought as much. You're quick enough to apply anecdotal & generalised criticism to cyclists. When it's an incident involving a motorist you go all quiet. Quite sad really.

In this 'cyclists' vs 'motorists' debate it's the likes of you that perpetuate myths and untruths. Yes there are cyclists that don't abide by the rules. Yes they should be punished. The same applies for motorists. But a bit of perspective is needed. You need to consider the comparable amount of deaths/injuries each form of transport is responsible for, the amount of pollution produced & the contribution towards wear & tear on the road (everyone contributes to this equally regardless of damage, or lack of, caused).

The reaction to cyclists, given all of the above, compared to motoring offences is disproportionate and quite frankly ridiculous.
Last comment correct but at the risk of stating the obvious the reason there are many more motoring offences is that motorists are - as highlighted above - identifiable - cyclists are not - and the levels of expenditure on schemes which it would appear cyclists don't want/need/require ( it's common sense to cycle on the pavement ) is an insult to us all - cyclists included!!
In the comment you refer to, quoted by Brighton 1000, the person refers to riding on the pavement with her children & giving consideration to pedestrians. Are you suggesting that she ride on the road with her children?

I didn't mention the amount of offences by each road user. I mentioned the amount of deaths/injuries caused, and the subsequent reaction by commentators, and whether it is proportionate or not. IMO the outrage towards cyclists is disproportionate considering the fact that they do cause less deaths/injuries on our roads & pavements.

I agree that cyclists should be identifiable & those breaking the law should be fined/prosecuted. Equally motoring sanctions and punishments should rise considering the increased likelihood of serious injury and death.
[quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site: No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't.[/p][/quote]Stunning stuff I have to say..."it's common sense to use the pavement" and a reference to the "plight of the cyclist" not recognising which is "our problem"??? You need to take more water with it - I have been F'd and Blinded at on several occasions when nearly knocked for six by cyclists moving at high speed on pavements within yards of obscenely expensive cycle lane developments. EVERY SINGLE DAY I see red light jumping/no lights/headphones on/wrong way down one way streets etc etc. Car drivers are legally required to be identifiable/pay vehicle tax and insured - the cotton wooled cyclist is not - time for a change , then maybe the holier than thou drivel may cease?[/p][/quote]I can guarantee that everyday I will see a motorist BREAKING THE SPEED LIMIT. This does not mean that I consider all drivers lunatic criiminals, There are obviously some bad drivers amongst the good law abiding safe ones. How come people cannot apply the same sensible logic when it comes to cyclists? if you see a cyclist go through a red light it does not mean that all cyclists go through red lights, the same applies to pavements etc..[/p][/quote]The difference is if a motorist breaks the speed limit or runs a red or drives carlessly, They can be traced and fined and dealt with. Seeing as cyclists cant, they adopt the 'not my problem' attitude. Im not saying all cyclists are to blame, just the majority.[/p][/quote]In saying the majority are to blame you are, by default, saying that cyclists (plural) are to blame. I've noticed you on this and the other story on cyclists, the shame one. Your absence on the 3rd cycling story on this site, the hit & run one, is conspicuous to say the least.[/p][/quote]Why would I feel the need to comment on a hit and run when its left someone seriously injured? I dont make light of such incidents and casting unwated opinions on a hit and run is not something I feel comfortable with. In fact my original post on here was asking the chap from Bricycles to comment on a verbatem comment from a cyclist. Which was antagonistic and summed up cyclists attitudes to other road users. The fact is (and you cant avoid it), is that cyclists have no recourse for their actions, and this creates a 'not my problem' attitude, Like it or not, that is not subjective, that is fact.[/p][/quote]Thought as much. You're quick enough to apply anecdotal & generalised criticism to cyclists. When it's an incident involving a motorist you go all quiet. Quite sad really. In this 'cyclists' vs 'motorists' debate it's the likes of you that perpetuate myths and untruths. Yes there are cyclists that don't abide by the rules. Yes they should be punished. The same applies for motorists. But a bit of perspective is needed. You need to consider the comparable amount of deaths/injuries each form of transport is responsible for, the amount of pollution produced & the contribution towards wear & tear on the road (everyone contributes to this equally regardless of damage, or lack of, caused). The reaction to cyclists, given all of the above, compared to motoring offences is disproportionate and quite frankly ridiculous.[/p][/quote]Last comment correct but at the risk of stating the obvious the reason there are many more motoring offences is that motorists are - as highlighted above - identifiable - cyclists are not - and the levels of expenditure on schemes which it would appear cyclists don't want/need/require ( it's common sense to cycle on the pavement ) is an insult to us all - cyclists included!![/p][/quote]In the comment you refer to, quoted by Brighton 1000, the person refers to riding on the pavement with her children & giving consideration to pedestrians. Are you suggesting that she ride on the road with her children? I didn't mention the amount of offences by each road user. I mentioned the amount of deaths/injuries caused, and the subsequent reaction by commentators, and whether it is proportionate or not. IMO the outrage towards cyclists is disproportionate considering the fact that they do cause less deaths/injuries on our roads & pavements. I agree that cyclists should be identifiable & those breaking the law should be fined/prosecuted. Equally motoring sanctions and punishments should rise considering the increased likelihood of serious injury and death. Brightonscouse2
  • Score: 1

5:29pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Brighton1000 says...

Brightonscouse2 wrote:
peterthomas wrote:
Brightonscouse2 wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Brightonscouse2 wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
peterthomas wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site:

No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't.
Stunning stuff I have to say..."it's common sense to use the pavement" and a reference to the "plight of the cyclist" not recognising which is "our problem"??? You need to take more water with it - I have been F'd and Blinded at on several occasions when nearly knocked for six by cyclists moving at high speed on pavements within yards of obscenely expensive cycle lane developments. EVERY SINGLE DAY I see red light jumping/no lights/headphones on/wrong way down one way streets etc etc. Car drivers are legally required to be identifiable/pay vehicle tax and insured - the cotton wooled cyclist is not - time for a change , then maybe the holier than thou drivel may cease?
I can guarantee that everyday I will see a motorist BREAKING THE SPEED LIMIT. This does not mean that I consider all drivers lunatic criiminals, There are obviously some bad drivers amongst the good law abiding safe ones. How come people cannot apply the same sensible logic when it comes to cyclists? if you see a cyclist go through a red light it does not mean that all cyclists go through red lights, the same applies to pavements etc..
The difference is if a motorist breaks the speed limit or runs a red or drives carlessly, They can be traced and fined and dealt with. Seeing as cyclists cant, they adopt the 'not my problem' attitude. Im not saying all cyclists are to blame, just the majority.
In saying the majority are to blame you are, by default, saying that cyclists (plural) are to blame.

I've noticed you on this and the other story on cyclists, the shame one. Your absence on the 3rd cycling story on this site, the hit & run one, is conspicuous to say the least.
Why would I feel the need to comment on a hit and run when its left someone seriously injured? I dont make light of such incidents and casting unwated opinions on a hit and run is not something I feel comfortable with. In fact my original post on here was asking the chap from Bricycles to comment on a verbatem comment from a cyclist. Which was antagonistic and summed up cyclists attitudes to other road users. The fact is (and you cant avoid it), is that cyclists have no recourse for their actions, and this creates a 'not my problem' attitude, Like it or not, that is not subjective, that is fact.
Thought as much. You're quick enough to apply anecdotal & generalised criticism to cyclists. When it's an incident involving a motorist you go all quiet. Quite sad really.

In this 'cyclists' vs 'motorists' debate it's the likes of you that perpetuate myths and untruths. Yes there are cyclists that don't abide by the rules. Yes they should be punished. The same applies for motorists. But a bit of perspective is needed. You need to consider the comparable amount of deaths/injuries each form of transport is responsible for, the amount of pollution produced & the contribution towards wear & tear on the road (everyone contributes to this equally regardless of damage, or lack of, caused).

The reaction to cyclists, given all of the above, compared to motoring offences is disproportionate and quite frankly ridiculous.
Last comment correct but at the risk of stating the obvious the reason there are many more motoring offences is that motorists are - as highlighted above - identifiable - cyclists are not - and the levels of expenditure on schemes which it would appear cyclists don't want/need/require ( it's common sense to cycle on the pavement ) is an insult to us all - cyclists included!!
In the comment you refer to, quoted by Brighton 1000, the person refers to riding on the pavement with her children & giving consideration to pedestrians. Are you suggesting that she ride on the road with her children?

I didn't mention the amount of offences by each road user. I mentioned the amount of deaths/injuries caused, and the subsequent reaction by commentators, and whether it is proportionate or not. IMO the outrage towards cyclists is disproportionate considering the fact that they do cause less deaths/injuries on our roads & pavements.

I agree that cyclists should be identifiable & those breaking the law should be fined/prosecuted. Equally motoring sanctions and punishments should rise considering the increased likelihood of serious injury and death.
Good so we agree there needs to be recourse for cyclist who flout the law. In answer to your question, Yes I believe the mother should allow her children to cycle on the road, If they are'nt proficient cyclers then walk? Thats a bit like me allowing my children to drive a car on the pavement as its safer for them! You cant have it all ways cyclists.
[quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site: No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't.[/p][/quote]Stunning stuff I have to say..."it's common sense to use the pavement" and a reference to the "plight of the cyclist" not recognising which is "our problem"??? You need to take more water with it - I have been F'd and Blinded at on several occasions when nearly knocked for six by cyclists moving at high speed on pavements within yards of obscenely expensive cycle lane developments. EVERY SINGLE DAY I see red light jumping/no lights/headphones on/wrong way down one way streets etc etc. Car drivers are legally required to be identifiable/pay vehicle tax and insured - the cotton wooled cyclist is not - time for a change , then maybe the holier than thou drivel may cease?[/p][/quote]I can guarantee that everyday I will see a motorist BREAKING THE SPEED LIMIT. This does not mean that I consider all drivers lunatic criiminals, There are obviously some bad drivers amongst the good law abiding safe ones. How come people cannot apply the same sensible logic when it comes to cyclists? if you see a cyclist go through a red light it does not mean that all cyclists go through red lights, the same applies to pavements etc..[/p][/quote]The difference is if a motorist breaks the speed limit or runs a red or drives carlessly, They can be traced and fined and dealt with. Seeing as cyclists cant, they adopt the 'not my problem' attitude. Im not saying all cyclists are to blame, just the majority.[/p][/quote]In saying the majority are to blame you are, by default, saying that cyclists (plural) are to blame. I've noticed you on this and the other story on cyclists, the shame one. Your absence on the 3rd cycling story on this site, the hit & run one, is conspicuous to say the least.[/p][/quote]Why would I feel the need to comment on a hit and run when its left someone seriously injured? I dont make light of such incidents and casting unwated opinions on a hit and run is not something I feel comfortable with. In fact my original post on here was asking the chap from Bricycles to comment on a verbatem comment from a cyclist. Which was antagonistic and summed up cyclists attitudes to other road users. The fact is (and you cant avoid it), is that cyclists have no recourse for their actions, and this creates a 'not my problem' attitude, Like it or not, that is not subjective, that is fact.[/p][/quote]Thought as much. You're quick enough to apply anecdotal & generalised criticism to cyclists. When it's an incident involving a motorist you go all quiet. Quite sad really. In this 'cyclists' vs 'motorists' debate it's the likes of you that perpetuate myths and untruths. Yes there are cyclists that don't abide by the rules. Yes they should be punished. The same applies for motorists. But a bit of perspective is needed. You need to consider the comparable amount of deaths/injuries each form of transport is responsible for, the amount of pollution produced & the contribution towards wear & tear on the road (everyone contributes to this equally regardless of damage, or lack of, caused). The reaction to cyclists, given all of the above, compared to motoring offences is disproportionate and quite frankly ridiculous.[/p][/quote]Last comment correct but at the risk of stating the obvious the reason there are many more motoring offences is that motorists are - as highlighted above - identifiable - cyclists are not - and the levels of expenditure on schemes which it would appear cyclists don't want/need/require ( it's common sense to cycle on the pavement ) is an insult to us all - cyclists included!![/p][/quote]In the comment you refer to, quoted by Brighton 1000, the person refers to riding on the pavement with her children & giving consideration to pedestrians. Are you suggesting that she ride on the road with her children? I didn't mention the amount of offences by each road user. I mentioned the amount of deaths/injuries caused, and the subsequent reaction by commentators, and whether it is proportionate or not. IMO the outrage towards cyclists is disproportionate considering the fact that they do cause less deaths/injuries on our roads & pavements. I agree that cyclists should be identifiable & those breaking the law should be fined/prosecuted. Equally motoring sanctions and punishments should rise considering the increased likelihood of serious injury and death.[/p][/quote]Good so we agree there needs to be recourse for cyclist who flout the law. In answer to your question, Yes I believe the mother should allow her children to cycle on the road, If they are'nt proficient cyclers then walk? Thats a bit like me allowing my children to drive a car on the pavement as its safer for them! You cant have it all ways cyclists. Brighton1000
  • Score: 2

5:32pm Wed 15 Jan 14

gheese77 says...

Brighton1000 wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
peterthomas wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site:

No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't.
Stunning stuff I have to say..."it's common sense to use the pavement" and a reference to the "plight of the cyclist" not recognising which is "our problem"??? You need to take more water with it - I have been F'd and Blinded at on several occasions when nearly knocked for six by cyclists moving at high speed on pavements within yards of obscenely expensive cycle lane developments. EVERY SINGLE DAY I see red light jumping/no lights/headphones on/wrong way down one way streets etc etc. Car drivers are legally required to be identifiable/pay vehicle tax and insured - the cotton wooled cyclist is not - time for a change , then maybe the holier than thou drivel may cease?
I can guarantee that everyday I will see a motorist BREAKING THE SPEED LIMIT. This does not mean that I consider all drivers lunatic criiminals, There are obviously some bad drivers amongst the good law abiding safe ones. How come people cannot apply the same sensible logic when it comes to cyclists? if you see a cyclist go through a red light it does not mean that all cyclists go through red lights, the same applies to pavements etc..
The difference is if a motorist breaks the speed limit or runs a red or drives carlessly, They can be traced and fined and dealt with. Seeing as cyclists cant, they adopt the 'not my problem' attitude. Im not saying all cyclists are to blame, just the majority.
But they aren't dealt with ! Only a extremely small proportion of speeding offences actually result in a conviction, and this is for speeding, an offence that obviously presents a danger to others.
How many driving offences are punished v cycling?
Of course there are many more motorist speeding convictions as the police rightly p[ace much more priority on this as it is vastly more dangerous. In 2011 there were 3267 accidents where people were killed or injured an speed was a factor http://think.direct.
gov.uk/speed.html
So until we have truly draconian measures to prevent speeding, GPS trackers, average speed cameras, hidden speed cameras etc. plus really stiff deterent sentences it seems pointless to target cyclists with new legislation when it would be much more effective to target the real killers - motorists who are incapable of obeying a speed limit.
[quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site: No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't.[/p][/quote]Stunning stuff I have to say..."it's common sense to use the pavement" and a reference to the "plight of the cyclist" not recognising which is "our problem"??? You need to take more water with it - I have been F'd and Blinded at on several occasions when nearly knocked for six by cyclists moving at high speed on pavements within yards of obscenely expensive cycle lane developments. EVERY SINGLE DAY I see red light jumping/no lights/headphones on/wrong way down one way streets etc etc. Car drivers are legally required to be identifiable/pay vehicle tax and insured - the cotton wooled cyclist is not - time for a change , then maybe the holier than thou drivel may cease?[/p][/quote]I can guarantee that everyday I will see a motorist BREAKING THE SPEED LIMIT. This does not mean that I consider all drivers lunatic criiminals, There are obviously some bad drivers amongst the good law abiding safe ones. How come people cannot apply the same sensible logic when it comes to cyclists? if you see a cyclist go through a red light it does not mean that all cyclists go through red lights, the same applies to pavements etc..[/p][/quote]The difference is if a motorist breaks the speed limit or runs a red or drives carlessly, They can be traced and fined and dealt with. Seeing as cyclists cant, they adopt the 'not my problem' attitude. Im not saying all cyclists are to blame, just the majority.[/p][/quote]But they aren't dealt with ! Only a extremely small proportion of speeding offences actually result in a conviction, and this is for speeding, an offence that obviously presents a danger to others.[/p][/quote]How many driving offences are punished v cycling?[/p][/quote]Of course there are many more motorist speeding convictions as the police rightly p[ace much more priority on this as it is vastly more dangerous. In 2011 there were 3267 accidents where people were killed or injured an speed was a factor http://think.direct. gov.uk/speed.html So until we have truly draconian measures to prevent speeding, GPS trackers, average speed cameras, hidden speed cameras etc. plus really stiff deterent sentences it seems pointless to target cyclists with new legislation when it would be much more effective to target the real killers - motorists who are incapable of obeying a speed limit. gheese77
  • Score: 1

5:34pm Wed 15 Jan 14

peterthomas says...

Brightonscouse2 wrote:
peterthomas wrote:
Brightonscouse2 wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Brightonscouse2 wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
peterthomas wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site:

No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't.
Stunning stuff I have to say..."it's common sense to use the pavement" and a reference to the "plight of the cyclist" not recognising which is "our problem"??? You need to take more water with it - I have been F'd and Blinded at on several occasions when nearly knocked for six by cyclists moving at high speed on pavements within yards of obscenely expensive cycle lane developments. EVERY SINGLE DAY I see red light jumping/no lights/headphones on/wrong way down one way streets etc etc. Car drivers are legally required to be identifiable/pay vehicle tax and insured - the cotton wooled cyclist is not - time for a change , then maybe the holier than thou drivel may cease?
I can guarantee that everyday I will see a motorist BREAKING THE SPEED LIMIT. This does not mean that I consider all drivers lunatic criiminals, There are obviously some bad drivers amongst the good law abiding safe ones. How come people cannot apply the same sensible logic when it comes to cyclists? if you see a cyclist go through a red light it does not mean that all cyclists go through red lights, the same applies to pavements etc..
The difference is if a motorist breaks the speed limit or runs a red or drives carlessly, They can be traced and fined and dealt with. Seeing as cyclists cant, they adopt the 'not my problem' attitude. Im not saying all cyclists are to blame, just the majority.
In saying the majority are to blame you are, by default, saying that cyclists (plural) are to blame.

I've noticed you on this and the other story on cyclists, the shame one. Your absence on the 3rd cycling story on this site, the hit & run one, is conspicuous to say the least.
Why would I feel the need to comment on a hit and run when its left someone seriously injured? I dont make light of such incidents and casting unwated opinions on a hit and run is not something I feel comfortable with. In fact my original post on here was asking the chap from Bricycles to comment on a verbatem comment from a cyclist. Which was antagonistic and summed up cyclists attitudes to other road users. The fact is (and you cant avoid it), is that cyclists have no recourse for their actions, and this creates a 'not my problem' attitude, Like it or not, that is not subjective, that is fact.
Thought as much. You're quick enough to apply anecdotal & generalised criticism to cyclists. When it's an incident involving a motorist you go all quiet. Quite sad really.

In this 'cyclists' vs 'motorists' debate it's the likes of you that perpetuate myths and untruths. Yes there are cyclists that don't abide by the rules. Yes they should be punished. The same applies for motorists. But a bit of perspective is needed. You need to consider the comparable amount of deaths/injuries each form of transport is responsible for, the amount of pollution produced & the contribution towards wear & tear on the road (everyone contributes to this equally regardless of damage, or lack of, caused).

The reaction to cyclists, given all of the above, compared to motoring offences is disproportionate and quite frankly ridiculous.
Last comment correct but at the risk of stating the obvious the reason there are many more motoring offences is that motorists are - as highlighted above - identifiable - cyclists are not - and the levels of expenditure on schemes which it would appear cyclists don't want/need/require ( it's common sense to cycle on the pavement ) is an insult to us all - cyclists included!!
In the comment you refer to, quoted by Brighton 1000, the person refers to riding on the pavement with her children & giving consideration to pedestrians. Are you suggesting that she ride on the road with her children?

I didn't mention the amount of offences by each road user. I mentioned the amount of deaths/injuries caused, and the subsequent reaction by commentators, and whether it is proportionate or not. IMO the outrage towards cyclists is disproportionate considering the fact that they do cause less deaths/injuries on our roads & pavements.

I agree that cyclists should be identifiable & those breaking the law should be fined/prosecuted. Equally motoring sanctions and punishments should rise considering the increased likelihood of serious injury and death.
Totally agree that any delinquent behaviour on the roads - or indeed anywhere else - should be dealt with. Re the notion of riding with children on the roads I wouldn't suggest for a moment that youngsters should be endangered in anyway whatsoever but I though the whole point of cycle lanes was that cyclists could have their own space? A point to clarify - are cyclists legally allowed to cycle on pavements?
[quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site: No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't.[/p][/quote]Stunning stuff I have to say..."it's common sense to use the pavement" and a reference to the "plight of the cyclist" not recognising which is "our problem"??? You need to take more water with it - I have been F'd and Blinded at on several occasions when nearly knocked for six by cyclists moving at high speed on pavements within yards of obscenely expensive cycle lane developments. EVERY SINGLE DAY I see red light jumping/no lights/headphones on/wrong way down one way streets etc etc. Car drivers are legally required to be identifiable/pay vehicle tax and insured - the cotton wooled cyclist is not - time for a change , then maybe the holier than thou drivel may cease?[/p][/quote]I can guarantee that everyday I will see a motorist BREAKING THE SPEED LIMIT. This does not mean that I consider all drivers lunatic criiminals, There are obviously some bad drivers amongst the good law abiding safe ones. How come people cannot apply the same sensible logic when it comes to cyclists? if you see a cyclist go through a red light it does not mean that all cyclists go through red lights, the same applies to pavements etc..[/p][/quote]The difference is if a motorist breaks the speed limit or runs a red or drives carlessly, They can be traced and fined and dealt with. Seeing as cyclists cant, they adopt the 'not my problem' attitude. Im not saying all cyclists are to blame, just the majority.[/p][/quote]In saying the majority are to blame you are, by default, saying that cyclists (plural) are to blame. I've noticed you on this and the other story on cyclists, the shame one. Your absence on the 3rd cycling story on this site, the hit & run one, is conspicuous to say the least.[/p][/quote]Why would I feel the need to comment on a hit and run when its left someone seriously injured? I dont make light of such incidents and casting unwated opinions on a hit and run is not something I feel comfortable with. In fact my original post on here was asking the chap from Bricycles to comment on a verbatem comment from a cyclist. Which was antagonistic and summed up cyclists attitudes to other road users. The fact is (and you cant avoid it), is that cyclists have no recourse for their actions, and this creates a 'not my problem' attitude, Like it or not, that is not subjective, that is fact.[/p][/quote]Thought as much. You're quick enough to apply anecdotal & generalised criticism to cyclists. When it's an incident involving a motorist you go all quiet. Quite sad really. In this 'cyclists' vs 'motorists' debate it's the likes of you that perpetuate myths and untruths. Yes there are cyclists that don't abide by the rules. Yes they should be punished. The same applies for motorists. But a bit of perspective is needed. You need to consider the comparable amount of deaths/injuries each form of transport is responsible for, the amount of pollution produced & the contribution towards wear & tear on the road (everyone contributes to this equally regardless of damage, or lack of, caused). The reaction to cyclists, given all of the above, compared to motoring offences is disproportionate and quite frankly ridiculous.[/p][/quote]Last comment correct but at the risk of stating the obvious the reason there are many more motoring offences is that motorists are - as highlighted above - identifiable - cyclists are not - and the levels of expenditure on schemes which it would appear cyclists don't want/need/require ( it's common sense to cycle on the pavement ) is an insult to us all - cyclists included!![/p][/quote]In the comment you refer to, quoted by Brighton 1000, the person refers to riding on the pavement with her children & giving consideration to pedestrians. Are you suggesting that she ride on the road with her children? I didn't mention the amount of offences by each road user. I mentioned the amount of deaths/injuries caused, and the subsequent reaction by commentators, and whether it is proportionate or not. IMO the outrage towards cyclists is disproportionate considering the fact that they do cause less deaths/injuries on our roads & pavements. I agree that cyclists should be identifiable & those breaking the law should be fined/prosecuted. Equally motoring sanctions and punishments should rise considering the increased likelihood of serious injury and death.[/p][/quote]Totally agree that any delinquent behaviour on the roads - or indeed anywhere else - should be dealt with. Re the notion of riding with children on the roads I wouldn't suggest for a moment that youngsters should be endangered in anyway whatsoever but I though the whole point of cycle lanes was that cyclists could have their own space? A point to clarify - are cyclists legally allowed to cycle on pavements? peterthomas
  • Score: 1

5:34pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Brightonscouse2 says...

Brighton1000 wrote:
Brightonscouse2 wrote:
peterthomas wrote:
Brightonscouse2 wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Brightonscouse2 wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
peterthomas wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site:

No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't.
Stunning stuff I have to say..."it's common sense to use the pavement" and a reference to the "plight of the cyclist" not recognising which is "our problem"??? You need to take more water with it - I have been F'd and Blinded at on several occasions when nearly knocked for six by cyclists moving at high speed on pavements within yards of obscenely expensive cycle lane developments. EVERY SINGLE DAY I see red light jumping/no lights/headphones on/wrong way down one way streets etc etc. Car drivers are legally required to be identifiable/pay vehicle tax and insured - the cotton wooled cyclist is not - time for a change , then maybe the holier than thou drivel may cease?
I can guarantee that everyday I will see a motorist BREAKING THE SPEED LIMIT. This does not mean that I consider all drivers lunatic criiminals, There are obviously some bad drivers amongst the good law abiding safe ones. How come people cannot apply the same sensible logic when it comes to cyclists? if you see a cyclist go through a red light it does not mean that all cyclists go through red lights, the same applies to pavements etc..
The difference is if a motorist breaks the speed limit or runs a red or drives carlessly, They can be traced and fined and dealt with. Seeing as cyclists cant, they adopt the 'not my problem' attitude. Im not saying all cyclists are to blame, just the majority.
In saying the majority are to blame you are, by default, saying that cyclists (plural) are to blame.

I've noticed you on this and the other story on cyclists, the shame one. Your absence on the 3rd cycling story on this site, the hit & run one, is conspicuous to say the least.
Why would I feel the need to comment on a hit and run when its left someone seriously injured? I dont make light of such incidents and casting unwated opinions on a hit and run is not something I feel comfortable with. In fact my original post on here was asking the chap from Bricycles to comment on a verbatem comment from a cyclist. Which was antagonistic and summed up cyclists attitudes to other road users. The fact is (and you cant avoid it), is that cyclists have no recourse for their actions, and this creates a 'not my problem' attitude, Like it or not, that is not subjective, that is fact.
Thought as much. You're quick enough to apply anecdotal & generalised criticism to cyclists. When it's an incident involving a motorist you go all quiet. Quite sad really.

In this 'cyclists' vs 'motorists' debate it's the likes of you that perpetuate myths and untruths. Yes there are cyclists that don't abide by the rules. Yes they should be punished. The same applies for motorists. But a bit of perspective is needed. You need to consider the comparable amount of deaths/injuries each form of transport is responsible for, the amount of pollution produced & the contribution towards wear & tear on the road (everyone contributes to this equally regardless of damage, or lack of, caused).

The reaction to cyclists, given all of the above, compared to motoring offences is disproportionate and quite frankly ridiculous.
Last comment correct but at the risk of stating the obvious the reason there are many more motoring offences is that motorists are - as highlighted above - identifiable - cyclists are not - and the levels of expenditure on schemes which it would appear cyclists don't want/need/require ( it's common sense to cycle on the pavement ) is an insult to us all - cyclists included!!
In the comment you refer to, quoted by Brighton 1000, the person refers to riding on the pavement with her children & giving consideration to pedestrians. Are you suggesting that she ride on the road with her children?

I didn't mention the amount of offences by each road user. I mentioned the amount of deaths/injuries caused, and the subsequent reaction by commentators, and whether it is proportionate or not. IMO the outrage towards cyclists is disproportionate considering the fact that they do cause less deaths/injuries on our roads & pavements.

I agree that cyclists should be identifiable & those breaking the law should be fined/prosecuted. Equally motoring sanctions and punishments should rise considering the increased likelihood of serious injury and death.
Good so we agree there needs to be recourse for cyclist who flout the law. In answer to your question, Yes I believe the mother should allow her children to cycle on the road, If they are'nt proficient cyclers then walk? Thats a bit like me allowing my children to drive a car on the pavement as its safer for them! You cant have it all ways cyclists.
So you think the mother should risk the lives of her children for the sake of keeping the pavement free for pedestrians?

It's not about her children being proficient or not. I don't think any parent would let their kids ride on the road at a young age, because of the risk. I don't know if you are a parent or not, but would you do something that poses a risk to your child's life? I'd like to think not.
[quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brightonscouse2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site: No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't.[/p][/quote]Stunning stuff I have to say..."it's common sense to use the pavement" and a reference to the "plight of the cyclist" not recognising which is "our problem"??? You need to take more water with it - I have been F'd and Blinded at on several occasions when nearly knocked for six by cyclists moving at high speed on pavements within yards of obscenely expensive cycle lane developments. EVERY SINGLE DAY I see red light jumping/no lights/headphones on/wrong way down one way streets etc etc. Car drivers are legally required to be identifiable/pay vehicle tax and insured - the cotton wooled cyclist is not - time for a change , then maybe the holier than thou drivel may cease?[/p][/quote]I can guarantee that everyday I will see a motorist BREAKING THE SPEED LIMIT. This does not mean that I consider all drivers lunatic criiminals, There are obviously some bad drivers amongst the good law abiding safe ones. How come people cannot apply the same sensible logic when it comes to cyclists? if you see a cyclist go through a red light it does not mean that all cyclists go through red lights, the same applies to pavements etc..[/p][/quote]The difference is if a motorist breaks the speed limit or runs a red or drives carlessly, They can be traced and fined and dealt with. Seeing as cyclists cant, they adopt the 'not my problem' attitude. Im not saying all cyclists are to blame, just the majority.[/p][/quote]In saying the majority are to blame you are, by default, saying that cyclists (plural) are to blame. I've noticed you on this and the other story on cyclists, the shame one. Your absence on the 3rd cycling story on this site, the hit & run one, is conspicuous to say the least.[/p][/quote]Why would I feel the need to comment on a hit and run when its left someone seriously injured? I dont make light of such incidents and casting unwated opinions on a hit and run is not something I feel comfortable with. In fact my original post on here was asking the chap from Bricycles to comment on a verbatem comment from a cyclist. Which was antagonistic and summed up cyclists attitudes to other road users. The fact is (and you cant avoid it), is that cyclists have no recourse for their actions, and this creates a 'not my problem' attitude, Like it or not, that is not subjective, that is fact.[/p][/quote]Thought as much. You're quick enough to apply anecdotal & generalised criticism to cyclists. When it's an incident involving a motorist you go all quiet. Quite sad really. In this 'cyclists' vs 'motorists' debate it's the likes of you that perpetuate myths and untruths. Yes there are cyclists that don't abide by the rules. Yes they should be punished. The same applies for motorists. But a bit of perspective is needed. You need to consider the comparable amount of deaths/injuries each form of transport is responsible for, the amount of pollution produced & the contribution towards wear & tear on the road (everyone contributes to this equally regardless of damage, or lack of, caused). The reaction to cyclists, given all of the above, compared to motoring offences is disproportionate and quite frankly ridiculous.[/p][/quote]Last comment correct but at the risk of stating the obvious the reason there are many more motoring offences is that motorists are - as highlighted above - identifiable - cyclists are not - and the levels of expenditure on schemes which it would appear cyclists don't want/need/require ( it's common sense to cycle on the pavement ) is an insult to us all - cyclists included!![/p][/quote]In the comment you refer to, quoted by Brighton 1000, the person refers to riding on the pavement with her children & giving consideration to pedestrians. Are you suggesting that she ride on the road with her children? I didn't mention the amount of offences by each road user. I mentioned the amount of deaths/injuries caused, and the subsequent reaction by commentators, and whether it is proportionate or not. IMO the outrage towards cyclists is disproportionate considering the fact that they do cause less deaths/injuries on our roads & pavements. I agree that cyclists should be identifiable & those breaking the law should be fined/prosecuted. Equally motoring sanctions and punishments should rise considering the increased likelihood of serious injury and death.[/p][/quote]Good so we agree there needs to be recourse for cyclist who flout the law. In answer to your question, Yes I believe the mother should allow her children to cycle on the road, If they are'nt proficient cyclers then walk? Thats a bit like me allowing my children to drive a car on the pavement as its safer for them! You cant have it all ways cyclists.[/p][/quote]So you think the mother should risk the lives of her children for the sake of keeping the pavement free for pedestrians? It's not about her children being proficient or not. I don't think any parent would let their kids ride on the road at a young age, because of the risk. I don't know if you are a parent or not, but would you do something that poses a risk to your child's life? I'd like to think not. Brightonscouse2
  • Score: -1

6:37pm Wed 15 Jan 14

fredaj says...

My question -

I appreciate that due to its very nature, being a pressure group, Bricycles has a very narrow agenda, but does Bricycles not think sometimes that being so adversarial against both pedestrians (supporting bikes on Hove prom for example) and cars (supporting a change the law such that all car/bike accidents are deemed to be the car driver's fault for example) is counter-productive?

Surely, as pedestrians, bikes and cars co-exist and share the space, it makes more sense to find ways work together for a safer environment that all groups with interest can support rather than just promoting selfish, anti-car and never-mind-the-pedes
trian-as-they-can-mo
ve-out-the-way options that only help cyclists.
My question - I appreciate that due to its very nature, being a pressure group, Bricycles has a very narrow agenda, but does Bricycles not think sometimes that being so adversarial against both pedestrians (supporting bikes on Hove prom for example) and cars (supporting a change the law such that all car/bike accidents are deemed to be the car driver's fault for example) is counter-productive? Surely, as pedestrians, bikes and cars co-exist and share the space, it makes more sense to find ways work together for a safer environment that all groups with interest can support rather than just promoting selfish, anti-car and never-mind-the-pedes trian-as-they-can-mo ve-out-the-way options that only help cyclists. fredaj
  • Score: 3

9:50pm Wed 15 Jan 14

HJarrs says...

Question;

What is Bricycles vision for Brighton and Hove and, given the vociforous opposition to any cycle improvements by a well funded, organised and very vocal minority, how do you see that vision being delivered?
Question; What is Bricycles vision for Brighton and Hove and, given the vociforous opposition to any cycle improvements by a well funded, organised and very vocal minority, how do you see that vision being delivered? HJarrs
  • Score: 0

9:55pm Wed 15 Jan 14

HJarrs says...

Question:

Just looking around the city, it appears to me that cycling is becoming more popular, particularly along the Lewes Rd / Level corridor (I assume this is partly due to recent cycle lane improvements and successful redevelopment of the Level).

Do you think that cycling is becoming more popular in the city? What do you think are the main obsticles to encouraging cycling and what can we do about them?
Question: Just looking around the city, it appears to me that cycling is becoming more popular, particularly along the Lewes Rd / Level corridor (I assume this is partly due to recent cycle lane improvements and successful redevelopment of the Level). Do you think that cycling is becoming more popular in the city? What do you think are the main obsticles to encouraging cycling and what can we do about them? HJarrs
  • Score: -2

9:57pm Wed 15 Jan 14

HJarrs says...

Question:

What would be your top 3 priorities to encourage cycling in Brighton and Hove?
Question: What would be your top 3 priorities to encourage cycling in Brighton and Hove? HJarrs
  • Score: -1

11:12pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Maxwell's Ghost says...

Mr Green why does one of the city's cycling campaigners carry speakers on the rear of his bicycle blaring horrendous music distracting pedestrians and cyclists?
How can we encourage this road campaigner to be more considerate......I'm a road biker and I find it dangerous.
Mr Green why does one of the city's cycling campaigners carry speakers on the rear of his bicycle blaring horrendous music distracting pedestrians and cyclists? How can we encourage this road campaigner to be more considerate......I'm a road biker and I find it dangerous. Maxwell's Ghost
  • Score: 1

12:25am Thu 16 Jan 14

fredaj says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Mr Green why does one of the city's cycling campaigners carry speakers on the rear of his bicycle blaring horrendous music distracting pedestrians and cyclists?
How can we encourage this road campaigner to be more considerate......I'm a road biker and I find it dangerous.
Does he?

Good grief!
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Mr Green why does one of the city's cycling campaigners carry speakers on the rear of his bicycle blaring horrendous music distracting pedestrians and cyclists? How can we encourage this road campaigner to be more considerate......I'm a road biker and I find it dangerous.[/p][/quote]Does he? Good grief! fredaj
  • Score: 1

12:55am Thu 16 Jan 14

Gribbet says...

Brighton1000 wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
peterthomas wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site:

No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't.
Stunning stuff I have to say..."it's common sense to use the pavement" and a reference to the "plight of the cyclist" not recognising which is "our problem"??? You need to take more water with it - I have been F'd and Blinded at on several occasions when nearly knocked for six by cyclists moving at high speed on pavements within yards of obscenely expensive cycle lane developments. EVERY SINGLE DAY I see red light jumping/no lights/headphones on/wrong way down one way streets etc etc. Car drivers are legally required to be identifiable/pay vehicle tax and insured - the cotton wooled cyclist is not - time for a change , then maybe the holier than thou drivel may cease?
I can guarantee that everyday I will see a motorist BREAKING THE SPEED LIMIT. This does not mean that I consider all drivers lunatic criiminals, There are obviously some bad drivers amongst the good law abiding safe ones. How come people cannot apply the same sensible logic when it comes to cyclists? if you see a cyclist go through a red light it does not mean that all cyclists go through red lights, the same applies to pavements etc..
The difference is if a motorist breaks the speed limit or runs a red or drives carlessly, They can be traced and fined and dealt with. Seeing as cyclists cant, they adopt the 'not my problem' attitude. Im not saying all cyclists are to blame, just the majority.
But they aren't dealt with ! Only a extremely small proportion of speeding offences actually result in a conviction, and this is for speeding, an offence that obviously presents a danger to others.
How many driving offences are punished v cycling?
You seem to be the one with all the facts and concrete knowledge behind those strong opinions, so perhaps you can tell us? This is basic stuff, this should be easy for you.
[quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site: No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't.[/p][/quote]Stunning stuff I have to say..."it's common sense to use the pavement" and a reference to the "plight of the cyclist" not recognising which is "our problem"??? You need to take more water with it - I have been F'd and Blinded at on several occasions when nearly knocked for six by cyclists moving at high speed on pavements within yards of obscenely expensive cycle lane developments. EVERY SINGLE DAY I see red light jumping/no lights/headphones on/wrong way down one way streets etc etc. Car drivers are legally required to be identifiable/pay vehicle tax and insured - the cotton wooled cyclist is not - time for a change , then maybe the holier than thou drivel may cease?[/p][/quote]I can guarantee that everyday I will see a motorist BREAKING THE SPEED LIMIT. This does not mean that I consider all drivers lunatic criiminals, There are obviously some bad drivers amongst the good law abiding safe ones. How come people cannot apply the same sensible logic when it comes to cyclists? if you see a cyclist go through a red light it does not mean that all cyclists go through red lights, the same applies to pavements etc..[/p][/quote]The difference is if a motorist breaks the speed limit or runs a red or drives carlessly, They can be traced and fined and dealt with. Seeing as cyclists cant, they adopt the 'not my problem' attitude. Im not saying all cyclists are to blame, just the majority.[/p][/quote]But they aren't dealt with ! Only a extremely small proportion of speeding offences actually result in a conviction, and this is for speeding, an offence that obviously presents a danger to others.[/p][/quote]How many driving offences are punished v cycling?[/p][/quote]You seem to be the one with all the facts and concrete knowledge behind those strong opinions, so perhaps you can tell us? This is basic stuff, this should be easy for you. Gribbet
  • Score: 0

1:04am Thu 16 Jan 14

Gribbet says...

fredaj wrote:
My question -

I appreciate that due to its very nature, being a pressure group, Bricycles has a very narrow agenda, but does Bricycles not think sometimes that being so adversarial against both pedestrians (supporting bikes on Hove prom for example) and cars (supporting a change the law such that all car/bike accidents are deemed to be the car driver's fault for example) is counter-productive?

Surely, as pedestrians, bikes and cars co-exist and share the space, it makes more sense to find ways work together for a safer environment that all groups with interest can support rather than just promoting selfish, anti-car and never-mind-the-pedes

trian-as-they-can-mo

ve-out-the-way options that only help cyclists.
I think the proposals for hove promenade would be for a shared space anyway rather than a segregated cycle lane and that proposed law you're talking about also means that if a cyclist collides with a pedestrian, it would be assumed to be the cyclist's fault unless there was strong evidence to the contrary. As a European country, we're in the minority in not having this law, it works a treat elsewhere.
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: My question - I appreciate that due to its very nature, being a pressure group, Bricycles has a very narrow agenda, but does Bricycles not think sometimes that being so adversarial against both pedestrians (supporting bikes on Hove prom for example) and cars (supporting a change the law such that all car/bike accidents are deemed to be the car driver's fault for example) is counter-productive? Surely, as pedestrians, bikes and cars co-exist and share the space, it makes more sense to find ways work together for a safer environment that all groups with interest can support rather than just promoting selfish, anti-car and never-mind-the-pedes trian-as-they-can-mo ve-out-the-way options that only help cyclists.[/p][/quote]I think the proposals for hove promenade would be for a shared space anyway rather than a segregated cycle lane and that proposed law you're talking about also means that if a cyclist collides with a pedestrian, it would be assumed to be the cyclist's fault unless there was strong evidence to the contrary. As a European country, we're in the minority in not having this law, it works a treat elsewhere. Gribbet
  • Score: 1

1:12am Thu 16 Jan 14

Gribbet says...

Maxwell's Ghost wrote:
Mr Green why does one of the city's cycling campaigners carry speakers on the rear of his bicycle blaring horrendous music distracting pedestrians and cyclists?
How can we encourage this road campaigner to be more considerate......I'm a road biker and I find it dangerous.
You always point out in your anti-cycling comments that you're a cyclist, but how does a cyclist such as yourself get to be so anti-cycling and anti-cyclists?
[quote][p][bold]Maxwell's Ghost[/bold] wrote: Mr Green why does one of the city's cycling campaigners carry speakers on the rear of his bicycle blaring horrendous music distracting pedestrians and cyclists? How can we encourage this road campaigner to be more considerate......I'm a road biker and I find it dangerous.[/p][/quote]You always point out in your anti-cycling comments that you're a cyclist, but how does a cyclist such as yourself get to be so anti-cycling and anti-cyclists? Gribbet
  • Score: 0

8:34am Thu 16 Jan 14

her professional says...

peterthomas wrote:
SexualHarassmentPand

a
wrote:
"Cycling has rarely been far from the headlines in recent years"

Yes, it's almost as if some news companies are disproportionately obsessed with the subject.
True but I guess when you have hundreds of people breaking the law every day and going unpunished it may warrant a degree of media coverage?
Such as speeding motorists and cars going through red lights you mean?
[quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SexualHarassmentPand a[/bold] wrote: "Cycling has rarely been far from the headlines in recent years" Yes, it's almost as if some news companies are disproportionately obsessed with the subject.[/p][/quote]True but I guess when you have hundreds of people breaking the law every day and going unpunished it may warrant a degree of media coverage?[/p][/quote]Such as speeding motorists and cars going through red lights you mean? her professional
  • Score: 1

11:00am Thu 16 Jan 14

Zorniza says...

The title is wrong. This is not about cycling. The title of the report is misleading. You do not talk about cyclists, but about motorists. You should learn how to reflect properly. Then read all the comments and worries that have been written by readers on many occasions and reply in terms of lessons you may has learned.

If you write an anti-motorists rant have the decency to call it that.

But what I see is something of a fascist culture pushing (no pun intended) its way into our lives : people have to get out of your way or else.
The title is wrong. This is not about cycling. The title of the report is misleading. You do not talk about cyclists, but about motorists. You should learn how to reflect properly. Then read all the comments and worries that have been written by readers on many occasions and reply in terms of lessons you may has learned. If you write an anti-motorists rant have the decency to call it that. But what I see is something of a fascist culture pushing (no pun intended) its way into our lives : people have to get out of your way or else. Zorniza
  • Score: 0

12:53pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Brighton1000 says...

Gribbet wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
gheese77 wrote:
peterthomas wrote:
Brighton1000 wrote:
Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site:

No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't.
Stunning stuff I have to say..."it's common sense to use the pavement" and a reference to the "plight of the cyclist" not recognising which is "our problem"??? You need to take more water with it - I have been F'd and Blinded at on several occasions when nearly knocked for six by cyclists moving at high speed on pavements within yards of obscenely expensive cycle lane developments. EVERY SINGLE DAY I see red light jumping/no lights/headphones on/wrong way down one way streets etc etc. Car drivers are legally required to be identifiable/pay vehicle tax and insured - the cotton wooled cyclist is not - time for a change , then maybe the holier than thou drivel may cease?
I can guarantee that everyday I will see a motorist BREAKING THE SPEED LIMIT. This does not mean that I consider all drivers lunatic criiminals, There are obviously some bad drivers amongst the good law abiding safe ones. How come people cannot apply the same sensible logic when it comes to cyclists? if you see a cyclist go through a red light it does not mean that all cyclists go through red lights, the same applies to pavements etc..
The difference is if a motorist breaks the speed limit or runs a red or drives carlessly, They can be traced and fined and dealt with. Seeing as cyclists cant, they adopt the 'not my problem' attitude. Im not saying all cyclists are to blame, just the majority.
But they aren't dealt with ! Only a extremely small proportion of speeding offences actually result in a conviction, and this is for speeding, an offence that obviously presents a danger to others.
How many driving offences are punished v cycling?
You seem to be the one with all the facts and concrete knowledge behind those strong opinions, so perhaps you can tell us? This is basic stuff, this should be easy for you.
Very basic and simple to answer, Cycling offences are not punished, fact.
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gheese77[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peterthomas[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighton1000[/bold] wrote: Could you comment on this cyclists attitude, Im afraid 99% share the same 'not my problem' attitude. A blatant disregard for the law and safety. This is a post from a cyclist today on this site: No it's not that simple. I cycle on the pavement, and I tell my kids to too. I also tell them to give way to pedestrians, as I do. I find most pedestrians sympathise with the plight of the cyclist, and anyone who does not that's their problem, I've got out of their way and done enough to keep us both free of injury. It's common sense to use the pavement. All cyclists should do it if they are worried about being injured by an idiot car driver who can't be patient enough to wait two seconds until they can get past. Most drivers can, but some can't.[/p][/quote]Stunning stuff I have to say..."it's common sense to use the pavement" and a reference to the "plight of the cyclist" not recognising which is "our problem"??? You need to take more water with it - I have been F'd and Blinded at on several occasions when nearly knocked for six by cyclists moving at high speed on pavements within yards of obscenely expensive cycle lane developments. EVERY SINGLE DAY I see red light jumping/no lights/headphones on/wrong way down one way streets etc etc. Car drivers are legally required to be identifiable/pay vehicle tax and insured - the cotton wooled cyclist is not - time for a change , then maybe the holier than thou drivel may cease?[/p][/quote]I can guarantee that everyday I will see a motorist BREAKING THE SPEED LIMIT. This does not mean that I consider all drivers lunatic criiminals, There are obviously some bad drivers amongst the good law abiding safe ones. How come people cannot apply the same sensible logic when it comes to cyclists? if you see a cyclist go through a red light it does not mean that all cyclists go through red lights, the same applies to pavements etc..[/p][/quote]The difference is if a motorist breaks the speed limit or runs a red or drives carlessly, They can be traced and fined and dealt with. Seeing as cyclists cant, they adopt the 'not my problem' attitude. Im not saying all cyclists are to blame, just the majority.[/p][/quote]But they aren't dealt with ! Only a extremely small proportion of speeding offences actually result in a conviction, and this is for speeding, an offence that obviously presents a danger to others.[/p][/quote]How many driving offences are punished v cycling?[/p][/quote]You seem to be the one with all the facts and concrete knowledge behind those strong opinions, so perhaps you can tell us? This is basic stuff, this should be easy for you.[/p][/quote]Very basic and simple to answer, Cycling offences are not punished, fact. Brighton1000
  • Score: -1

1:04pm Thu 16 Jan 14

fredaj says...

Gribbet wrote:
fredaj wrote:
My question -

I appreciate that due to its very nature, being a pressure group, Bricycles has a very narrow agenda, but does Bricycles not think sometimes that being so adversarial against both pedestrians (supporting bikes on Hove prom for example) and cars (supporting a change the law such that all car/bike accidents are deemed to be the car driver's fault for example) is counter-productive?

Surely, as pedestrians, bikes and cars co-exist and share the space, it makes more sense to find ways work together for a safer environment that all groups with interest can support rather than just promoting selfish, anti-car and never-mind-the-pedes


trian-as-they-can-mo


ve-out-the-way options that only help cyclists.
I think the proposals for hove promenade would be for a shared space anyway rather than a segregated cycle lane and that proposed law you're talking about also means that if a cyclist collides with a pedestrian, it would be assumed to be the cyclist's fault unless there was strong evidence to the contrary. As a European country, we're in the minority in not having this law, it works a treat elsewhere.
Yes, the Hove Prom proposal is for shared space and surveys of regular on-foot users always come out agains the idea yet Bricycles continue to campaign for it. Apparently, according to Becky Reynalds of Bricycles, the current cycle lane alone the pavement by the road is neither wide enough nor scenic enough to be acceptable.

Next, your thoughts that the proposed law here on who is to blame in the event of a car/bike collision would be on the basis of "unless there is strong evidence to the contrary" are incorrect. Do a google and you will find that the idea is to make motorists legally responsible under any and all circumstances.
[quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: My question - I appreciate that due to its very nature, being a pressure group, Bricycles has a very narrow agenda, but does Bricycles not think sometimes that being so adversarial against both pedestrians (supporting bikes on Hove prom for example) and cars (supporting a change the law such that all car/bike accidents are deemed to be the car driver's fault for example) is counter-productive? Surely, as pedestrians, bikes and cars co-exist and share the space, it makes more sense to find ways work together for a safer environment that all groups with interest can support rather than just promoting selfish, anti-car and never-mind-the-pedes trian-as-they-can-mo ve-out-the-way options that only help cyclists.[/p][/quote]I think the proposals for hove promenade would be for a shared space anyway rather than a segregated cycle lane and that proposed law you're talking about also means that if a cyclist collides with a pedestrian, it would be assumed to be the cyclist's fault unless there was strong evidence to the contrary. As a European country, we're in the minority in not having this law, it works a treat elsewhere.[/p][/quote]Yes, the Hove Prom proposal is for shared space and surveys of regular on-foot users always come out agains the idea yet Bricycles continue to campaign for it. Apparently, according to Becky Reynalds of Bricycles, the current cycle lane alone the pavement by the road is neither wide enough nor scenic enough to be acceptable. Next, your thoughts that the proposed law here on who is to blame in the event of a car/bike collision would be on the basis of "unless there is strong evidence to the contrary" are incorrect. Do a google and you will find that the idea is to make motorists legally responsible under any and all circumstances. fredaj
  • Score: -1

6:18pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Brighton1000 says...

http://www.brightona



ndhovenews.org/2014/



01/16/labour-tables-



formal-vote-of-no-co



nfidence-in-brighton



-and-hoves-ruling-gr



eens/26722?utm_sourc



e=twitterfeed&ut


m_me
dium=twitter
http://www.brightona ndhovenews.org/2014/ 01/16/labour-tables- formal-vote-of-no-co nfidence-in-brighton -and-hoves-ruling-gr eens/26722?utm_sourc e=twitterfeed&ut m_me dium=twitter Brighton1000
  • Score: -1

9:42pm Thu 16 Jan 14

timjones1 says...

It's a waste of time going on about who're the worst offenders. As a cyclist I sometimes jump lights as a defensive measure to get away from the traffic. I never do it at certain junctions though. This situation will stay the same so long as there are just pretendy cycle lanes doubling up as parking places for any motorist who fancies it. Not everybody can cycle so there has to be some provision made for them and as buses are so expensive it isn't surprising they use their cars. A properly integrated transport system for Brighton would have to include cycle lanes inaccessible to cars and heavily subsidised buses. As this isn't going to happen, I'll keep jumping the lights and the motorists will keep parking in the cycle lanes.
It's a waste of time going on about who're the worst offenders. As a cyclist I sometimes jump lights as a defensive measure to get away from the traffic. I never do it at certain junctions though. This situation will stay the same so long as there are just pretendy cycle lanes doubling up as parking places for any motorist who fancies it. Not everybody can cycle so there has to be some provision made for them and as buses are so expensive it isn't surprising they use their cars. A properly integrated transport system for Brighton would have to include cycle lanes inaccessible to cars and heavily subsidised buses. As this isn't going to happen, I'll keep jumping the lights and the motorists will keep parking in the cycle lanes. timjones1
  • Score: 0

6:10am Fri 17 Jan 14

Gribbet says...

fredaj wrote:
Gribbet wrote:
fredaj wrote:
My question -

I appreciate that due to its very nature, being a pressure group, Bricycles has a very narrow agenda, but does Bricycles not think sometimes that being so adversarial against both pedestrians (supporting bikes on Hove prom for example) and cars (supporting a change the law such that all car/bike accidents are deemed to be the car driver's fault for example) is counter-productive?

Surely, as pedestrians, bikes and cars co-exist and share the space, it makes more sense to find ways work together for a safer environment that all groups with interest can support rather than just promoting selfish, anti-car and never-mind-the-pedes



trian-as-they-can-mo



ve-out-the-way options that only help cyclists.
I think the proposals for hove promenade would be for a shared space anyway rather than a segregated cycle lane and that proposed law you're talking about also means that if a cyclist collides with a pedestrian, it would be assumed to be the cyclist's fault unless there was strong evidence to the contrary. As a European country, we're in the minority in not having this law, it works a treat elsewhere.
Yes, the Hove Prom proposal is for shared space and surveys of regular on-foot users always come out agains the idea yet Bricycles continue to campaign for it. Apparently, according to Becky Reynalds of Bricycles, the current cycle lane alone the pavement by the road is neither wide enough nor scenic enough to be acceptable.

Next, your thoughts that the proposed law here on who is to blame in the event of a car/bike collision would be on the basis of "unless there is strong evidence to the contrary" are incorrect. Do a google and you will find that the idea is to make motorists legally responsible under any and all circumstances.
You're actually wrong in your explanation of strict liability law.

Under the strict liability law there are still circumstances where the cyclist will be held responsible in the event of a car / bike collision.

You need to read up on it in more detail.
[quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gribbet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]fredaj[/bold] wrote: My question - I appreciate that due to its very nature, being a pressure group, Bricycles has a very narrow agenda, but does Bricycles not think sometimes that being so adversarial against both pedestrians (supporting bikes on Hove prom for example) and cars (supporting a change the law such that all car/bike accidents are deemed to be the car driver's fault for example) is counter-productive? Surely, as pedestrians, bikes and cars co-exist and share the space, it makes more sense to find ways work together for a safer environment that all groups with interest can support rather than just promoting selfish, anti-car and never-mind-the-pedes trian-as-they-can-mo ve-out-the-way options that only help cyclists.[/p][/quote]I think the proposals for hove promenade would be for a shared space anyway rather than a segregated cycle lane and that proposed law you're talking about also means that if a cyclist collides with a pedestrian, it would be assumed to be the cyclist's fault unless there was strong evidence to the contrary. As a European country, we're in the minority in not having this law, it works a treat elsewhere.[/p][/quote]Yes, the Hove Prom proposal is for shared space and surveys of regular on-foot users always come out agains the idea yet Bricycles continue to campaign for it. Apparently, according to Becky Reynalds of Bricycles, the current cycle lane alone the pavement by the road is neither wide enough nor scenic enough to be acceptable. Next, your thoughts that the proposed law here on who is to blame in the event of a car/bike collision would be on the basis of "unless there is strong evidence to the contrary" are incorrect. Do a google and you will find that the idea is to make motorists legally responsible under any and all circumstances.[/p][/quote]You're actually wrong in your explanation of strict liability law. Under the strict liability law there are still circumstances where the cyclist will be held responsible in the event of a car / bike collision. You need to read up on it in more detail. Gribbet
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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