Poor driving from someone who should have known better.

[Brandane]

disagree without getting silly over it?

I would disagree that I'm getting silly over it. Merely an honest observation, and as always it is "IMHO" . In any case, I'm pretty sure I remain on his ignore list from back when he first joined this forum. Anyone who dared to disagree with his point of view on anything suffered the same fate at that time. I haven't met the guy so can only judge on what comes across in print, and that leads me to form the opinion that I wouldn't be in a great hurry to go for a pint with him. No doubt others have formed the same opinion of me - c'est la vie. It's an internet forum, not a cozy little community .

 

[winjim]

Ooh, that's a bit harsh. I too think he's wrong, but no one is perfect. He's clearly a decent enough chap and a pleasant member of our little community, so it must surely be possible to disagree without getting silly over it?

Annoyingly I reported the ableist slur he used against me so it got deleted. I should have let it stand so there would be a record of it. That was when he was trying to explain, badly, something that was well within my area of expertise, by a simple Google search and copy-pasting, out of context, the first thing that came up.

He's also arrogant enough to make sure that everybody knows the price of his very expensive bike, refuses to acknowledge any mistakes he may have made, is giving potentially dangerous technical advice and potentially dangerous advice on roadcraft. I think he claims to be a ride leader or something so surely should be held to fairly high standards.

You mention community and if you want to call it that then this is how it works. When we see somebody acting in a way that is unpleasant and prejudiced, we need to call it out. When we see somebody giving potentially dangerous advice we need to correct it. When we see arrogance and hubris we need to express our disapproval and demonstrate that this is not what we want our community to be.

Now of course I'm not perfect myself, I make mistakes, I'm sure I've been arrogant and unpleasant in the past. I try to stay in my lane and only comment on things I know about, or caveat my comments by stating that it's only my opinion, but when I see advice given that I believe is wrong, and dangerous, and presented in such an arrogant fashion, I am going to call it out.

 

[matticus]

... I am going to call it out.

Are we talking about the next Harvey Weinstein, or someone with different views to you about junction priorities?

 

[snorri]

'shared footway/path' is much less of a mouthful than 'cycleway with right of way on foot' ...does anybody actually speak like that? and the less said about a 'highway with right of way on cycle or foot', the better, m'lud.

IME the term in most common use is 'Shared use path' or route, this implies no priority for one user group over another.

 

[winjim]

Are we talking about the next Harvey Weinstein, or someone with different views to you about junction priorities?

I mislike your false dichotomy.

 

[Milzy]

OTOH 🤔


View: https://youtu.be/AMF28Or8fzo

Not that bad really.

 

[Brandane]

Are we talking about the next Harvey Weinstein, or someone with different views to you about junction priorities?

Isn't the whole point of this 18 page thread that we should all have the SAME views about junction priorities?

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Isn't the whole point of this 18 page thread that we should all have the SAME views about junction priorities?

Maybe it's more that we should assume other's don't share the same views, and ride accordingly?

 

[Brandane]

Maybe it's more that we should assume other's don't share the same views, and ride accordingly?

Not really. We should all have the same views given that we all (should) be reading from the same Highway Code. Whether or not we can trust others to put the theory into practice is another matter - so yes, ride/drive defensively and assume every other nobber out there is out to kill you.

 

[Drago]

Even the outdated and dangerous stuff in the Highway Code? (and cyclecraft too)

 

[matticus]

I mislike your false dichotomy.

I wanted to dislike your "mislike"; but then google informed me that Othello is on your side, so you're bulletproof on that front. Pffft.

 

[Brandane]

Even the outdated and dangerous stuff in the Highway Code? (and cyclecraft too)

Enlighten us....

 

[Drago]

The obvious one is cyclecraft, which still has a passage that should have long ago been deleted advising riders on narrow roads to stay well to the side to allow traffic to pass... I'd tell you which page, but my copy is in my desk at SAR in Stoneleigh where I'v not been since March due to the obvious.

 

[mjr]

IME the term in most common use is 'Shared use path' or route, this implies no priority for one user group over another.

I disagree. Use of "path" implies to most people that it is primarily for walkers and cyclists (and sometimes horses) are only there under protest and it should be shared by everyone travelling at walking speed.

Now, we know legally there's no speed limit or absolute priority (but of course give way to avoid collisions) but that's the reason weaselly politicians like to use it instead of track, bridleway or definitely cycleway... although the last few years, "trod" has reappeared, which is an odd one that I think might not be mentioned in highway law at all.

 

[mjr]

The obvious one is cyclecraft, which still has a passage that should have long ago been deleted advising riders on narrow roads to stay well to the side to allow traffic to pass... I'd tell you which page, but my copy is in my desk at SAR in Stoneleigh where I'v not been since March due to the obvious.

Pretty much the whole chapter on cycleways is junk too. If you obey its advice to ride in the middle, you almost certainly will get abuse from other riders in places like London and Cambridge.

There's the obviously controversial stuff in the highway code about helmets and light coloured clothing that there's still no evidence for and definitely wasn't when it was added, but maybe the clearest example is that rule 77 for cyclists at roundabouts still suggests "ride round keeping to the left-hand lane". Almost any way of riding around would be safer: even footway riding beats that IMO, despite the crap angles and risk to walkers.