Stupid comment of the day...

[4F]

He also told me I should be arrested for my YouTube video that show me going over 30 mph in a 30 zone, when I pointed out to him the cars overtaken me, he said I was more on the wrong than them! I'm thinking of letting the air out of his tyres and then watch him sweat as he has to do some exercise pumping them back up!

Just hide his lunch, that will get him in more of a panic.

 

[wafflycat]

Yes, but the cars are breaking the law where as I'm being a little adventurous and possible a tad wreckless(let's say). So I'd say the drivers are more in the wrong than I!

Anyway I hate being told how dangerous cycling is/cyclists are and how I should cycle by someone so fat they've probably not seen their dick in a few decades.

Just because what you are doing is not illegal in the sense of breaking the speed limit, you could well be committing a specific cycling offence such as 'dangerous cycling' IIRC (I'm sure someone will come along to tell me if the offence is still around these days). And it doesn't matter who is 'more in the wrong' as the old saying goes, two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Kirstie]

Hernias can be hereditary. Probably also why they said it.

 

[magnatom]

Well get this....I've just (moments ago) had a big shouting match with a very portly man at work about cycling. He reckons that cyclists should be arrested, have their bikes taken off of them and banned from cycling for not using shared cyle/foot paths!

Quietly switch your helmet camera on and point it at said fellow. Then post the results on youtube. I need some entertainment today!

 

[Eat MY Dust]

two wrongs don't make a right.

Sorry there is only one "wrong" the other is "illegal". So I'd say one is worse than the other.

This is all besides the point to the argument we were having at work. The guy was saying that cyclist who are in the middle of the road should be charged with an offence (not sure which one he was talking about) When I said I happily cycle in the middle of the road when I'm doing 30 MPH or over in a 30 limit, he was saying that I was still holding up traffic so should be arrested. If you can see where he is coming from then hey ho. To me he was just sounding like another "I pay for the roads" ignorant motorist. (and that's what I said to him!)

 

[Fnaar]

I had a hernia years ago; It was repaired by Lord Darzi, who queue-jumped me on condition I'd be part of medical school exams the day before the op.

 

[wafflycat]

Sorry there is only one "wrong" the other is "illegal". So I'd say one is worse than the other.

This is all besides the point to the argument we were having at work. The guy was saying that cyclist who are in the middle of the road should be charged with an offence (not sure which one he was talking about) When I said I happily cycle in the middle of the road when I'm doing 30 MPH or over in a 30 limit, he was saying that I was still holding up traffic so should be arrested. If you can see where he is coming from then hey ho. To me he was just sounding like another "I pay for the roads" ignorant motorist. (and that's what I said to him!)

No, what I am saying is in the context of doing over 30 in a 30 limit in a car is wrong and doing over 30 on a pedal cycle in the same place is also wrong. It may well be used against you should a plod decide to stop you & book you for 'dangerous cycling' a specific cyling offence see http://www.citycycling.co.uk/issue9/issue9page21.html
Just because a pedal cyclist can't be done for the specific offence of breaking the speed limit, it doesn't mean that there is no specific cycling offence where speed is a factor in deciding whether an offence has been committed. Here:-

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1991/ukpga_19910040_en_2

“28 Dangerous cycling
(1) A person who rides a cycle on a road dangerously is guilty of an offence.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above a person is to be regarded as riding dangerously if (and only if)—
(a) the way he rides falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist, and
( it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding in that way would be dangerous.
(3) In subsection (2) above “dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in determining for the purposes of that subsection what would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.”

I suggest that plod may well be quite entitled to view cycling at a speed in excess of the posted limit that applies to motor vehicles as a factor in whether or not someone is cycling dangersously. And that's neither here nor there as to whether your co-worker was being a plonker about your using the roads.

 

[Eat MY Dust]

“28 Dangerous cycling
(1) A person who rides a cycle on a road dangerously is guilty of an offence.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above a person is to be regarded as riding dangerously if (and only if)—
(a) the way he rides falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist, and
( it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding in that way would be dangerous.
(3) In subsection (2) above “dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in determining for the purposes of that subsection what would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.”

I suppose it all perception of what is dangerous. I wouldn't consider my cycling technique or speed as falling into any of the catagories above. I see on a daily basis people cycling at half of the speed I'm cycling at, who I would say fall in to all of the above. I would also argue that some of the places that I'm going above 30, that it would be safe for cars to also.

 

[magnatom]

“28 Dangerous cycling
(1) A person who rides a cycle on a road dangerously is guilty of an offence.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above a person is to be regarded as riding dangerously if (and only if)—
(a) the way he rides falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful cyclist, and
( it would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist that riding in that way would be dangerous.
(3) In subsection (2) above “dangerous” refers to danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in determining for the purposes of that subsection what would be obvious to a competent and careful cyclist in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.”

According to some folk on here and elsewhere I would be guilty in every section (though not for speeding of course! )

 

[jay clock]

My parents hack me off. Both in their mid 70s, my Dad is in good health, does a bit of exercise. My Mum is massively overweight and has had two new knees due to arthritis (which she states was not in any way affected by her weight).

I have lost several stone in the past few years, still have BMI of 26.8 but am fit as a fiddle. They keep asking if I have had a medical lately because I might be stressing my heart......

 

[Eat MY Dust]

My mum recently said to me "you'd better watch all that running you're doing, you may do yourself some harm"!!

 

[downfader]

She might mean because it's hereditary. Come on, give her the benefit of the doubt!

I did think that at the time tbh but she did then follow it up with hernias being cyclist related.