dumbass LCC bike lane on Stratford High Street

[knocksofbeggarmen]

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/07/vehicular-cyclists-secret-sect.html

'The first colleague, upon hearing this explanation, merely said, "Do these people hit their children, too?"
I couldn't confirm that they did, but I suggested that they made 'vroom vroom' sounds when cycling in traffic.'

 

[mjr]

what is your opinion of LCC reps for boroughs encouraging antisocial cycling along riverfront routes where there are specific prohibitions and lots of more vulnerable people ( pedestrians) . Really sets a good example to potential members , although if thats your thing fill yer boots

I think it's wrong. On one ride with another Cyclenation group (not LCC), we did use a footway which you're not meant to ride on, so I brought it up with the ride guide, he said it was a mistake (easily done that one I think, because neighbouring sections of footway are shared-use) and the next time through that area we went a different way.

If you got no joy on the ride, did you try telling LCC HQ about this? I'd be surprised if it's encouraged.

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

Straw man argument.

Oh dear.

Earlier I had to explain the term 'Ad Hominem'.

Now I'm going to tell you what a 'Straw Man Argument' is.

A 'straw man argument' is when you present your opponent as having said something he never said, in order to make it appear that in refuting the misattributed claim, you have refuted that claim he actually made.

Now in this case, the claim **you actually made was**

This is a discussion about how to go about best promoting and protecting a personal freedom, to ride one's bicycle where and when one likes.

See, it's part of the meaning of 'straw man argument' that if I treat you as having said something you actually have said, that's not a straw man argument.

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

Some come on then- and I will accept answers from all comers -are you or are you not campaigning to create a right to cycle on motorways? If not, why not?

 

[mjr]

Some come on then- and I will accept answers from all comers -are you or are you not campaigning to create a right to cycle on motorways? If not, why not?

I am not campaigning for this only because I've other things I'd rather see happen first. The hard shoulders of motorways are a damn sight better than the gutter lanes painted on some Highways Agency roads like the A5 (former A5D) through Milton Keynes. https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/02/25/idiots/

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

Several people evidently wish to cycle on Motorways- they get arrested just often enough for it to become a theme in certain newspapers. Do you think the law should be reformed to reflect Adrian's point that

This is a discussion about how to go about best promoting and protecting a personal freedom, to ride one's bicycle where and when one likes.

YES/NO ?

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

I am not campaigning for this only because I've other things I'd rather see happen first. The hard shoulders of motorways are a damn sight better than the gutter lanes painted on some Highways Agency roads like the A5 (former A5D) through Milton Keynes.

The thing I'd like to see happen first is mass cycling.

What I can't get my head around is, why the cycling demographic that would be involved in any forseeable mass cycling could possibly want the right to cycle on the M4.

Of course you are right that 'The hard shoulders of motorways are a damn sight better than the gutter lanes painted on some Highways Agency roads' but you may be aware that you are not supposed to be cycling in either place - and that the Vehicular Cycling argument was actually decisive in the creation segregated motor-only routes.

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

As the newt says, you are being silly. Of course I am not campaigning for a right to ride on motorways, in exactly the same way that I am not campaigning for a right to ride the corridors of Buckingham Palace or on the tracks of the East Coast line. We are talking about the road network, so let's try to keep it there eh?

And is the M4 not a road?

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

You're just being silly now.

How is that, my sensible friend? Is it because I've put my finger on a damn obvious hole in your argument?

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

Not in the sense we are discussing no.

Ha ha ha ha

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

Not in the sense we are discussing no.

Right so, the M4 is not a Road in the sense we are discussing- which is the sense of, a Road we would like to Cycle on.

Well I Put It To You, Mr Adrian, that if each man is allowed to define 'Road' as just those things he wants to cycle on, then the Roads of London are not 'Roads', as far as the vast majority of the populace are concerned.

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

You do understand that motorways are all built under specific acts of parliament and don't form part of the Queen's highway? As such they were all built without provision for several classes of road user, including cyclists.

Ha ha ha ha.

YES!!!!

Ha ha ha.

It was organised that way to satisfy people who where arguing against segregated paths for bicycles!!!!

The all clamoured to segregate THE CARS!

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

I will give you the credit that you posted this nonsense before reading my post above.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

For the information of those in doubt, the M4 is a road.

 

[knocksofbeggarmen]

Also the roads of london- they are roads. Which is to say: no one gets to change the definition of 'road' to get out of a hole they've stuck themselves in.