# Another pathetic dim witted tweeting driver...



## ianrauk (8 Sep 2014)

Good to see the Police are taking this seriously and looking into it.


----------



## winjim (8 Sep 2014)

The first tweet may very well lead to the second. 

I do like the police response though 
We'll have to wait and see if it works.


----------



## steveindenmark (8 Sep 2014)

ianrauk said:


> View attachment 55547
> 
> 
> View attachment 55548
> ...


I think it was said in frustration and even as a cyclist I can understand why.


----------



## jowwy (8 Sep 2014)

steveindenmark said:


> I think it was said in frustration and even as a cyclist I can understand why.


why - they are stopped in traffic like every other vehicle and riding two abreast which is perfectly legal - why would you be frustrated at that???


----------



## Paul99 (8 Sep 2014)

At the very least she needs a fine and 3 points.


----------



## ianrauk (8 Sep 2014)

steveindenmark said:


> I think it was said in frustration and even as a cyclist I can understand why.




As a cyclist I can't understand why. Looking at the pic, the cyclists are doing nothing wrong, except just to be there. They are not causing the obstruction but the cars in front of them.

It's this exact attitude from car drivers that needs to be stamped out. She is obviously too dim to realise that to share this on social media would have backfired, especially after other similar high profile cases. I hope she gets the vilification that she deserves. 1. To teach her a lesson. 2. So that others will think twice before posting such nonsense.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (8 Sep 2014)

Bet the messages from plod went down well. I don't think, however frustrated you might be, saying you're going to run cyclists over is an understandable thing to do.


----------



## Accy cyclist (8 Sep 2014)

Dangerous talk! Maybe these tough behind the wheel of their car idiots should be shown pictures of cyclists who've been mowed down by such twats as herself, to get it through their thick skulls that running down/over cyclists has serious consequences!


----------



## ufkacbln (8 Sep 2014)

I know it is being judgmental, but Khloe as a name would be sufficient a trigger for me to be concernd about her attitude.


----------



## CopperCyclist (8 Sep 2014)

ianrauk said:


> As a cyclist I can't understand why. Looking at the pic, the cyclists are doing nothing wrong, except just to be there. They are not causing the obstruction but the cars in front of them.



This, exactly 100% this. You aren't stuck in traffic, you ARE the traffic. The cyclists aren't holding you up, the traffic is. They will be out of your way long before those cars in front are too...


----------



## Drago (8 Sep 2014)

Some folk need to grow up. If you can't handle frustration like an adult then maybe you shouldn't have a driving licence.

If traffic conditions bring on a coronary then leave for work earlier.


----------



## Roadrider48 (8 Sep 2014)

Her Twitter account is protected, but it does say she's 17.
If she thinks the bikes are holding her up she needs to get her eyesight checked.


----------



## cd365 (8 Sep 2014)

Stupid little girl.


----------



## Retribution03 (8 Sep 2014)

Im not defending her as what she said is moronic but as for being fined and given 3 points as long as the car was out of gear and the handbrake on then she hasn't done anything wrong with taking and tweeting the pic.

She could have taken a different route to work as if it was a race surely it would have been advertised before the day of the race....I change my stance...hang the bitch lol


----------



## Fab Foodie (8 Sep 2014)




----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (8 Sep 2014)

Retribution03 said:


> Im not defending her as what she said is moronic but as for being fined and given 3 points as long as the car was out of gear and the handbrake on then she hasn't done anything wrong with taking and tweeting the pic.
> 
> She could have taken a different route to work as if it was a race surely it would have been advertised before the day of the race....I change my stance...hang the bitch lol



She's in the middle of a road in a car using a mobile. Ban her for life.


----------



## Spinney (8 Sep 2014)

Perhaps it is the stated intention to run over cyclists that is also part of the problem?


----------



## w00hoo_kent (8 Sep 2014)

CopperCyclist said:


> This, exactly 100% this. You aren't stuck in traffic, you ARE the traffic. The cyclists aren't holding you up, the traffic is. They will be out of your way long before those cars in front are too...



While cutting her any slack at all feel slightly dirty. There is the possibility that she's been stuck around bikes that weren't sat in traffic for the last 5 miles and she's waited until she was sat still in traffic to take the picture. We drove to Bedgebury with the mountain bikes yesterday and around 8 miles of the route coincided with the Tour of Kent (or similarly named) Sportive. There were a lot of bikes doing 15-20mph on NSL roads. We were fine, we know what it's all about. I took conservative gaps where they came up to make a little progress, but was happy to pretend I was kind of involved. I'm not sure the other cars around us (including the VW directly behind me, I can't believe he would've only taken the gaps I chose) shared the sensation.

I'm not saying she's right, I'm not saying it needs forgiving. But the concept of understanding in what way she's broken (she can't work out that everyone on the road is allowed to be there, the speed limit is a maximum not a target and threatening to cause someone actual harm is never a joke) is something I can get behind.


----------



## summerdays (8 Sep 2014)

Retribution03 said:


> Im not defending her as what she said is moronic but as for being fined and given 3 points as long as the car was out of gear and the handbrake on then she hasn't done anything wrong with taking and tweeting the pic.
> 
> She could have taken a different route to work as if it was a race surely it would have been advertised before the day of the race....I change my stance...hang the bitch lol


Still unlawful, and I suspect few who have a phone within that close reach restrict to only using it whilst not moving. So for me they haven't the correct attitude to be driving and at the minimum need a kick up the backside to wake them up to the dangers they present to others and themselves.


----------



## Apollonius (8 Sep 2014)

If she thinks that is a bike race then she is very clueless. OK, one guy has a number on his rucksack. Yes, I said rucksack. That will be the Cavendish, then, I guess!


----------



## Archie_tect (8 Sep 2014)

If only she'd ridden her bike to work.


----------



## winjim (8 Sep 2014)

Apollonius said:


> If she thinks that is a bike race then she is very clueless. OK, one guy has a number on his rucksack. Yes, I said rucksack. That will be the Cavendish, then, I guess!


She thinks that is a bike race as much as she actually intends to run them over, ie not in the slightest.


----------



## Paul99 (8 Sep 2014)

Retribution03 said:


> Im not defending her as what she said is moronic but *as for being fined and given 3 points as long as the car was out of gear and the handbrake on then she hasn't done anything wrong with taking and tweeting the pic*.
> 
> She could have taken a different route to work as if it was a race surely it would have been advertised before the day of the race....I change my stance...hang the bitch lol


 
I think this applies if you are parked up safely, not in lane 2.

Edit: Confirmed https://www.gov.uk/using-mobile-phones-when-driving-the-law


----------



## Retribution03 (8 Sep 2014)

I stand corrected  but as my other post states I'm hanging the bitch anyway lol


----------



## Labradorofperception (8 Sep 2014)

Looks like she is driving a mini- maybe she bought it from Emma. "legals bill force sale" Way.


----------



## steveindenmark (8 Sep 2014)

What she says is that she was stück behind them all the way to work. I agree that there is nothing wrong with the photo she posted. But if like my experience last week, there are 40 more bikes in front of them who take up the whole of your side of the road for mile after mile without leaving any gaps for anyone to overtake, it is frustrating.

I didnt want to batter down the road at 100 mile an hour but myself and the huge queue stück behind this peleton of day cyclists did want to make progress.


Steve


----------



## summerdays (8 Sep 2014)

What if it was several tractors? That happens sometimes, and then car drivers don't see it as such a blockage! I've been stuck behind one for several miles on my commute before now.


----------



## John the Monkey (8 Sep 2014)

steveindenmark said:


> What she says is that she was stück behind them all the way to work. I agree that there is nothing wrong with the photo she posted. But if like my experience last week, there are 40 more bikes in front of them who take up the whole of your side of the road for mile after mile without leaving any gaps for anyone to overtake, it is frustrating.


In the picture, I see four bikes, and four cars. The cars are taking up more space 

TBH, anyone living/driving in Britain who thinks bikes are the reason they're getting held up in traffic so often surely qualifies for dual citizenship in cloud cuckoo land.


----------



## John the Monkey (8 Sep 2014)

summerdays said:


> What if it was several tractors? That happens sometimes, and then car drivers don't see it as such a blockage! I've been stuck behind one for several miles on my commute before now.


What if it was cars?

The things are so inefficient at using space that it only takes, say, one set of temporary traffic lights to bring everything to a complete standstill. And it's not always safe for more efficient traffic to filter past either.


----------



## Saluki (8 Sep 2014)

Interesting @summerdays nobody ever tweets about being stuck behind tractors, combine harvesters, wide loads etc and wants to run them off the road. Good point well raised.
Stupid tweeters only seem interested in damaging vulnerable road users. I wonder how long it will be before a picture of a lollypop lady and a load of kids crossing the road will appear on twitter with an attached rant? We get held up by our lollypop lady for ages and ages. She gets to the middle of the road when she sees people coming! Lets one car through at a time some days. Sure it slows us down but people have to use the road safely.


----------



## steveindenmark (8 Sep 2014)

I cant remember when I have ever been stück behind several tractors and I have been driving over 40 years. However, if I ever am to be stuck behind several tractors, I hope they have the sense to either leave gaps or pull over occasionally to let vehicles pass. But if you want to create imaginary scenarios just to prove a point, thats fine by me.

If this young lady is driving one of those new snazzy vehicles where the engine stops when the car stops, she is not committing an offence. If she had only taken a photo, she would not have committed an offence. The offence needs " connectivity".

Steve


----------



## ianrauk (8 Sep 2014)

Bottom line is, there is no excuse for what she tweeted, especially in the public domain.

Hate cyclists? then fine... but don't be an arse and publish the fact that you threaten possible injury or death to others.


----------



## Apollonius (8 Sep 2014)

I passed a steam crane and a horse and cart on my ride yesterday. You never know what you are going to come across on the roads.


----------



## Drago (8 Sep 2014)

Retribution03 said:


> Im not defending her as what she said is moronic but as for being fined and given 3 points as long as the car was out of gear and the handbrake on then she hasn't done anything wrong with taking and tweeting the pic.
> 
> She could have taken a different route to work as if it was a race surely it would have been advertised before the day of the race....I change my stance...hang the bitch lol



Unless the car is actually parked lawfully at the kerbside or in a parking bay, engine off and handbrake applied, the offence is complete.

Assuming it's a telephony device (camera phone) she used she is clearly sat in traffic and in control of the vehicle. Regardless of whether the vehicle is moving, she has committed an offence.


----------



## steveindenmark (8 Sep 2014)

I have to eat humble pie because it does happen. Although they are a lot quicker that a lot of cyclists I know.


View: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-yADgk8NrHg


Steve


----------



## Saluki (8 Sep 2014)

steveindenmark said:


> I cant remember when I have ever been stück behind several tractors and I have been driving over 40 years. However, if I ever am to be stuck behind several tractors, I hope they have the sense to either leave gaps or pull over occasionally to let vehicles pass. But if you want to create imaginary scenarios just to prove a point, thats fine by me.
> 
> 
> 
> Steve


Come and live near us. Tractor city around here at this time of year. Living in rural Norfolk is lovely most of the time but I swear those tractors leave the farms at 2 minute intervals and TT to their destination. It's all narrow roads around here but we just accept that tractors (or tourists pulling caravans) go slowly and that there is nothing that can be done. Getting arsey and tweeting photos (not sure how to tweet anything though as we don't twit) is just showing stupidity. 
That 17 year old lassie needs a short sharp shock. Hopefully the police getting in touch with her will give her a bit of a fright. The country seems to be having more than it's fair share of stupid little girls with mobile phones and full driving licences.


----------



## steveindenmark (8 Sep 2014)

I can believe it in Norfolk


----------



## ianrauk (8 Sep 2014)

steveindenmark said:


> What she says is that she was stück behind them all the way to work. I agree that there is nothing wrong with the photo she posted. But if like my experience last week, there are 40 more bikes in front of them who take up the whole of your side of the road for mile after mile without leaving any gaps for anyone to overtake, it is frustrating.
> 
> I didnt want to batter down the road at 100 mile an hour but myself and the huge queue stück behind this peleton of day cyclists did want to make progress.
> 
> ...



Change your route if it frustrates you that much.

Myself? I wouldn't be bothered, I like seeing the roads taken over with cyclists, however long it delay's a journey.


----------



## steveindenmark (8 Sep 2014)

Would I tell a fib on here? They were also followed by a car with a trailer for carrying bikes and orange flashing lights. I think they thought that made them official. I followed them for about 4 miles before I could turn off and the queue behind me was at least a mile long.

Ian on some routes you sometimes cant just swing off when you come across these type of things. We are all road users and should have consideration for each other. That includes large groups of cyclists who hold up traffic which can travel at faster than 28kph. The group I was behind were 3 and 4 abreast.

Steve


----------



## summerdays (8 Sep 2014)

steveindenmark said:


> I cant remember when I have ever been stück behind several tractors and I have been driving over 40 years. However, if I ever am to be stuck behind several tractors, I hope they have the sense to either leave gaps or pull over occasionally to let vehicles pass. But if you want to create imaginary scenarios just to prove a point, thats fine by me.
> 
> If this young lady is driving one of those new snazzy vehicles where the engine stops when the car stops, she is not committing an offence. If she had only taken a photo, she would not have committed an offence. The offence needs " connectivity".
> 
> Steve


It happens, and it us usually on a road that has 40 and 50 mph limits (used to be 60 but they reduced it), and even when they get to the end of that road they usually turn the same way as we want to. And it's on a road the Tour of Britain will go along in a few days time. You just sit behind as there isn't really anywhere to safely pass, and it only costs a few extra minutes on your journey.


----------



## winjim (8 Sep 2014)

Drago said:


> Unless the car is actually parked lawfully at the kerbside or in a parking bay, engine off and handbrake applied, the offence is complete.
> 
> Assuming it's a telephony device (camera phone) she used she is clearly sat in traffic and in control of the vehicle. Regardless of whether the vehicle is moving, she has committed an offence.


But if she used a camera (not a phone) then an offence has not neccessarily been committed. The law makes no sense in this area.


----------



## Apollonius (8 Sep 2014)

The harvest has been in full swing here in rural Staffordshire for weeks now. It is not just fleets of tractors (all of whom, to date anyway, are courteous and willing to pull over for cyclists) but combines, artics loaded with grain, spraying rigs with many scary sharp bits sticking out, grain elevators, potato harvesters (like a mobile step-ladder) plus all manner of other agri-caboodle. 
We also get quite a few coach and four carriages as this is quite a centre for them. 
If people want to drive in a sterilised environment where these are not on the road, how about the USA - which in my experience has the most courteous drivers of all, oddly!


----------



## Sara_H (8 Sep 2014)

steveindenmark said:


> I cant remember when I have ever been stück behind several tractors and I have been driving over 40 years. However, if I ever am to be stuck behind several tractors, I hope they have the sense to either leave gaps or pull over occasionally to let vehicles pass. But if you want to create imaginary scenarios just to prove a point, thats fine by me.
> 
> If this young lady is driving one of those new snazzy vehicles where the engine stops when the car stops, she is not committing an offence. If she had only taken a photo, she would not have committed an offence. The offence needs " connectivity".
> 
> Steve


She is in traffic. She should be concentrating on what's happening around her. 

Part of the rationale for not using the phone even when you're stationary is that the distraction it causes does not cease immediately you put the device down. Studies have shown that drivers continue to be feel distracted and lack concentration both as they plan the action and afterwards too.

What happens in reality is that as they start to slow down they're thinking "there's them bloody cyclists that slowed me down, I'll take a picture while we're in the queue" They then start scrabbling about for the phone, one eye on road, one eye looking for phone. Then they start fiddling with phone, trying to put unlock code in and get it into camera setting. Car is still moving at this point, albeit slowly, but they're not fully concentrating and a rear end into a cyclist even at slow speed can do a lot of damage.

As they come to a halt, they take a quick snap, cos they can see the traffic up ahead is starting to move. They're on foot brake but haven't engaged handbrake or put it into neutral.
As the traffic starts to move, they try to aim phone back into handbag, but it misses and falls onto floor, so they're leaning over trying to get it as they move away. Unfortunately they're so busy messing around that they haven't noticed someone starting to cross between cars.

Even when stationary in queuing traffic or waiting at a junction, the driver should be concentrating on whats happening around them, not pissing about with a phone.


----------



## ianrauk (8 Sep 2014)

steveindenmark said:


> Would I tell a fib on here? They were also followed by a car with a trailer for carrying bikes and orange flashing lights. I think they thought that made them official. I followed them for about 4 miles before I could turn off and the queue behind me was at least a mile long.
> 
> Steve




4 miles without a turn off? Google map of the road please?


----------



## 4F (8 Sep 2014)

ianrauk said:


> 4 miles without a turn off? Google map of the road please?



Here you go, saved Steve the job http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Øresund_Bridge


----------



## ianrauk (8 Sep 2014)

4F said:


> Here you go, saved Steve the job http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Øresund_Bridge



Are cyclists allowed on that bridge? Wikipedia doesn't say. And looking at it I guess not.


----------



## 4F (8 Sep 2014)

ianrauk said:


> Are cyclists allowed on that bridge? Wikipedia doesn't say. And looking at it I guess not.



No you can't as its classed as a motorway


----------



## Mugshot (8 Sep 2014)

summerdays said:


> It happens, and it us usually on a road that has 40 and 50 mph limits (used to be 60 but they reduced it), and even when they get to the end of that road they usually turn the same way as we want to...... You just sit behind as there isn't really anywhere to safely pass, and it only costs a few extra minutes on your journey.





Apollonius said:


> The harvest has been in full swing here in rural Staffordshire for weeks now. It is not just fleets of tractors ....but combines, artics loaded with grain, spraying rigs with many scary sharp bits sticking out, grain elevators, potato harvesters (like a mobile step-ladder) plus all manner of other agri-caboodle.


That's about the size of it, it feels continuous around us at the moment. Convoys of agricultural equipment being dragged from field to field. We've a number of stables around me too, and the horse boxes seem to travel slower than the tractors.
I was passed by one of those enormous JCB tractors the other day, he was towing a huge trailer too. He beeped at me for about 30 seconds or more as he was approaching then as he was passing his mate, who was in the cab with him gesticulated wildly to the cycle path, I was doing around 27mph at the time on a nice road with plenty of room to overtake. I'm sure the Irony of a tractor driver getting irate at another road user for "holding him up" would have been lost on him, so I set a new record for my longest continuous one finger salute.


----------



## DaveReading (8 Sep 2014)

Roadrider48 said:


> Her Twitter account is protected, but it does say she's 17.
> If she thinks the bikes are holding her up she needs to get her eyesight checked.



But then again, she's only had a full driving licence for three months, as she helpfully informs the world (with a photo of her pass certificate) on another social networking site: http://ink361.com/app/users/ig-30022320/photos


----------



## glenn forger (8 Sep 2014)

steveindenmark said:


> the queue behind me was at least a mile long.



You have no possible way of knowing that, and given your complete ignorance of the law I suspect you made it up.


----------



## nickyboy (8 Sep 2014)

summerdays said:


> What if it was several tractors? That happens sometimes, and then car drivers don't see it as such a blockage! I've been stuck behind one for several miles on my commute before now.


Tractor drivers who don't pull over and let a queue of traffic pass them are equally ignorant as cyclists who ride two abreast
-- note I am not referring to a group ride where there is a rationale for riding two abreast, I am talking about just two cyclists


----------



## Drago (8 Sep 2014)

winjim said:


> But if she used a camera (not a phone) then an offence has not neccessarily been committed. The law makes no sense in this area.



Who said the law made sense? And the odds of he having used a camera and then downloaded the pic at work and slapped it on to Twatter is about as likely as Boris Johnson revealing himself the be Alex Salmond in drag.


----------



## Mugshot (8 Sep 2014)

nickyboy said:


> Tractor drivers who don't pull over and let a queue of traffic pass them are equally ignorant as cyclists who ride two abreast
> -- note I am not referring to a group ride where there is a rationale for riding two abreast, I am talking about just two cyclists


If the overtake is performed correctly then it makes no difference if there are two cyclists side by side or just a solo, the amount of space which should be left is the same.


----------



## John the Monkey (8 Sep 2014)

Mugshot said:


> If the overtake is performed correctly then it makes no difference if there are two cyclists side by side or just a solo, the amount of space which should be left is the same.


Exactly. It works that way because the nearside rider is closer to the kerb than a solo rider would (should) be, with the offside rider slightly wider than a "normal" primary. 

If you can't pass the pair safely, you probably couldn't have passed a single rider safely either.


----------



## nickyboy (8 Sep 2014)

Mugshot said:


> If the overtake is performed correctly then it makes no difference if there are two cyclists side by side or just a solo, the amount of space which should be left is the same.



The reality is that if someone is cycling single file, a car can pass and there's still room for another car coming the other way. That isn't the case riding two abreast. One can bang on about "correct" overtaking as much as one likes but that's the reality and is a major cause of friction between cyclists and other road users


----------



## winjim (8 Sep 2014)

Drago said:


> Who said the law made sense? And the odds of he having used a camera and then downloaded the pic at work and slapped it on to Twatter is about as likely as Boris Johnson revealing himself the be Alex Salmond in drag.


I agree, but without the metadata we can't be sure. And as far as I'm concerned a law that makes no sense can be ignored. BS lights and pedal reflectors anyone?


----------



## Mugshot (8 Sep 2014)

John the Monkey said:


> Exactly. It works that way because the nearside rider is closer to the kerb than a solo rider would (should) be, with the offside rider slightly wider than a "normal" primary.
> 
> If you can't pass the pair safely, you probably couldn't have passed a single rider safely either.


Precisely, it's also worth pointing out that riders two abreast are less long than two riders single file, so a correctly executed overtake should take less time, therefore any vehicles wishing to overtake are in theory "held up" for less time.


----------



## nickyboy (8 Sep 2014)

John the Monkey said:


> Exactly. It works that way because the nearside rider is closer to the kerb than a solo rider would (should) be, with the offside rider slightly wider than a "normal" primary.
> 
> If you can't pass the pair safely, you probably couldn't have passed a single rider safely either.



That is not my experience of cyclists riding two abreast in terms or road position. First cyclist adopts "normal" position, second cyclist is therefore much further out.


----------



## Mugshot (8 Sep 2014)

nickyboy said:


> The reality is that if someone is cycling single file, a *car can pass and there's still room for another car coming the other way*. That isn't the case riding two abreast. One can bang on about "correct" overtaking as much as one likes but that's the reality and is a major cause of friction between cyclists and other road users


You're not serious about this are you?


----------



## Drago (8 Sep 2014)

winjim said:


> I agree, but without the metadata we can't be sure. And as far as I'm concerned a law that makes no sense can be ignored. BS lights and pedal reflectors anyone?



You'd be happy to ignore mobile phone driving laws don't because you feel they don't make sense?


----------



## nickyboy (8 Sep 2014)

Mugshot said:


> Precisely, it's also worth pointing out that riders two abreast are less long than two riders single file, so a correctly executed overtake should take less time, therefore any vehicles wishing to overtake are in theory "held up" for less time.



Logic does not support your statement. Single file takes twice as long to overtake but two abreast is an active discourager of overtaking per se. The delay suffered as a result of being discouraged from overtaking is far longer than the additional time required to overtake two riders riding single file


----------



## nickyboy (8 Sep 2014)

Mugshot said:


> You're not serious about this are you?


Yup, 100%. Happens all the time


----------



## KneesUp (8 Sep 2014)

Do you remember the chap who tweeted that he was going to blow Robin Hood airport up if they didn't clear the snow in time for him to make his flight? 

Do you remember how when he was convicted of an offence, most people thought it was ridiculous because clearly he didn't mean he was literally going to blow the airport up - and in fact he was cleared on appeal and everyone thought the whole thing had been very silly and a waste of time and money?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19009344

This reminds me of that.


----------



## John the Monkey (8 Sep 2014)

Mugshot said:


> Precisely, it's also worth pointing out that riders two abreast are less long than two riders single file, so a correctly executed overtake should take less time, therefore any vehicles wishing to overtake are in theory "held up" for less time.


Crucially, they, and the driver, are exposed to risk for less time.

(Unless the driver is some sort of tailgating bellend, of course). I'd reiterate that "held up" is a spurious idea for the most part anyway - the "quick" bits of our road network being, mostly, ways of shuttling you between bottlenecks.


----------



## benb (8 Sep 2014)

nickyboy said:


> Logic does not support your statement. Single file takes twice as long to overtake but two abreast is an active discourager of overtaking per se. The delay suffered as a result of being discouraged from overtaking is far longer than the additional time required to overtake two riders riding single file



If a driver is delayed from overtaking due to cyclists riding 2 abreast, then there wasn't room for a safe overtake in the first place.


----------



## Apollonius (8 Sep 2014)

The reductio ad absurdam enthusiast might suggest that smaller cars could drive very close to the edge of the road so that faster vehicles could use the spacious middle of the road to pass at any time.


----------



## winjim (8 Sep 2014)

Drago said:


> You'd be happy to ignore mobile phone driving laws don't because you feel they don't make sense?


They are inconsistent and haven't kept up with the progress made in mobile phone technology. I could use many of the functions of my phone whilst driving if they were on a dedicated device, eg camera or dictaphone, but because they happen to be integrated into a pocket computer which also has a phone function I can't? And I can make a phone call with a hands free kit? Or use a CB radio?

As it happens I wouldn't personally do any of these things whilst driving, but my point is that the law really needs updating.


----------



## Mugshot (8 Sep 2014)

nickyboy said:


> The reality is that if someone is cycling single file, a car can pass and there's still room for another car coming the other way. That isn't the case riding two abreast. One can bang on about "correct" overtaking as much as one likes but that's the reality and is a major cause of friction between cyclists and other road users


The reality is that if we ride in the gutter we encourage close overtakes because we are presenting space to the car drivers which most of us would far rather they didn't use as it brings them too close to us. If you look at @User s post above it shows quite clearly what we should be working towards. We all know that in reality this isn't always the case, but as cyclists we need to try to encourage it by our road positioning. The fact is that the more cyclists there are that believe they should hug the gutter to enable cars to pass them whilst also allowing cars to continue from the other direction the worse it is for those of us who do not.


----------



## Drago (8 Sep 2014)

How is overtaking 2 x cyclists riding abreast any more onerous than overtaking a car of a similar width?


----------



## slowmotion (8 Sep 2014)

Apollonius said:


> The reductio ad absurdam enthusiast might suggest that smaller cars could drive very close to the edge of the road so that faster vehicles could use the spacious middle of the road to pass at any time.


 That's a good idea. Fiat 500s would be expected to drive in the gutter to allow more prestigious Chelsea tractors to sweep by "unimpeded".


----------



## Mark1978 (8 Sep 2014)

Saluki said:


> Come and live near us. Tractor city around here at this time of year. Living in rural Norfolk is lovely most of the time but I swear those tractors leave the farms at 2 minute intervals and TT to their destination. It's all narrow roads around here but we just accept that tractors (or tourists pulling caravans) go slowly and that there is nothing that can be done. Getting arsey and tweeting photos (not sure how to tweet anything though as we don't twit) is just showing stupidity.



I quite like following a good tractor . I've "scalped" a few on my bike too, but normally only the one with the caterpillar tracks on them as they don't seem to get above 20mph.

And kind of on topic... are tractor drivers the worst out of the lot for driving while being on the phone? I think pretty much 95% of all tractor driver are on the blower to someone.


----------



## nickyboy (8 Sep 2014)

I am genuinely interested in the subject of single file/two abreast riding. If you ask car drivers they all will claim that two abreast is an ignorant way to ride and not considerate of other road users. If you ask cyclists some will agree with this and some will not.
So a simple question: If two cyclists are riding two abreast does this, in your opinion, have any effect on a car driver's ability to overtake compared to riding single file? If the answer is no, why do you think car drivers disagree?

No agenda here, a genuine question as two road user groups appear to have very different positions on this


----------



## Apollonius (8 Sep 2014)

Yes! Slowmotion, you are beginning to understand the hierarchy that is the reality of road use. Less of this egalitarian nonsense that we have an equal right to use the road going back centuries. (Is there an irony smiley?)


----------



## Markymark (8 Sep 2014)

nickyboy said:


> I am genuinely interested in the subject of single file/two abreast riding. If you ask car drivers they all will claim that two abreast is an ignorant way to ride and not considerate of other road users. If you ask cyclists some will agree with this and some will not.
> So a simple question: If two cyclists are riding two abreast does this, in your opinion, have any effect on a car driver's ability to overtake compared to riding single file? If the answer is no, why do you think car drivers disagree?
> 
> No agenda here, a genuine question as two road user groups appear to have very different positions on this


Because some car drivers think they should be able to squeeze past cyclists and overtake dangerously. This is easier to do if they are single file.


----------



## Drago (8 Sep 2014)

Does it really need updating? Is people fiddling with cameras or Palm pilots while driving a big problem? And even if it were we'd simply use the "not in proper control" legislation, his like we always quite happily used to do with mobiles.


----------



## slowmotion (8 Sep 2014)

Apollonius said:


> Yes! Slowmotion, you are beginning to understand the hierarchy that is the reality of road use. Less of this egalitarian nonsense that we have an equal right to use the road going back centuries. (Is there an irony smiley?)


 Perhaps the purchase price of the vehicle should be prominantly displayed alongside the number plate. Those of a lower value would be espected to pull over immediate when they saw Mr Moneybags approaching in their mirrors. High value bikes would of course be excluded from the arrangement because they "don't pay Road Tax".


----------



## Mugshot (8 Sep 2014)

nickyboy said:


> I am genuinely interested in the subject of single file/two abreast riding. If you ask car drivers they all will claim that two abreast is an ignorant way to ride and not considerate of other road users. If you ask cyclists some will agree with this and some will not.
> So a simple question: If two cyclists are riding two abreast does this, in your opinion, have any effect on a car driver's ability to overtake? If the answer is no, why do you think car drivers disagree?
> 
> No agenda here, a genuine question as two road user groups appear to have very different positions on this


My honest answer is that if one actually stops and thinks about the way in which a cyclist or cyclists should be overtaken then riding two abreast is certainly no worse and is often better for any overtaking vehicle, it is certainly perceived as being anti-social by drivers of motorised vehicles that much I agree with, it is however not, and I believe it is important that we behave on the roads in a manner which says "I am entitled to be here", the more gutter huggers there are the more things like riding two abreast are viewed as being cyclists taking the wee wee.


----------



## Apollonius (8 Sep 2014)

What a shame we don't count, Slowmotion. I was thinking my Bianchi Sempre would outrank quite a few bangers!


----------



## Hip Priest (8 Sep 2014)

I can understand why motorists get frustrated. They spend a small fortune to buy and run a vehicle which the adverts tell them will give them freedom and status, and then find that the reality is congestion, misery and expense.

Buy a bicycle madam.


----------



## Drago (8 Sep 2014)

It'd probably out drag my pickup quite easily! Indeed, any driver angered by a cyclist will be apoplectic when stuck behind me in my mighty pick up of slowness.


----------



## benb (8 Sep 2014)

nickyboy said:


> I am genuinely interested in the subject of single file/two abreast riding. If you ask car drivers they all will claim that two abreast is an ignorant way to ride and not considerate of other road users. If you ask cyclists some will agree with this and some will not.
> So a simple question: If two cyclists are riding two abreast does this, in your opinion, have any effect on a car driver's ability to overtake compared to riding single file? If the answer is no, why do you think car drivers disagree?
> 
> No agenda here, a genuine question as two road user groups appear to have very different positions on this



There may be a small number of roads, where single file cyclists can be safely overtaken, but double file ones cannot.
In those cases, I would go single file, and so would nearly all other cyclists I imagine.

Many drivers simply don't get it, and the reason is that they want to squeeze through at any cost, and single file cyclists are easier to do that to.


----------



## Globalti (8 Sep 2014)

DaveReading said:


> But then again, she's only had a full driving licence for three months, as she helpfully informs the world (with a photo of her pass certificate) on another social networking site: http://ink361.com/app/users/ig-30022320/photos



Just done something I seldom do and looked at her page.... what is it with this vacuous person and pouting?


----------



## nickyboy (8 Sep 2014)

Mugshot said:


> My honest answer is that if one actually stops and thinks about the way in which a cyclist or cyclists should be overtaken then riding two abreast is certainly no worse and is often better for any overtaking vehicle, it is certainly perceived as being anti-social by drivers of motorised vehicles that much I agree with, it is however not, and I believe it is important that we behave on the roads in a manner which says "I am entitled to be here", the more gutter huggers there are the more things like riding two abreast are viewed as being cylists taking the wee wee.


Whilst I don't agree with your statement that riding two abreast isn't antisocial I would suggest that the change in perception of other road users required is truly massive. I have never met a car driver who things anything other than it being selfish and antisocial.
Based on sheer weight of numbers, maybe the car drivers are right and the cyclists wrong on this matter? Just a thought. To truly understand a problem one has to be able to appreciate it from the other's perspective


----------



## Mugshot (8 Sep 2014)

I think much of it is due to ignorance rather then malice. I'm quite sure that many, perhaps even a majority of drivers believe that you shouldn't ride two abreast, that you should always use a cyclle path/lane if there is one available and that you should always hug the gutter. I'm convinced a massive campaign of education would help no end, I just can't see it happening.


----------



## benb (8 Sep 2014)

nickyboy said:


> Whilst I don't agree with your statement that riding two abreast isn't antisocial I would suggest that the change in perception of other road users required is truly massive. I have never met a car driver who things anything other than it being selfish and antisocial.
> Based on sheer weight of numbers, maybe the car drivers are right and the cyclists wrong on this matter? Just a thought. To truly understand a problem one has to be able to appreciate it from the other's perspective



Please explain what is antisocial about cyclists riding 2 abreast.


----------



## Drago (8 Sep 2014)

Nicky, how is it any more.anti social than.taking up 5 foot width of carriageway with a car?

It's a pathetic sexual inadequacy. An atavistic desire to dominate other people and a feeling of inadequacy and worthlessness when they are unable to do so.


----------



## Apollonius (8 Sep 2014)

OK, so did I, Globalti. She is just a school kid. Might need to think about responsibility for a tonne of killing metal though.


----------



## Origamist (8 Sep 2014)

nickyboy said:


> Whilst I don't agree with your statement that riding two abreast isn't antisocial I would suggest that the change in perception of other road users required is truly massive. I have never met a car driver who things anything other than it being selfish and antisocial.
> Based on sheer weight of numbers, maybe the car drivers are right and the cyclists wrong on this matter? Just a thought. To truly understand a problem one has to be able to appreciate it from the other's perspective


 
Surely, it's far more selfish and antisocial to drive a car with only one occupant than it is for two cyclists to ride side by side?


----------



## Profpointy (8 Sep 2014)

slowmotion said:


> Perhaps the purchase price of the vehicle should be prominantly displayed alongside the number plate. Those of a lower value would be espected to pull over immediate when they saw Mr Moneybags approaching in their mirrors. High value bikes would of course be excluded from the arrangement because they "don't pay Road Tax".



well I paid twice as much for my car as my bike ! Mind you, the first owner of my car paid rather more


----------



## slowmotion (8 Sep 2014)

Apollonius said:


> What a shame we don't count, Slowmotion. I was thinking my Bianchi Sempre would outrank quite a few bangers!


 Look, you just have to know your place, OK?


----------



## Mugshot (8 Sep 2014)

nickyboy said:


> Whilst I don't agree with your statement that riding two abreast isn't antisocial I would suggest that the change in perception of other road users required is truly massive. I have never met a car driver who things anything other than it being selfish and antisocial.
> Based on sheer weight of numbers, maybe the car drivers are right and the cyclists wrong on this matter? Just a thought. To truly understand a problem one has to be able to appreciate it from the other's perspective


As a driver I think I am well placed to see it from both perspectives. If I do a simple experiment and work out how much time I spend at traffic lights or waiting in queues with other drivers or waiting to get out at junctions or roundabouts in a week and compare that to how much time I spend behind cyclists whether solo, two abreast or a whole peleton of them, it's quite clear which I spend more time doing and by extension which is "holding me up" more. The challenge is to get everybody that doesn't realise that this is the case to stop and think about it until they do.

*BTW, the answer to the question is that I spend less time behind cyclists, just in case you were wondering.


----------



## Origamist (8 Sep 2014)

User said:


> All sorts of people think all sorts of stuff that is arrant nonsense. Would you suggest that we go for the majority view in all matters?


 
You've reminded me of this article:

*British public wrong about nearly everything, survey shows*
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...t-nearly-everything-survey-shows-8697821.html


----------



## Dragonwight (8 Sep 2014)

According to the photo of her Uni pass she posted her name is actually spelt Chloe Bonner and she is a fashion retail academy student. Says it all really.


----------



## Apollonius (8 Sep 2014)

Dragonwight said:


> According to the photo of her Uni pass she posted her name is actually spelt Chloe Bonner and she is a fashion retail academy student. Says it all really.


As I said, just a kid. She needs to learn - and not from children's TV and the likes of Clarkson thereon.


----------



## Drago (8 Sep 2014)

Fashion retail? So she's so dim she needs to go to college to learn how to work in a clothes shop. Say no more.


----------



## Markymark (8 Sep 2014)

Drago said:


> Fashion retail? So she's so dim she needs to go to college to learn how to work in a clothes shop. Say no more.


hmmm An industry that squeezes huge sums of money out of people from all classes - I'd say there's a huge skill and a lot to be learnt in makng people with no money buy stuff becuase it's now fashionable.


----------



## Apollonius (8 Sep 2014)

I am going to keep on saying this, so sorry. She is a kid. 17. I would guess quite a few of us have kids of this sort of age. She has passed her test. Got Mum's car. Adopted Top Gear attitudes because she doesn't know any better. imagine she is your daughter for a moment. What are you going to do?


----------



## Roadrider48 (8 Sep 2014)

She is just a kid studying to get an education and eventually a job!
Kids often say and do silly things....she'll hopefully learn as she gets older and wiser.


----------



## Drago (8 Sep 2014)

It's takes a college course to learn what is other in the industry figured out for themselves? It ain't rocket science, and I say that as someone with a postgrad degree in a field of rocket science.


----------



## Markymark (8 Sep 2014)

Drago said:


> It's takes a college course to learn what is other in the industry figured out for themselves? It ain't rocket science, and I say that as someone with a postgrad degree in a field of rocket science.


No, it takes a degree to maintain up to date knowledge in an industry constantly changing due to internet shopping, recession, cheaper credit, globalisation etc etc etc


----------



## slowmotion (8 Sep 2014)

She's just a seventeen year old kid who broadcast something stupid. I did silly things at that age. Lots. I think it's a good idea for her to get pulled up about it but let's not go over the top.
IMHO.


----------



## ianrauk (8 Sep 2014)

Apollonius said:


> I am going to keep on saying this, so sorry. She is a kid. 17. I would guess quite a few of us have kids of this sort of age. She has passed her test. Got Mum's car. Adopted Top Gear attitudes because she doesn't know any better. imagine she is your daughter for a moment. What are you going to do?




She is old enough to drive and to threaten people with injury and death with a 2 ton piece of metal, she deserves all what she gets. 
If she was my daughter then her car would be taken away.


----------



## nickyboy (8 Sep 2014)

User said:


> All sorts of people think all sorts of stuff that is arrant nonsense. Would you suggest that we go for the majority view in all matters?


Not at all. However I would suggest that if a large majority hold a view that differs from yours, perhaps it would help to understand their perspective. It's very easy to take an entrenched position on some matter and then fail to see things from other's point of view


----------



## ianrauk (8 Sep 2014)

The more of these cases come to light and the more the perpetrators are pulled up about it on forums and social media then the more likely that others would think twice about their stupid actions.


----------



## Apollonius (8 Sep 2014)

ianrauk said:


> She is old enough to drive and to threaten people with injury and death with a 2 ton piece of metal, she deserves all what she gets.
> If she was my daughter then her car would be taken away.



Fine. You take action as a parent. Police action? Probably not. Just be aware, in my experience, kids get their attitudes from their parents.


----------



## ianrauk (8 Sep 2014)

Apollonius said:


> Fine. You take action as a parent. Police action? Probably not. Just be aware, in my experience, kids get their attitudes from their parents.




I would ask police to charge and put points on her license. 
I cycle commute every single day in London. I have had enough of hearing and seeing these type of nasty comments from car drivers. It should be stamped out and car drivers educated that they just cannot go throwing this type of crap around.

The more that are pulled up about it and charged the better.


----------



## winjim (8 Sep 2014)

Drago said:


> Does it really need updating? Is people fiddling with cameras or Palm pilots while driving a big problem? And even if it were we'd simply use the "not in proper control" legislation, his like we always quite happily used to do with mobiles.


The young lady in question arguably _was_ in proper control of her vehicle.


----------



## Mugshot (8 Sep 2014)

ianrauk said:


> I would ask police to charge and put points on her license.
> I cycle commute every single day in London. I have had enough of hearing and seeing these type of nasty comments from car drivers. It should be stamped out and car drivers educated that they just cannot go throwing this type of crap around.
> 
> The more that are pulled up about it and charged the better.


I've seen it said on here a few times that following a close overtake the driver had been asked whether they would have been so close had it been a family member. The question applies just as aptly here, would she have tweeted she was going to run the cyclist over had one of them been her father?


----------



## nickyboy (8 Sep 2014)

User said:


> I can see it from their point of view thanks. I doubt that the converse works very well though.


I think most "two abreast" riders can't see it from a car driver's perspective and car drivers can't see it from their perspective. What a merry pickle were in


----------



## slowmotion (8 Sep 2014)

Mugshot said:


> I've seen it said on here a few times that following a close overtake the driver had been asked whether they would have been so close had it been a family member. The question applies just as aptly here, would she have tweeted she was going to run the cyclist over had one of them been her father?


 I'm afraid that that sort of rational thinking is left behind as soon as the driver's door closes.


----------



## Markymark (8 Sep 2014)

nickyboy said:


> I think most "two abreast" riders can't see it from a car driver's perspective and car drivers can't see it from their perspective. What a merry pickle were in


The result is disproportionate though.

One is inconvenienced, one is put in danger.
Danger trumps inconvenience....especially when in reality there is no real inconvenience.


----------



## glenn forger (8 Sep 2014)

Out of interest, how many car drivers have you quizzed nickyboy to allow you to claim that most drivers think cyclists two abreast are a massive problem?


----------



## Apollonius (8 Sep 2014)

Isn't that why we have laws? 
And the law says two abreast is legal. 
(Not always advisable, sure, but legal.)


----------



## cd365 (8 Sep 2014)

Apollonius said:


> I am going to keep on saying this, so sorry. She is a kid. 17. I would guess quite a few of us have kids of this sort of age. She has passed her test. Got Mum's car. Adopted Top Gear attitudes because she doesn't know any better. imagine she is your daughter for a moment. What are you going to do?


I would tear a strip off of her, I would inform her that it is irresponsible and childish.
It would not happen again.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (8 Sep 2014)

User said:


> Yes she is.
> 
> 
> No it doesn't. It merely needs to be a handheld telephony device capable of receiving and transmitting.


 
That's not what the court decided in Jimmy Carr's case, where there was no case to answer because the device wasn't being used for an “interactive communication function”.

GC


----------



## Apollonius (8 Sep 2014)

cd365 said:


> I would tear a strip off of her, I would inform her that it is irresponsible and childish.
> It would not happen again.



But irresponsible and childish just sums up the Clarkson attitude to perfection. And it is a popular prime time TV exposure, I believe.


----------



## nickyboy (8 Sep 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Out of interest, how many car drivers have you quizzed nickyboy to allow you to claim that most drivers think cyclists two abreast are a massive problem?


Enough to form a considered view as to the majority of car driver's opinion on this matter


----------



## nickyboy (8 Sep 2014)

User said:


> I think you are wrong about this. I reckon it is see it perfectly well and know that the perspective is skewed.


Well it seems like we hold differing opinions, neither of whom are able to offer evidence to support said positions. Another merry pickle


----------



## winjim (8 Sep 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> That's not what the court decided in Jimmy Carr's case, where there was no case to answer because the device wasn't being used for an “interactive communication function”.
> 
> GC


Oh. I thought he was using a dictaphone, not a phone as a dictaphone. That may well negate my arguments upthread.

Or reinforce them, I'm not sure


----------



## glenn forger (8 Sep 2014)

nickyboy said:


> Enough to form a considered view as to the majority of car driver's opinion on this matter



And how many's that?


----------



## cd365 (8 Sep 2014)

Apollonius said:


> But irresponsible and childish just sums up the Clarkson attitude to perfection. And it is a popular prime time TV exposure, I believe.


Hence why I can't stand Clarkson nor watch his TV show


----------



## Apollonius (8 Sep 2014)

Cd365, Ditto, which is why I said "I believe".


----------



## glenn forger (8 Sep 2014)

nickyboy said:


> If you ask car drivers they all will claim that two abreast is an ignorant way to ride and not considerate of other road users.




You speak for all car drivers?


----------



## Archie_tect (8 Sep 2014)

Of the car drivers I know who don't ride bikes or motorbikes nearly all genuinely believe it is dangerous to ride 2 abreast and when I've been in a car with them all seem to get irritated if they are required to slow down [one dangerously so which I'm watching for any escalation beyond sounding off] when they see people doing it- no amount of rational discussion at the time seems to influence or alter their view. In my experience Nickyboy's right.


----------



## glenn forger (8 Sep 2014)

How many's that?


----------



## Apollonius (8 Sep 2014)

Yes, but the qualifier "who don't ride bikes or motorcycles" means that these are the views of those who know nothing about it. 

I think sitting on a horse is dangerous, but never having done it my views are worthless.


----------



## Archie_tect (8 Sep 2014)

glenn forger said:


> How many's that?


It only needs one....


----------



## Archie_tect (8 Sep 2014)

Apollonius said:


> Yes, but the qualifier "who don't ride bikes or motorcycles" means that these are the views of those who know nothing about it.
> 
> I think sitting on a horse is dangerous, but never having done it my views are worthless.


Yet these people are out there driving round... unlike you not riding a horse.


----------



## Apollonius (8 Sep 2014)

And like the kid whose ridiculous attitude started this thread off, they need education. 

Boom Boom!


----------



## glenn forger (8 Sep 2014)

I've never been in a car with someone who expressed strong views about cyclists, singly or abreast. Why would they?

Seriously, how many times has this happened? You just get in a car and the driver starts mouthing off about cycling abreast? Far-fetched.


----------



## glenn forger (8 Sep 2014)

Archie_tect said:


> It only needs one....



Why can't anyone give a straight answer? It's almost as if they're talking complete bollocks.


----------



## Apollonius (8 Sep 2014)

glenn forger said:


> I've never been in a car with someone who expressed strong views about cyclists, singly or abreast. Why would they?
> 
> Seriously, how many times has this happened? You just get in a car and the driver starts mouthing off about cycling abreast? Far-fetched.



Well, I have, and the person concerned is someone I frequently cycle with. There is something about those metal boxes that drives people crazy.


----------



## glenn forger (8 Sep 2014)

Apollonius said:


> Well, I have, and the person concerned is someone I frequently cycle with. There is something about those metal boxes that drives people crazy.



Any advance on one?


----------



## Archie_tect (8 Sep 2014)

Let's see, 6 or 7 just off the top of my head... I haven't kept count to be honest, and it doesn't come up in conversation as a rule, surprising as that may be...

My parents, Mrs A-T's parents, 2 people I work with, the prat a few doors down.... normal people who aren't psychopaths [apart from the village idiot...] they just think cycling on roads is dangerous... then there's Clarkson, Emma Way...


----------



## Dragonwight (8 Sep 2014)

Perhaps they should have some type of psychological test included in the driving test.


----------



## glenn forger (8 Sep 2014)

Six out of thirty million isn't "the vast majority".


----------



## Archie_tect (8 Sep 2014)

Apollonius said:


> I am going to keep on saying this, so sorry. She is a kid. 17. I would guess quite a few of us have kids of this sort of age. She has passed her test. Got Mum's car. Adopted Top Gear attitudes because she doesn't know any better. imagine she is your daughter for a moment. What are you going to do?


Imagine for a moment that her parents may hold similarly expressed forthright views... and all her friends since she is confident enough to say such things without being challenged by her peer group...


----------



## nickyboy (8 Sep 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Any advance on one?


Three hundred and seventeen. I keep a little notebook in my breast pocket for precisely this reason. It was only a matter of time before someone asked me for supporting evidence


----------



## Apollonius (8 Sep 2014)

I did say that. As a former teacher I am aware that kids reflect their parents' attitudes. How can the public be educated against what the Times called "geriatric adolescent" attitudes?


----------



## Archie_tect (8 Sep 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Six out of thirty million isn't "the vast majority".



Never said it was a majority Glenn, just being helpful - you asked for examples.


----------



## glenn forger (8 Sep 2014)

nickyboy said:


> If you ask car drivers they all will claim that two abreast is an ignorant way to ride and not considerate of other road users.




Based on one example?


----------



## Archie_tect (8 Sep 2014)

You can try to educate people to think a different way, but telling people things is unlikely to change their opinions- it needs shock therapy. You can't shock ignorant people into thinking riding 2 abreast is either advisable or sensible, or even legal, any more than you can get them to drive slower voluntarily because it save fuel and helps to prevent collisions.


----------



## nickyboy (8 Sep 2014)

You only need a small sample to be able to say, with statistical confidence whether the vast majority of a whole population exhibits certain characteristics.

If you had a bag with 30million balls in it and I said the vast majority were white, how many would you need to pull out to determine whether I was right or not?


----------



## Archie_tect (8 Sep 2014)

To be fair nicky, Glenn would have to take out 15,000,001 because, unless you knew the answer and weren't guessing, that's the only way to be certain.


----------



## nickyboy (8 Sep 2014)

I think there needs to be a CC "lets understand basic statistics" thread.


----------



## Archie_tect (8 Sep 2014)

Very good.... first one to statistically define 'vast' gets this coconut... [it's not a real coconut]


----------



## Archie_tect (8 Sep 2014)

At least this diversion has deflected the IT underground from dissecting poor old Chloe's life apart.


----------



## jefmcg (8 Sep 2014)

Car drivers certainly can be idiots about two abreast. I remember riding 2 abreast with a friend in Berkshire, and passing cars kept tooting. So I moved behind her, but the same distance from the kerb as before, ie we were now actually taking up more space on the road, but we weren't "two abreast". Nary a peep from any further motorists.


----------



## John the Monkey (8 Sep 2014)

There was a time that a majority of people believed the earth to be flat; that the sun revolved around the earth.

They were not correct (or incorrect, for that matter) simply because they were numerous.


----------



## Archie_tect (8 Sep 2014)

Ah but how *many* people thought the world was flat?


----------



## Spinney (8 Sep 2014)

KneesUp said:


> Do you remember the chap who tweeted that he was going to blow Robin Hood airport up if they didn't clear the snow in time for him to make his flight?
> 
> Do you remember how when he was convicted of an offence, most people thought it was ridiculous because clearly he didn't mean he was literally going to blow the airport up - and in fact he was cleared on appeal and everyone thought the whole thing had been very silly and a waste of time and money?
> 
> ...


The difference is that very few people try to blow up airports. There have been drivers convicted of deliberately ramming cyclists, so her threat is far more credible than the blowing-up-the-airport threat.


----------



## John the Monkey (8 Sep 2014)

Archie_tect said:


> Ah but how *many* people thought the world was flat?


Loads. Honest. Absolutely tons of 'em. Like, a couple of vasts, if not more.


----------



## Sara_H (8 Sep 2014)

How have we got to a situation where even those who have only just passed their driving test have this bully boy attitude when driving around vulnerable road users? Something deeply wrong here.


----------



## summerdays (8 Sep 2014)

How is she going to become enlightened unless the police have a word with her?


----------



## ufkacbln (8 Sep 2014)

winjim said:


> The young lady in question arguably _was_ in proper control of her vehicle.



But not her brain?


----------



## Zcapp96 (8 Sep 2014)

User said:


> All sorts of people think all sorts of stuff that is arrant nonsense. Would you suggest that we go for the majority view in all matters?



Err, actually that's the way democracy works! If the majority decide to vote for UKIP next May, we all have to live with the consequences. If someone starts deciding when we start ignoring democracy when it doesn't suit their group then we are heading into very murky waters. IF the majority of people decide that cycling two abreast is anti social then we just have to accept that it is. Anti social does not mean wrong or unsafe, it just means against the wishes or beliefs of the society in is contained within.

As an interesting aside to this, On my first driving test I came up behind a cyclist who was riding 1-2m from the kerb. I stayed behind him for about 200m because it was a fairly busy road and there was traffic coming in the opposite direction. I was failed on that because the examiner said I should have overtaken the cyclist. To do so I would have had to have passed less than a metre from him as there was no room to overtake in the opposite lane. He would have been an instructor before becoming an examiner so who knows how many people he has taught and passed with the wrong attitude!


----------



## Retribution03 (8 Sep 2014)

Soooo anyone want to discuss the pros and cons of cycle helmets.....runs haha


----------



## theclaud (8 Sep 2014)

User said:


> No time gap, no TMN.


HBF


----------



## theclaud (8 Sep 2014)

Zcapp96 said:


> As an interesting aside to this, On my first driving test I came up behind a cyclist who was riding 1-2m from the kerb. I stayed behind him for about 200m because it was a fairly busy road and there was traffic coming in the opposite direction. I was failed on that because the examiner said I should have overtaken the cyclist. To do so I would have had to have passed less than a metre from him as there was no room to overtake in the opposite lane. He would have been an instructor before becoming an examiner so who knows how many people he has taught and passed with the wrong attitude!



Which merely suggests that driving instructors are rubbish. My observations of their driving when they don't have a pupil tend to reinforce this view. I only allow myself to be drawn down this side-alley because the quality of our driving instructors should tell us something...


----------



## Zcapp96 (8 Sep 2014)

User said:


> Which we don't have. If we did, and put various issues to referenda I reckon we would
> Have a death penalty
> Outlaw cycling on public roads
> Ban Burka's
> Etc. etc. etc.



I very much doubt that any of those are a majority viewpoint in this country because if they were then every political party would promise them to the voters or the public would be screaming for their inclusion. Let's face it, politicians are not an ethical bunch, the didn't ban fox hunting because of the poor foxes. They banned it because if they didn't they would lose more votes than they would gain.


----------



## Zcapp96 (8 Sep 2014)

User said:


> Burka Ban
> 
> Death penalty. Less clear now but for a long time after it was abolished the law was out of step with public opinion.



If you notice the ban on the burka is highest among the ukip supporters and if current trends continue then they may well be in a position to implement such a ban in the future, democracy in action!

This is all well and good but the point was about anti social behavior which is not necessarily criminal in itself but goes against the wishes of those around you. That's what anti social means, against society. Playing music loudly is not a criminal offence but if you do it in a block of flats at 4am when the rest of the block are trying to sleep then it becomes anti social. If every other road user (rightly or wrongly, decides that riding two abreast is anti social then it is as it is the view of the majority of the road using society. They may well be wrong but we cannot stop it being anti social unless we can educate them into the reality of the situation. Otherwise we are no different to the loud music player shouting that 'it is my stereo and I can play what I want.'


----------



## theclaud (8 Sep 2014)

Zcapp96 said:


> If you notice the ban on the burka is highest among the ukip supporters and if current trends continue then they may well be in a position to implement such a ban in the future, democracy in action!
> 
> This is all well and good but the point was about anti social behavior which is not necessarily criminal in itself but goes against the wishes of those around you. That's what anti social means, against society. *Playing music loudly is not a criminal offence but if you do it in a block of flats at 4am when the rest of the block are trying to sleep then it becomes anti social. If every other road user (rightly or wrongly, decides that riding two abreast is anti social then it is as it is the view of the majority of the road using society*. They may well be wrong but we cannot stop it being anti social unless we can educate them into the reality of the situation. Otherwise we are no different to the loud music player shouting that 'it is my stereo and I can play what I want.'



Duff analogy alert! Playing loud music at 4am prevents people sleeping. Riding two abreast does not deprive drivers of anything. Except their sense of superiority. Which, of course, is the real reason they don't like it. We should all do it far more often.


----------



## John the Monkey (8 Sep 2014)

theclaud said:


> Riding two abreast does not deprive drivers of anything. Except their sense of superiority. Which, of course, is the real reason they don't like it. We should all do it far more often.


Which is why, should it happen, it will be brought in "for our safety", of course.


----------



## 400bhp (8 Sep 2014)

nickyboy said:


> I am genuinely interested in the subject of single file/two abreast riding. If you ask car drivers they all will claim that two abreast is an ignorant way to ride and not considerate of other road users. If you ask cyclists some will agree with this and some will not.
> So a simple question: If two cyclists are riding two abreast does this, in your opinion, have any effect on a car driver's ability to overtake compared to riding single file? If the answer is no, why do you think car drivers disagree?
> 
> No agenda here, a genuine question as two road user groups appear to have very different positions on this



Sight lines is the only reason really. It can be harder to see a safe overtaking opportunity passing cyclists riding 2 abreast.

The rest is in people's heads, in that motorists believe they have a right to travel faster than cyclists, which dumbs down to get lout of my way.


----------



## theclaud (8 Sep 2014)

User said:


> "And in the kingdom of the bland, its 9 o'clock on ITV."


Bingo!


----------



## Drago (8 Sep 2014)

How did we get into burkas from Twatter?


----------



## Zcapp96 (8 Sep 2014)

theclaud said:


> Duff analogy alert! Playing loud music at 4am prevents people sleeping. Riding two abreast does not deprive drivers of anything. Except their sense of superiority. Which, of course, is the real reason they don't like it. We should all do it far more often.



At which point they will all look at us in just the same way as the music playing chav and attitudes will not change and the stream of anti cyclist rants will continue ad nauseam.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (8 Sep 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Six out of thirty million isn't "the vast majority".



Out of interest, did you expect a number that would be, or were you just trolling?



Archie_tect said:


> Very good.... first one to statistically define 'vast' gets this coconut... [it's not a real coconut]



The important question is, how big is the virtual coconut?


----------



## theclaud (8 Sep 2014)

Zcapp96 said:


> At which point they will all look at us in just the same way as the music playing chav and attitudes will not change and the stream of anti cyclist rants will continue ad nauseam.


The analogy doesn't get better by milking it. You need to stop caving in to bullies, and challenge them instead. Drivers like cyclists to single out because it looks accommodating - it's an acknowledgement that you are "in their way". Maintain your position against the expectation and you challenge that assumption, and change the power relationship that is disadvantaging you.


----------



## Archie_tect (8 Sep 2014)

w00hoo_kent said:


> Out of interest, did you expect a number that would be, or were you just trolling?
> 
> 
> 
> The important question is, how big is the virtual coconut?


Vast.


----------



## Zcapp96 (8 Sep 2014)

theclaud said:


> The analogy doesn't get better by milking it. You need to stop caving in to bullies, and challenge them instead. Drivers like cyclists to single out because it looks accommodating - it's an acknowledgement that you are "in their way". Maintain your position against the expectation and you challenge that assumption, and change the power relationship that is disadvantaging you.



The is nothing wrong with the analogy, there is no legal entitlement to sleep and it is not against the law to wake someone up. We have decided as a society that being noisy at night is inconsiderate to others so if you are noisy at 4am you are going against societies view on this. Not everyone will have a sleep pattern that conforms to the rest of society either through work or social life. These people are in the minority so have to conform to the rest of society. They may need sleep at 3 in the afternoon but their neighbors may be playing music. Unfortunately for them this is not considered anti social as society considers this as 'awake time'. I was not saying anything at all about the virtues or otherwise of riding two abreast. All I was saying is that if society decides that riding two abreast is anti social that unfortunately it is because that is the definition of anti social!. I would love that attitude to change but we are not going to do that by antagonizing other road users, they need to be educated and a much heavier emphasis needs to be placed on cycle safety within the theory exam.


----------



## 400bhp (8 Sep 2014)

Zcapp96 said:


> The is nothing wrong with the analogy, there is no legal entitlement to sleep and it is not against the law to wake someone up. We have decided as a society that being noisy at night is inconsiderate to others so if you are noisy at 4am you are going against societies view on this. Not everyone will have a sleep pattern that conforms to the rest of society either through work or social life. These people are in the minority so have to conform to the rest of society. They may need sleep at 3 in the afternoon but their neighbors may be playing music. Unfortunately for them this is not considered anti social as society considers this as 'awake time'. I was not saying anything at all about the virtues or otherwise of riding two abreast. All I was saying is that if society decides that riding two abreast is anti social that unfortunately it is because that is the definition of anti social!. I would love that attitude to change but we are not going to do that by antagonizing other road users, they need to be educated and a much heavier emphasis needs to be placed on cycle safety within the theory exam.



Cycling 2 abreast isn't Anti Social though is it? You can't be fined or receive an ASBO for it can you? Capital A and S is important here.

It might be an annoyance to others (similar to, say talking on a phone on a train).


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (8 Sep 2014)

400bhp said:


> Sight lines is the only reason really. It can be harder to see a safe overtaking opportunity passing cyclists riding 2 abreast.


Harder than seeing a safe overtaking opportunity when there's a car in front?


----------



## Drago (8 Sep 2014)

I guess the bottom line is that some drivers are peanuts.


----------



## Zcapp96 (8 Sep 2014)

400bhp said:


> Cycling 2 abreast isn't Anti Social though is it? You can't be fined or receive an ASBO for it can you? Capital A and S is important here.
> 
> It might be an annoyance to others (similar to, say talking on a phone on a train).



Actually there is no list of offences that can be issued an ASBO, it is up to the courts to decide if your behaviour warrents one, which is scary in itself! And if you look at what some have been issued for in the past you can see that cyclist can be in real danger, littering, swearing, rudeness, spitting etc! 

I think people have missed what I was trying to say, my point was that we as the minority group participating in the riding two abreast cannot decide if it is or not anti social, rather it is society as a whole that decides that and so we need to educate people rather than wind them up by stubbornly keeping in the primary position when there is no need to and other such things as all that does is antagonist and leads to the sorts of incident we see on you tube!


----------



## KneesUp (8 Sep 2014)

Spinney said:


> The difference is that very few people try to blow up airports. There have been drivers convicted of deliberately ramming cyclists, so her threat is far more credible than the blowing-up-the-airport threat.


To make a claim about credibility you'd have to know more about the individual. For example people kill other people more often than I care to think about, but nonetheless when my wife says 'If you leave a wet towel on the bed again I will kill you' I don't for one moment think she will actually murder me in the same way that I might imagine a religious zealot might if I told them I thought they had an imaginary friend.


----------



## KneesUp (8 Sep 2014)

Drago said:


> I guess the bottom line is that some drivers people are peanuts, and some of them drive.



Edited for accuracy.


----------



## Drago (8 Sep 2014)

You might want to look up CRASBO, which is an ASBO issued to an offender by a court upon conviction fora criminal offence. It's does NOT require a portfolio of evidence of anti social behaviour to be put to the court.

This is distinct from an ASBO which is a civil order - albeit its a criminal offence to breach it - issued by a court based upon evidence of anti social behaviour.

Once issued, both are exactly the same in terms of enforcement.


----------



## 400bhp (8 Sep 2014)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Harder than seeing a safe overtaking opportunity when there's a car in front?



No, but harder if there's 2 cyclists in single file.


----------



## classic33 (8 Sep 2014)

Apollonius said:


> I passed a steam crane and a horse and cart on my ride yesterday. You never know what you are going to come across on the roads.


Got passed by a Class 08 and five coaches, coming home from work. All on low loaders, from a local haulage company.


----------



## 400bhp (8 Sep 2014)

Zcapp96 said:


> Actually there is no list of offences that can be issued an ASBO, it is up to the courts to decide if your behaviour warrents one, which is scary in itself! And if you look at what some have been issued for in the past you can see that cyclist can be in real danger, littering, swearing, rudeness, spitting etc!
> 
> I think people have missed what I was trying to say, my point was that we as the minority group participating in the riding two abreast cannot decide if it is or not anti social, rather it is society as a whole that decides that and so we need to educate people rather than wind them up by stubbornly keeping in the primary position when there is no need to and other such things as all that does is antagonist and leads to the sorts of incident we see on you tube!



Well, we can. Anti social is not defined by majority. If people think it's antisocial and it isn't then people have the right to continue what they are doing. 

I think smoking in public is antisocial. It doesn't mean that people should stop.


----------



## Zcapp96 (8 Sep 2014)

400bhp said:


> Well, we can. Anti social is not defined by majority. If people think it's antisocial and it isn't then people have the right to continue what they are doing.
> 
> I think smoking in public is antisocial. It doesn't mean that people should stop.



ASBO's have been issued for smoking in public!


----------



## 400bhp (8 Sep 2014)

Zcapp96 said:


> ASBO's have been issued for smoking in public!



I'm sure they have, in places they shouldn't have been smoking. But not for walking along the street.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (8 Sep 2014)

On the VERY rare days I drive to work I fund hundreds of cars in front of me holding me up.

They tear away from the lights as if they are in a race. Am I in my rights to ram them?


----------



## classic33 (8 Sep 2014)

KneesUp said:


> Do you remember the chap who tweeted that he was going to blow Robin Hood airport up if they didn't clear the snow in time for him to make his flight?
> 
> Do you remember how when he was convicted of an offence, most people thought it was ridiculous because clearly he didn't mean he was literally going to blow the airport up - and in fact he was cleared on appeal and everyone thought the whole thing had been very silly and a waste of time and money?
> 
> ...


It did get the airport closed and flights diverted though.
What was the final cost of that?


----------



## classic33 (8 Sep 2014)

Zcapp96 said:


> *Actually there is no list of offences that can be issued an ASBO,* it is up to the courts to decide if your behaviour warrents one, which is scary in itself! And if you look at what some have been issued for in the past you can see that cyclist can be in real danger, littering, swearing, rudeness, spitting etc!
> 
> I think people have missed what I was trying to say, my point was that we as the minority group participating in the riding two abreast cannot decide if it is or not anti social, rather it is society as a whole that decides that and so we need to educate people rather than wind them up by stubbornly keeping in the primary position when there is no need to and other such things as all that does is antagonist and leads to the sorts of incident we see on you tube!


See http://www.courtroomadvice.co.uk/receiving-an-anti-social-behaviour-order-(asbo).html for a brief guide to what they can be issued for.


----------



## theclaud (9 Sep 2014)

Zcapp96 said:


> The is nothing wrong with the analogy, there is no legal entitlement to sleep and it is not against the law to wake someone up. We have decided as a society that being noisy at night is inconsiderate to others so if you are noisy at 4am you are going against societies view on this. Not everyone will have a sleep pattern that conforms to the rest of society either through work or social life. These people are in the minority so have to conform to the rest of society. They may need sleep at 3 in the afternoon but their neighbors may be playing music. Unfortunately for them this is not considered anti social as society considers this as 'awake time'. I was not saying anything at all about the virtues or otherwise of riding two abreast. *All I was saying is that if society decides that riding two abreast is anti social that unfortunately it is because that is the definition of anti social!*. I would love that attitude to change but we are not going to do that by antagonizing other road users, they need to be educated and a much heavier emphasis needs to be placed on cycle safety within the theory exam.



The analogy is crap. Anyone comparing the right to sleep with the right to overtake needs to get a bit of a grip. The bit in bold is cobblers. And if you think the theory exam is the answer to anything, then you will wait a long time for anything to improve.


----------



## Zcapp96 (9 Sep 2014)

classic33 said:


> See http://www.courtroomadvice.co.uk/receiving-an-anti-social-behaviour-order-(asbo).html for a brief guide to what they can be issued for.


That's very vague and not a government site, there is not an official list because that would limit the use of them.


----------



## classic33 (9 Sep 2014)

Zcapp96 said:


> That's very vague and not a government site, there is not an official list because that would limit the use of them.


You never asked for a government list, that is a list that would be used in a court. As the site itself implies by its name.
But https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116655/dpr26.pdf


----------



## Zcapp96 (9 Sep 2014)

classic33 said:


> You never asked for a government list, that is a list that would be used in a court. As the site itself implies by its name.
> But https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116655/dpr26.pdf



And as quoted from your offical source:

"People’s understanding of what constitutes anti-social behaviour (ASB) is determined by a series of factors including
context, location, community tolerance and quality of life expectations (Nixon et al. 2003). As a result, what may be
considered anti-social behaviour to one person can be seen as acceptable behaviour to another. The subjective nature
of the concept makes it difficult to identify a single definition of anti-social behaviour."

And

"The list of examples is not intended to be exhaustive and it is likely that CDRPs and CSPs will be able to identify additional
examples based on local experience."


Which kind of proves my point!


----------



## Zcapp96 (9 Sep 2014)

theclaud said:


> The analogy is crap. Anyone comparing the right to sleep with the right to overtake needs to get a bit of a grip. The bit in bold is cobblers. And if you think the theory exam is the answer to anything, then you will wait a long time for anything to improve.



No, you are absolutely right. Lets not try and educate people and make having to be able to show you know the rules of the road and how cyclist need to ride to be safe before you are allowed to drive a car. It would obviously be much more effective to antagonize ignorant drivers so they get so wound up they either run you over or hit another cyclist down the road. Great plan.


----------



## theclaud (9 Sep 2014)

Zcapp96 said:


> No, you are absolutely right. Lets not try and educate people and make having to be able to show you know the rules of the road and how cyclist need to ride to be safe before you are allowed to drive a car. It would obviously be much more effective to antagonize ignorant drivers so they get so wound up they either run you over or hit another cyclist down the road. Great plan.



What "education" is required? Half a second's brain activity would answer the questions about why cyclists ride where they do - if we assume that drivers actually want answers. Are we acknowledging that the licensing standards are woeful, if additional education is needed to stop drivers running people over? If so, let's stop giving out driving licenses. "Riding to be safe" is riding with confidence that you are entitled to claim the space you need on the road.


----------



## classic33 (9 Sep 2014)

Zcapp96 said:


> And as quoted from your offical source:
> 
> "People’s understanding of what constitutes anti-social behaviour (ASB) is determined by a series of factors including
> context, location, community tolerance and quality of life expectations (Nixon et al. 2003). As a result, what may be
> ...


You wanted a list, then an official list, then when presented with an official list you say that's not good enough.
Extract from the same document
_ "It defines ASB as follows: 
‘Acting in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of
the same household as (the defendant).’ "
_
We're now that far from the OP, that this thread bares no resemblance to the initial subject.


----------



## Zcapp96 (9 Sep 2014)

theclaud said:


> What "education" is required? Half a second's brain activity would answer the questions about why cyclists ride where they do - if we assume that drivers actually want answers. Are we acknowledging that the licensing standards are woeful, if additional education is needed to stop drivers running people over? If so, let's stop giving out driving licenses. "Riding to be safe" is riding with confidence that you are entitled to claim the space you need on the road.



But you are assuming people who may have never ridden a bike or have not done so for many years know about road position for cyclists. They may just think that they should keep as far to the left as possible at all times as that is what they were told as kids back in the 60's or 70's. So when they are driving along and a cyclist ahead looks behind at them and then takes a primary position because they are planning to turn right or something they may think they are just being awkward and get angry. I am all for riding with confidence and claiming the space we need, but that is they key point, the space we NEED, riding positively but not aggressively.


----------



## Zcapp96 (9 Sep 2014)

classic33 said:


> You wanted a list, then an official list, then when presented with an official list you say that's not good enough.
> Extract from the same document
> _ "It defines ASB as follows:
> ‘Acting in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of
> ...



I never asked for a list, I stated that there is no definitive list and your official source has proven this. Even the quote you have used backs this up as that too is very vague!


----------



## theclaud (9 Sep 2014)

Zcapp96 said:


> *But you are assuming people who may have never ridden a bike or have not done so for many years know about road position for cyclists*. They may just think that they should keep as far to the left as possible at all times as that is what they were told as kids back in the 60's or 70's. So when they are driving along and a cyclist ahead looks behind at them and then takes a primary position because they are planning to turn right or something they may think they are just being awkward and get angry. I am all for riding with confidence and claiming the space we need, but that is they key point, the space we NEED, riding positively but not aggressively.



I'm not interested in their reasons for not thinking. They need to come to terms with the existence of other people.


----------



## classic33 (9 Sep 2014)

How about riding this in heavy traffic, on a 'A' road at rush hour? I have and do ride it. Light fitted at the request of the Police in Manchester, For riding it through Manchester.


----------



## classic33 (9 Sep 2014)

Zcapp96 said:


> I never asked for a list, I stated that there is *no definitive list* and your official source has proven this. Even the quote you have used backs this up as that too is very vague!





Zcapp96 said:


> Actually there is *no list of offences that can be issued an ASBO*, it is up to the courts to decide if your behaviour warrents one, which is scary in itself! And if you look at what some have been issued for in the past you can see that cyclist can be in real danger, littering, swearing, rudeness, spitting etc!
> 
> I think people have missed what I was trying to say, my point was that we as the minority group participating in the riding two abreast cannot decide if it is or not anti social, rather it is society as a whole that decides that and so we need to educate people rather than wind them up by stubbornly keeping in the primary position when there is no need to and other such things as all that does is antagonist and leads to the sorts of incident we see on you tube!


Then


Zcapp96 said:


> That's very vague and not a *government site, there is not an official list* because that would limit the use of them.


----------



## Zcapp96 (9 Sep 2014)

theclaud said:


> I'm not interested in their reasons for not thinking. They need to come to terms with the existence of other people.



So you don't care why they may not know how cyclists should ride safely (I would have thought we need to identify why motorists think the way they do to be able to effectively correct the problem but that might be just me) you just what them to magically acquire the knowledge without any education on it? This is too bizarre, I'm going to bed!


----------



## Zcapp96 (9 Sep 2014)

classic33 said:


> Then



As I said, I never asked for a list as I stated there wasn't a definitive one which your official source proved, what is your point?!?!?


----------



## classic33 (9 Sep 2014)

Try getting as far as page six.


----------



## theclaud (9 Sep 2014)

Zcapp96 said:


> So you don't care why they may not know how cyclists should ride safely (I would have thought we need to identify why motorists think the way they do to be able to effectively correct the problem but that might be just me) you just what them to magically acquire the knowledge without any education on it? This is too bizarre, I'm going to bed!



We already know why motorists think the way they do. There is no mystery to be solved.


----------



## Zcapp96 (9 Sep 2014)

classic33 said:


> Try getting as far as page six.


Try understanding what the term "not exhaustive" means directly above the list on page six


----------



## Moodyman (9 Sep 2014)

The guy in the pic on page 1 (number on his shirt)...not Michael Adu of this parish is it?


----------



## steveindenmark (9 Sep 2014)

I cant believe the rantings of a 17 year old girl has made this post go on so long. 

Steve


----------



## w00hoo_kent (9 Sep 2014)

classic33 said:


> How about riding this in heavy traffic, on a 'A' road at rush hour? I have and do ride it. Light fitted at the request of the Police in Manchester, For riding it through Manchester.
> View attachment 55605


That's a bit of a beast, can't be fun when the gradients kick in though.


----------



## John the Monkey (9 Sep 2014)

steveindenmark said:


> I cant believe the rantings of a 17 year old girl has made this post go on so long.


We can probably blame her for many things, but to give her responsibility for that seems dreadfully unfair.


----------



## John the Monkey (9 Sep 2014)

Drago said:


> Is she as ugly as the other girl that tweeted about running cyclists.over? You know the one, face looked like it had caught fire as a baby and mum had put it out with a cricket bat?


My dear fellow, if you become any less gallant, I shall have to secure a stronger fixing for my monocle.


----------



## Mugshot (9 Sep 2014)

steveindenmark said:


> I cant believe the rantings of a 17 year old girl has made this post go on so long.
> 
> Steve


Are you being a little bit coy here Steve? I think it may have been your comment on page #1 which has affected the direction and length of this thread.


----------



## theclaud (9 Sep 2014)

Zcapp96 said:


> I think people have missed what I was trying to say, my point was that we as the minority group participating in the riding two abreast cannot decide if it is or not anti social,



Riding alongside a companion antisocial? Are you typing that with a straight face?


----------



## theclaud (9 Sep 2014)

Drago said:


> Is she as ugly as the other girl that tweeted about running cyclists.over? You know the one, face looked like it had caught fire as a baby and mum had put it out with a cricket bat?



Is it wise to criticize someone's appearance when one has a picture of oneself posted alongside? Just sayin'

And, yes, I can see the obvious riposte coming a mile off.


----------



## benb (9 Sep 2014)

classic33 said:


> It did get the airport closed and flights diverted though.
> What was the final cost of that?



No it didn't. Indeed the Special Branch officer at the airport deemed it "not credible" at the time, but passed it along anyway, and is was only days later that Paul Chambers was actually questioned in relation to it. It was a farce from beginning to end.

The airport was closed at the time of the tweet due to snow, but not closed due to the tweet.


----------



## Drago (9 Sep 2014)

I make no bones about the fact that I am to gargoyles what Lance Armstrong is to pro cycling, so I feel no pangs of either guilt or hypocrisy when I spy a fellow munter.


----------



## Mugshot (9 Sep 2014)

Zcapp96 said:


> So you don't care why they may not know how cyclists should ride safely (I would have thought we need to identify why motorists think the way they do to be able to effectively correct the problem but that might be just me) you just what them to magically acquire the knowledge without any education on it? This is too bizarre, I'm going to bed!


I do agree that there should be more emphasis in both driving lessons and in the test concerning the interaction with other road users. In saying that it's been quite a while since I had my lessons or test and things may have changed, however it seems unlikely considering our young lady having only just passed her test is already showing some concerning traits. She would however have been made aware that the use of mobile devices (lets not kid ourselves, we all know it's a phone she's got in her hand) used in the manner she has is not merely daft or anti social but illegal, so it would appear that despite being fresh out of school the education she has received counted for naught. Maybe though, if she sees enough cyclists riding in a manner which asserts their right to be on the road, whether by riding secondary, primary, two abreast or however they damn well like providing it's both legal and appropriate rather than cowering in gutters and on pavements she will learn and if she's seen that happening on her lessons and seen that when she was a passenger in her parents car she wouldn't need to learn, she'd know. That's how you educate people, make it the norm and stop making excuses for the way you're being treated on the road just because someone feels entitled to act like a bully because they're bigger than you.


----------



## Mugshot (9 Sep 2014)

theclaud said:


> Is it wise to criticize someone's appearance when one has a picture of oneself posted alongside? Just sayin'
> 
> And, yes, I can see the obvious riposte coming a mile off.


The thing is, and I'm assuming we're talking about Emma, she's actually rather attractive, it makes no odds to anything of course, but I don't understand the "She's a munter" style comments. She is many things, ugly is not one of them.


----------



## Drago (9 Sep 2014)

Emma Way! Cheers dude, that was gonna bug me all day.


----------



## benb (9 Sep 2014)

Mugshot said:


> The thing is, and I'm assuming we're talking about Emma, she's actually rather attractive, it makes no odds to anything of course, but I don't understand the "She's a munter" style comments. She is many things, ugly is not one of them.



Ugly on the inside.


----------



## Mugshot (9 Sep 2014)

Drago said:


> Emma Way! Cheers dude, that was gonna bug me all day. Face like a lepers scrotum and a voice like an Essex Joan Rivers. You got low standards if you think there is any crumb of desirability in her character, behaviour or appearance.


Well I didn't mention her character or behaviour because it's quite clear they leave a lot to be desired, but no, I don't think she's ugly.


----------



## Zcapp96 (9 Sep 2014)

theclaud said:


> Riding alongside a companion antisocial? Are you typing that with a straight face?



Try actually reading what I write and you will see I have never said that.


----------



## theclaud (9 Sep 2014)

Mugshot said:


> The thing is, and I'm assuming we're talking about Emma, she's actually rather attractive, it makes no odds to anything of course, but *I don't understand the "She's a munter" style comments*. She is many things, ugly is not one of them.



That, Mugshot, is entirely to your credit. I'm afraid it's bog-standard misogyny.


----------



## Drago (9 Sep 2014)

A misogynist with 4 daughters and a grand daughter? Yeah, right. If you wish to name-call a fellow member at least do some cursory research before plumping for moniker.

The only women I have a rabid dislike for are ones that tweet about hurting cyclists. And Teresa May.


----------



## theclaud (9 Sep 2014)

Zcapp96 said:


> Try actually reading what I write and you will see I have never said that.


I know what you said, and it's nonsense. A majority of people deciding that something is antisocial does not make it so. Riding alongside a friend is the very essence of conviviality. Demanding that others get out of your way so that you can carry four empty seats around in a dangerous piece of machinery at speed is antisocial. We have got ourselves into a majority antisocial behaviour situation already.


----------



## theclaud (9 Sep 2014)

Drago said:


> *A misogynist with daughters and a grand daughter? Yeah, right.*
> 
> The only women I have a rabid dislike for are ones that tweet about hurting cyclists. And Teresa May.


----------



## John the Monkey (9 Sep 2014)

Mugshot said:


> I do agree that there should be more emphasis in both driving lessons and in the test concerning the interaction with other road users. In saying that it's been quite a while since I had my lessons or test and things may have changed, however it seems unlikely considering our young lady having only just passed her test is already showing some concerning traits.


She's also part of a road culture that's aggressive and impatient, that views pretty much any offence other than drink driving as not "proper" lawbreaking, and sees road safety largely as the exercise of getting less important stuff out of the way of cars. 

The test is to most people, I suspect, largely a hurdle to leap before commencing "proper" driving (speeding while eating toast and holding a mug of tea, that sort of thing). I'd like to see rather more emphasis on skills and knowledge being kept up to date (newspaper columnists, clarkson &c could help by actually knowing the chuffing Highway Code, f'rexample) personally, and the driving license more imperilled by failure to obey the law than it is at present.


----------



## Mugshot (9 Sep 2014)

John the Monkey said:


> She's also part of a road culture that's aggressive and impatient, that views pretty much any offence other than drink driving as not "proper" lawbreaking, and sees road safety largely as the exercise of getting less important stuff out of the way of cars.
> 
> The test is to most people, I suspect, largely a hurdle to leap before commencing "proper" driving (speeding while eating toast and holding a mug of tea, that sort of thing). I'd like to see rather more emphasis on skills and knowledge being kept up to date (newspaper columnists, clarkson &c could help by actually knowing the chuffing Highway Code, f'rexample) personally, and the driving license more imperilled by failure to obey the law than it is at present.


I agree. The driving licence is very much seen as a right not a privilege and much of this is down the abject failure of the courts to impose adequate penalties. Any and every measure which is taken in order to control the real anti social behaviour on our roads is seen and reported as part of a war on motorists. There's an awful lot of voters that drive cars though.


----------



## Markymark (9 Sep 2014)

Mugshot said:


> There's an awful lot of voters that drive cars though.


There's an awful lot of voters who are smokers. They, for decades, we also seen as untouchable yet we now have a public smoking ban.


----------



## Big Nick (9 Sep 2014)

Times are changing and slowly cycling is coming back as a recognised and accepted means of transport and leisure by the masses

The police have a responsibility to address such comments to make the idiots who make them consider how stupid they are so its good to see they are looking into this


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Sep 2014)

User said:


> If you have a **** off 4x4. It is, after all a hierarchy of entitlement.


TLH told me at the weekend that she wants a 4x4. It may be all over between us.


----------



## Dan B (9 Sep 2014)

theclaud said:


> I know what you said, and it's nonsense. A majority of people deciding that something is antisocial does not make it so.


This, exactly. The majority may quite well decide something or want something for selfish reasons rather than social reasons. Tragedy of the Commons, etc etc


----------



## jefmcg (9 Sep 2014)

Drago said:


> A misogynist with 4 daughters and a grand daughter? Yeah, right. If you wish to name-call a fellow member at least do some cursory research before plumping for moniker.
> 
> The only women I have a rabid dislike for are ones that tweet about hurting cyclists. And Teresa May.


Potayto Potarto.

You seem to think it's a character flaw in a women for you to find her unattractive. I call people who do that misogynistic. You may have another word for it.

(guess what, all misogynists have mothers. Many have wives. Daughters depends on the roll of the dice, unless you think misogyny is a genetic condition that means one can't produce sperm with an X chromosone)


----------



## benb (9 Sep 2014)

jefmcg said:


> Potayto Potarto.
> 
> You seem to think it's a character flaw in a women for you to find her unattractive. I call people who do that misogynistic. You may have another word for it.
> 
> (guess what, all misogynists have mothers. Many have wives. Daughters depends on the roll of the dice, unless you think misogyny is a genetic condition that means one can't produce sperm with an X chromosone)



I agree. I can't think of any situation where someone's physical appearance is relevant to criticising their ideas and views.


----------



## Markymark (9 Sep 2014)

benb said:


> I agree. I can't think of any situation where someone's physical appearance is relevant to criticising their ideas and views.


Bono?

He does look like a tw*t too.


----------



## fimm (9 Sep 2014)

nickyboy said:


> I think most "two abreast" riders can't see it from a car driver's perspective and car drivers can't see it from their perspective. What a merry pickle were in


 Do you really think that the majority of adult cyclists do not hold a driving licence?


----------



## Drago (9 Sep 2014)

benb said:


> I agree. I can't think of any situation where someone's physical appearance is relevant to criticising their ideas and views.



No one has suggested that is the case. It Just pure good luck that Emma Way has convictions in relation to knocking a cyclist from his steed.


----------



## benb (9 Sep 2014)

Drago said:


> No one has suggested that is the case. It Just pure good luck that Emma Way has convictions in relation to knocking a cyclist from his steed and also happens to look like Kirk Douglas in a wig. I don't recall suggesting the latter was in any way connected to the former, it was just a happy coincidence. You might want to actually read the words Ben, not the empty lines between them.



And what possible reason is there to mention her appearance? It doesn't add anything to the discussion, it just makes you look like a neanderthal.


----------



## ianrauk (9 Sep 2014)

ffs @Drago if you have nothing to add to the thread except to make stupid comments about a girls appearance, then go play somewhere else. Thanks for derailing the thread with your rubbish.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (9 Sep 2014)

User said:


> The Carr case does not create a precedent.
> _
> R v Browning [2001]_ EWCA Crim 1831 and _R v Payne [2007] _EWCA Crim 157 do however.


 
The offence under discussion here is not death by dangerous driving, which is what the convictions were for in the cases you've cited.

Getting back to the relevant offence, [S110 of The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986] it states the offence is to drive while using a mobile phone.

Carr's defence that he was not using his for the purposes of interactive communication was accepted by the court. If your statement were true, that defence would have been disregarded and he'd have been convicted.



GC


----------



## jefmcg (9 Sep 2014)

ianrauk said:


> ffs @Drago if you have nothing to add to the thread except to make stupid comments about a girls appearance, then go play somewhere else. Thanks for derailing the thread with your rubbish.



though after 14 pages, it's probably run it's course, and now I know I should add Drago to my ignore list, and that's a good thing.


----------



## Drago (9 Sep 2014)

ianrauk said:


> ffs @Drago if you have nothing to add to the thread except to make stupid comments about a girls appearance, then go play somewhere else. Thanks for derailing the thread with your rubbish.


but you dont bat an eyelid when it descend to talk of the death penalty and burkhas. How strange that you feel you can be selective in the irrelevance you choose to take umbrage at.


----------



## benb (9 Sep 2014)

glasgowcyclist said:


> The offence under discussion here is not death by dangerous driving, which is what the convictions were for in the cases you've cited.
> 
> Getting back to the relevant offence, [S110 of The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986] it states the offence is to drive while using a mobile phone.
> 
> ...



Carr's defence was accepted, but as it was at a Magistrate's court not a Crown court, it doesn't set a legal precedent, and other Mags might well reach the opposite conclusion in a similar case. Carr's expensive lawyer probably helped!


----------



## glasgowcyclist (9 Sep 2014)

benb said:


> Carr's expensive lawyer probably helped!


 
Well it was Mr Loophole.


GC


----------



## jefmcg (9 Sep 2014)

not sure if Carr could be a precedent or not. It seems most likely that she tweeted immediately after taking the picture, thus using the phone for communication, and not just as a camera.


----------



## classic33 (9 Sep 2014)

User said:


> There are and we all, by and large, deplore the traffic that holds us up so why not campaign for a more draconian enforcement of the law in order to reduce the number of other drivers?


You mean like pleading it will cause hardship when you're getting more points to add to the 30 odd you already have on your licence. In order to keep driving.


----------



## benb (9 Sep 2014)

jefmcg said:


> not sure if Carr could be a precedent or not. It seems most likely that she tweeted immediately after taking the picture, thus using the phone for communication, and not just as a camera.



Decisions in Mags courts cannot set legal precedent. Only decisions in Crown courts and higher can.
That is, if Carr's case had been heard in a Crown court (if for example he had been found guilty and appealed to Crown court where his appeal was upheld) then lower courts (Mags) are obliged to follow that precedent in similar cases.

As it is, because it was in a Mags court, other Magistrates are free to ignore the Carr case, although they may take not of it to inform their decision if they wish.

Similarly, if a case had reached Crown court and resulted in a guilty verdict, Mags would be obliged to find the defendant guilty in similar circumstances.


----------



## jefmcg (9 Sep 2014)

benb said:


> Decisions in Mags courts cannot set legal precedent. ....


Yep, I understood that. The point I was making is that all that aside, even if it was in the crown court, it's still irrelevant as she used the phone for communication.


----------



## ianrauk (9 Sep 2014)

Drago said:


> but you dont bat an eyelid when it descend to talk of the death penalty and burkhas. How strange that you feel you can be selective in the irrelevance you choose to take umbrage at.




It take umbrage because the Burka Ban reference was in relationship to public opinion as to whether it's sociably acceptable or not as is riding 2 a breast on the public highway, which is the point to this thread. Your comments are just misogynistic off topic bow lacks.


----------



## benb (9 Sep 2014)

jefmcg said:


> Yep, I understood that. The point I was making is that all that aside, even if it was in the crown court, it's still irrelevant as she used the phone for communication.



Ah, got it.
Depends when she tweeted the photo I suppose.


----------



## classic33 (9 Sep 2014)

Is it a female only thing, making known through online social media, what you'd do/just done to a cyclist?
This is the third I've seen on here, and all three concerned are female.


----------



## Markymark (9 Sep 2014)

I would suggest (based on my small circle) that more women are on social media than men so that method of publishing is probably more likely to be female but if you go to say pistonheads.com, you'll find the same sentiment more likely from men.


----------



## benb (9 Sep 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> I would suggest (based on my small circle) that more women are on social media than men so that method of publishing is probably more likely to be female but if you go to say pistonheads.com, you'll find the same sentiment more likely from men.



I dip into the pistonheads forum from time to time (I'm not really into cars, so no idea why I do that) and the majority of posters there are pro-cycling, even well clued up on "road tax". Whenever someone says something anti-cycling they get roundly condemned by everyone else.


----------



## Drago (9 Sep 2014)

Do any/many men use social media? I'm on Facebook but solely for the easy Strava and Mondo logins, I don't post owt.


----------



## Markymark (9 Sep 2014)

benb said:


> I dip into the pistonheads forum from time to time (I'm not really into cars, so no idea why I do that) and the majority of posters there are pro-cycling, even well clued up on "road tax". Whenever someone says something anti-cycling they get roundly condemned by everyone else.


Oh, there's plenty of arguments and plenty of cyclists, but it is started by the mostly-male idiots, and there are plenty on that site. I guess the difference is that they are often shot down but plenty do hold similar opinions.

EDIT: I need to learn a synonym of 'plenty'!


----------



## John the Monkey (9 Sep 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> I would suggest (based on my small circle) that more women are on social media than men so that method of publishing is probably more likely to be female but if you go to say pistonheads.com, you'll find the same sentiment more likely from men.


I've seen this sort of tweet pop up from men as well, fwiw.

I don't see *that* much from either sex because I tend to block retweets from the posters who RT it (not because I object to what they do in retweeting, so much as that I find it profoundly dispiriting that the sentiment was tweeted in the first place. As something of a jovial flippertigibbet, I find the repeated, pointless hatred of a certain type of motorist dreadfully ennervating). But it's there.


----------



## nickyboy (9 Sep 2014)

classic33 said:


> Is it a female only thing, making known through online social media, what you'd do/just done to a cyclist?
> This is the third I've seen on here, and all three concerned are female.


Sounds like a vast majority are female to me


----------



## Supersuperleeds (9 Sep 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> Oh, there's plenty of arguments and plenty of cyclists, but it is started by the mostly-male idiots, and there are plenty on that site. I guess the difference is that they are often shot down but plenty do hold similar opinions.
> 
> *EDIT: I need to learn a synonym of 'plenty'*!




Sh!tloads


----------



## theclaud (9 Sep 2014)

_In terms of gender, the United Kingdom Twitter demographics is evenly split. Males and females are split at 49% and 51% respectively_

#mythbusters


----------



## Markymark (9 Sep 2014)

theclaud said:


> _In terms of gender, the United Kingdom Twitter demographics is evenly split. Males and females are split at 49% and 51% respectively_
> 
> #mythbusters


This says different for social media on the whole. Maybe twitter is different because you can't talk as much


----------



## theclaud (9 Sep 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> This says different for social media on the whole. *Maybe twitter is different because you can't talk as much*



http://web.stanford.edu/~eckert/PDF/cameron1997.pdf

#mythbusters


----------



## jefmcg (9 Sep 2014)

0-markymark-0 said:


> This says different for social media on the whole. Maybe twitter is different because you can't talk as much


Actually, it's apples and oranges. @theclaud link says that around 1/2 the users of twitter are female. This says that 76% of online females use facebook, vs 66% of men, but if more men are "online" than women (which I think is true) it could easily still be 50/50 or even more skewed towards towards men.

That site obviously has an agenda that is helped by showing that more women than men are on social media, and found a way of making statistics show that is true.


----------



## jefmcg (9 Sep 2014)

User13710 said:


> No! How's that work then?


I'm not really sure what you are asking. I know the obvious question is "what percentage of facebook users are women?" and that site doesn't really answer that, using a much less intuitive metric.


----------



## John the Monkey (9 Sep 2014)

Yet again, this thread takes a surprising turn. Will we get twelve pages out of this change of subject?


----------



## Drago (9 Sep 2014)

I won't get the blame for this one though.



























Or will I?


----------



## sheffgirl (9 Sep 2014)

I unfriended someone on Facebook the other day (male) for posting a video with the comment 'I hate cyclists'. It was a funny video, but it just annoyed me, there was no need for it


----------



## cd365 (9 Sep 2014)

I hope you told them first that you were going to unfriend them.


----------



## benb (10 Sep 2014)

User said:


> *Ahem* - decisions in Crown Courts do not set a binding precedent (although they may be persuasive), as the decisions of trial courts do not bind them.



AIUI, decisions in Crown Court do set a binding precedent for lower courts, ie Mags. They do not set binding precedents for other Crown Courts.


----------



## benb (10 Sep 2014)

User said:


> Crown courts do not set binding precedents for magistrates courts as they are not courts of record.



I stand corrected. Thank you.


----------



## theclaud (10 Sep 2014)

benb said:


> I stand corrected. Thank you.



Don't encourage him.


----------



## raleighnut (10 Sep 2014)

User13710 said:


> Sorry, I wasn't asking anything, just slightly sarcastically observing that statistics can be made to show that almost anything is true.


So can polls if you word the questions correctly/sneakily (delete as applicable)


----------



## theclaud (10 Sep 2014)

User said:


> It is fair to acknowledge it on those occasions he is right.


_Fair_, but not always _necessary_.


----------



## Cyclopathic (10 Sep 2014)

threebikesmcginty said:


> Bet the messages from plod went down well. I don't think, however frustrated you might be, saying you're going to run cyclists over is an understandable thing to do.


In the heat of the moment it's easy to say silly things. I've got no real problem with her saying this. If she had gone on to mow them down or use her car in any offensive sort of way I would think very differently, obviously. 
Just saying stuff though doesn't rate too highly on my list of things to get annoyed about. There's loads of people I'd say I'd like to kill, but as yet I haven't done it.


----------



## Cyclopathic (10 Sep 2014)

User13710 said:


> Sorry, I wasn't asking anything, just slightly sarcastically observing that statistics can be made to show that almost anything is true.


I won't believe you until you show me a graph.


----------



## ianrauk (10 Sep 2014)

Cyclopathic said:


> In the heat of the moment it's easy to say silly things. I've got no real problem with her saying this. If she had gone on to mow them down or use her car in any offensive sort of way I would think very differently, obviously.
> Just saying stuff though doesn't rate too highly on my list of things to get annoyed about. There's loads of people I'd say I'd like to kill, but as yet I haven't done it.




Which is fair enough.. but saying it on social media is a bit stupid don't you think?


----------



## Cyclopathic (10 Sep 2014)

ianrauk said:


> Which is fair enough.. but saying it on social media is a bit stupid don't you think?


Yes, it is stupid but as far as I know she didn't actually do anything. It is bad from a point of view of perpetuating this idea of cyclists being pariahs, which is something we don't really need on social media, but I'm not personally too annoyed.
I don't think it deserves any formal sort of sanction.


----------



## Profpointy (10 Sep 2014)

Cyclopathic said:


> In the heat of the moment it's easy to say silly things. I've got no real problem with her saying this. If she had gone on to mow them down or use her car in any offensive sort of way I would think very differently, obviously.
> Just saying stuff though doesn't rate too highly on my list of things to get annoyed about. There's loads of people I'd say I'd like to kill, but as yet I haven't done it.



Whilst I see your point, I dare say a goodly number of people here have had cars deliberately driven at them, certainly I have - it's not funny, and people do get killed. If you substituted, let's say "Paki" for "cyclist", the only-a-joke notion isn't really enough - even if Bernard Manning et al might think otherwise.


----------



## John the Monkey (10 Sep 2014)

Profpointy said:


> Whilst I see your point, I dare say a goodly number of people here have had cars deliberately driven at them, certainly I have.


Yep, and quite often by people shouting this sort of stuff, or threatening to hit you "next time".

It might, perhaps, be "funny" in a world where the chances of such a thing actually happening were so remote as to be surreal, but the UK is not that place, by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## ianrauk (10 Sep 2014)

Bottom line is and what ever context the tweet was given or perceived. This thought behaviour against other vulnerable road users must be stamped out.


----------



## GrasB (10 Sep 2014)

ianrauk said:


> Bottom line is and what ever context the tweet was given or perceived. This thought behaviour against other vulnerable road users must be stamped out.


Something like the tweet shown imo should be a case of suspension of licence until such time as they complete a course on driver responsibility & complete a written test.


----------



## Cyclopathic (10 Sep 2014)

Profpointy said:


> Whilst I see your point, I dare say a goodly number of people here have had cars deliberately driven at them, certainly I have - it's not funny, and people do get killed. If you substituted, let's say "Paki" for "cyclist", the only-a-joke notion isn't really enough - even if Bernard Manning et al might think otherwise.


I don't think those terms compare. As cyclists we don't suffer from the same level of prejudice as ethnic minorities, or I don't feel that we do. Once you get off your bike you look just like anyone else. Being of a different heritage or disabled or whatever is something that is with you all the time and I wouldn't want to equate the two. And she didn't drive at anyone as far as I know. 
It wasn't funny and it isn't something I want people to be saying but I still feel that it wasn't that bad. Just stupid and tasteless but I wouldn't sanction those two things or I'd never be able to leave the house or go on tinternet.


----------



## Cyclopathic (10 Sep 2014)

ianrauk said:


> Bottom line is and what ever context the tweet was given or perceived. This thought behaviour against other vulnerable road users must be stamped out.


But one cannot police what people think. I agree it should be discouraged, but there will always be people like this and also there will always be usually reasonable people who make poor judgement calls. 
I think the bottom line is that she didn't actually drive at anyone shouting this. She perhaps should be sanctioned for texting and driving.


----------



## glenn forger (10 Sep 2014)

Cyclopathic said:


> As cyclists we don't suffer from the same level of prejudice as ethnic minorities, or I don't feel that we do.



Agreed. It's worse. Journalists can write about deliberately killing or hurting cyclists just for being cyclists. They can't about ethnic minorities.


----------



## Cyclopathic (10 Sep 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Agreed. It's worse. Journalists can write about deliberately killing or hurting cyclists just for being cyclists. They can't about ethnic minorities.


It's a fair point. I still don't think that in this particular instance she was trying to incite any hatred or encourage anyone to actually kill a cyclist, I think she was just being stupid and tasteless as she expressed herself. I think it's worth someone in authority having a word with her and that she is well deserving of any social media crap storm but I personally think that a formal sanction is not needed in this particular case.


----------



## glenn forger (10 Sep 2014)

No, I agree with you there, she's a silly person. It would be germane to ask where her delusion of entitlement comes from, it's not innate behavior so what prompts people to come out with poison like this?


----------



## Cyclopathic (10 Sep 2014)

glenn forger said:


> No, I agree with you there, she's a silly person. It would be germane to ask where her delusion of entitlement comes from, it's not innate behavior so what prompts people to come out with poison like this?


I think it's engendered by the whole driving culture, which seems to be one of entitlement. There is just not enough emphasis on how other road users not only have a right to use the roads but how they also help lessen congestion. People need to know that in the longer term (longer than sitting there for 5 seconds whilst a bike takes up their road) the more cyclists there are, the better off their own driving conditions will be.


----------



## glenn forger (10 Sep 2014)

Why don't cyclists crowd-fund PIFs that explain we're not trying to delay anyone, we're riding out of the doorzone/broken glass, puddles?


----------



## Shut Up Legs (10 Sep 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Agreed. It's worse. Journalists can write about deliberately killing or hurting cyclists just for being cyclists. They can't about ethnic minorities.


_*YES*_. In the UK, Australia, and various other "developed" countries, anti-cyclist prejudice has been socially acceptable for some time.


----------



## .stu (10 Sep 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Agreed. It's worse. Journalists can write about deliberately killing or hurting cyclists just for being cyclists. They can't about ethnic minorities.



Were you referring to this guy by any chance? http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/features/fairpoint/10800707.Cyclists_are_a_nuisance_on_the_road/


----------



## classic33 (11 Sep 2014)

Cyclopathic said:


> I don't think those terms compare. As *cyclists* we don't suffer from the same level of prejudice as ethnic minorities, or I don't feel that we do. Once you get off your bike you look just like anyone else. Being of a different *heritage* or *disabled* or whatever is something that is with you all the time and I wouldn't want to equate the two. And she didn't drive at anyone as far as I know.
> It wasn't funny and it isn't something I want people to be saying but I still feel that it wasn't that bad. Just stupid and tasteless but I wouldn't sanction those two things or I'd never be able to leave the house or go on tinternet.


I'm covered by those in bold, where do I stand? Some know I'm disabled and that I cycle. Some of those have aimed their vehicle in my direction whilst on the road. Crossing onto my side of the road to do so. For "fun" of course.
Whether they bragged about doing it after on social media, I'm uncertain. I am certain that its spread amongst their mates though.


----------



## raleighnut (11 Sep 2014)

classic33 said:


> I'm covered by those in bold, where do I stand? Some know I'm disabled and that I cycle. Some of those have aimed their vehicle in my direction whilst on the road. Crossing onto my side of the road to do so. For "fun" of course.
> Whether they bragged about doing it after on social media, I'm uncertain. I am certain that its spread amongst their mates though.


I've had the crossing into my side of the road twice recently something I'd never had happen on 2 wheels, maybe its 'safe' to do it to someone who is disabled (the tricycle and crutches stuck up like insect antennae are a bit of a giveaway) knowing that there's not a lot I can do about it.
This and other intimidation of cyclists does seem to be on the rise going by the number of posts on here and stories in the media, but why?


----------



## nickyboy (11 Sep 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Why don't cyclists crowd-fund PIFs that explain we're not trying to delay anyone, we're riding out of the doorzone/broken glass, puddles?



Because cyclists (like most people) like nothing better than a good moan but won't actually do anything about it.

PIFs or some other media channel to get the message across is, I think, the way forward if the problem is actually one of education. Maybe the cycling organisations should lead on this?


----------



## Cyclopathic (11 Sep 2014)

classic33 said:


> I'm covered by those in bold, where do I stand? Some know I'm disabled and that I cycle. Some of those have aimed their vehicle in my direction whilst on the road. Crossing onto my side of the road to do so. For "fun" of course.
> Whether they bragged about doing it after on social media, I'm uncertain. I am certain that its spread amongst their mates though.


Sorry if it seemed like a generalisation or over simplification. I meant that once one gets off a bike there is nothing to tell anybody that you're a cyclist (unless of course they walk around in loads of lycra with their cleats clicking on the supermarket floor). This is why I didn't want to equate cycling with other things for which people are discriminated against.


----------



## Cyclopathic (11 Sep 2014)

glenn forger said:


> Why don't cyclists crowd-fund PIFs that explain we're not trying to delay anyone, we're riding out of the doorzone/broken glass, puddles?


I'd like to see a national ad campaign along these lines. TV and billboards. Don't know how it would be funded but still.


----------



## nickyboy (11 Sep 2014)

Cyclopathic said:


> I'd like to see a national ad campaign along these lines. TV and billboards. Don't know how it would be funded but still.


Well, it is either going to be the interest groups (in which case the people who potentially benefit from it will pay via subs) or government (in which case everyone pays regardless of whether they benefit or not).
Cyclists, being a tight-fisted lot, will want government to pay but if people feel strongly about the issue why not work with the interest groups to promote it?


----------



## raleighnut (11 Sep 2014)

nickyboy said:


> Well, it is either going to be the interest groups (in which case the people who potentially benefit from it will pay via subs) or government (in which case everyone pays regardless of whether they benefit or not).
> Cyclists, being a tight-fisted lot, will want government to pay but if people feel strongly about the issue why not work with the interest groups to promote it?


In Leicester there is a Critical Mass ride every month and that's non-confrontational and has youngsters riding in it.
Last Friday in the month 6pm Orton Square (named after Joe Orton recently)
I'll be one of the people on a trike (uprong)


----------



## Cyclopathic (11 Sep 2014)

raleighnut said:


> In Leicester there is a Critical Mass ride every month and that's non-confrontational and has youngsters riding in it.
> Last Friday in the month 6pm Orton Square (named after Joe Orton recently)
> I'll be one of the people on a trike (uprong)


I'll say hi if I'm on it as well. I've been on the last 2 Leicester ones and may go on the next so will look out for trikes and say hello.


----------



## raleighnut (11 Sep 2014)

Cyclopathic said:


> I'll say hi if I'm on it as well. I've been on the last 2 Leicester ones and may go on the next so will look out for trikes and say hello.


I was the guy talking to the couple where the girl was riding the trike with the sound system on the back, she had a GoPro on her helmet but not seen any footage posted yet.
My first one after the accident so I was glad it was only a short one (but I can cheat on the next one, I've got an electric front wheel kit now for hill climbing.)


----------

