Search found 220 matches

by BakfietsUK
9 Jan 2021, 12:42pm
Forum: Does anyone know … ?
Topic: Tier 4 exercise limits
Replies: 315
Views: 17645

Re: Tier 4 exercise limits

As the title of this thread is exercise limits I am deciding to post here as my question is about geographical exercise limits. Given that this thread seems to have started prior to the national lockdown I wondered what the thinking was right now on the latest restrictions.

So right now, IF I did my usual route that takes me up to 30km from my home, I would feel that this is not in "the spirit of the law". It may actually be illegal as my gut sense tells me it's anything but local.

If I ride locally, I am very likely to encounter many many more people than if I did my usual ride through open countryside. It seems like this comparison may make my usual rides less risky than staying local. Moreover, staying in my own area would involve higher risk of RTC's and be less effective as a mental health enhancer. You may see the dilemma. If the idea is to protect mental health, the prospect of high traffic volumes and higher risk of injury would seem to detract materially from the therapeutic effect of the exercise.

However, if I were to suffer an incident or need help from an outside party, wont that risk transmitting the virus, given that I may have to share an inside space. When the advise:- "behave like you have it" is so clear, my normal regime of riding seems untenable.

What are your thoughts on this please?
by BakfietsUK
2 Nov 2017, 9:13am
Forum: Cycling UK Topics and Discussions
Topic: Where are "We are CUK" wrt aggression against cyclists ?
Replies: 32
Views: 22579

Re: Where are "We are CUK" wrt aggression against cyclists ?

Aggression on the road is never acceptable and I think that's probably a commonly held view here. To imply that through body language or some sort of unwitting behaviour, cyclists may bring aggression to themselves is as flawed as justifying bullying on the basis that the victim was asking for it. It has associated with it a danger of imposing the responsibility on to the injured party. It would seem totally wrong now to say that the clothes someone chose to wear was a way of asking to be sexually assaulted, yet this seemed to be what the perpetrators of these crimes saw as a valid mitigation for their offences. If the enforcers then have a culture reflecting this belief, then justice is going to be a long way off.

Just a few sentences on a pet peeve of mine regarding direct quotes.

Whilst I see that this can be an effective way of debate which I welcome from some standpoints, I also see them as detracting from the original content. The classic taking words "out of context" has been done with my content many times here. I welcome comments about my content and also feel a bit frustrated when snippets of sentences are selected and appear to be used as a way to further an argument which, to my best efforts I have not engaged in. I try to construct my posts in a balanced and reflective manner which befits my morals and philosophy. It can totally destroy the intentions of the content to post sections of sentences and then somehow construct an argument on an idea which I personally either never intended or expanded on later. The result is that content can be manipulated in favour of the quoter, to further their argument or in an attempt to invalidate mine. Direct quoting can have real benefits when applied in the spirit of the original content. My expectation is that the quoting facility would be used with great care by those trusted to regulate the very content they are charged with overseeing. That they would be balanced and reflect the narrative of the original content and not introduce bias or meaning which was never originally intended.
by BakfietsUK
2 Nov 2017, 8:28am
Forum: On the road
Topic: Mass vehicular homicide on cycle lane in New York
Replies: 16
Views: 2102

Re: Mass vehicular homicide on cycle lane in New York

It totally illustrates the inherent danger that motor vehicles pose to pedestrians and cyclists, especially when driven by malevolent individuals. Incidents such as Hungerford were a major motivation to control guns. The logic of this may indicate a need to control the use of vehicles, but I fear that there would be an incredible amount of denial and inertia toward restricting motor vehicles. The powers to be are in no doubt about the value of the motoring vote which indicates a fundamental difference from the view of guns being socially un-acceptable. To try to accept vehicles as socially un-acceptable "weapons" even when it can be argued that they are just that, would put many motorists into psychological turmoil. the result would probably be to restrict pedestrians and cyclists more just so that the tougher choices can be side-lined for purposes of an easier life.

Consider recent incidents such as Bath and Glasgow when vehicles went out of control and one may wonder if the operation of powered vehicles in the close proximity of flesh and blood was ever a good idea. I reckon horse powered transport was dangerous enough for pedestrians, but to up the anti and install hundreds of horsepower in a vehicle that is inches away from people is to me utter madness. You could say that this risk can be tolerated because of the facility that vehicles give us. My view is that the convenience of this aspect of modern life is just not worth it.
by BakfietsUK
1 Nov 2017, 6:42pm
Forum: Cycling UK Topics and Discussions
Topic: Where are "We are CUK" wrt aggression against cyclists ?
Replies: 32
Views: 22579

Re: Where are "We are CUK" wrt aggression against cyclists ?

It needs to be as sociably unacceptable to behave aggressively toward a cyclist as it is now to act in a racist or homophobic manner to those groups concerned. The sort of derision we receive from the authorities about the behaviour of the non cycling public was once applied to other behaviour towards minority groups which we now call hate crime. I personally don't believe CUK has the capacity to turn this situation around on it's own. It would need to campaign in the same way as those groups did in the past and continue to do now, regarding racism and homophobia. I think this feature of UK cycling is specifically related to UK culture and it can be argued that other European nations dealt with this decades ago. Until we see this change, we will always be at the mercy of a culture that is pretty much against cycling.
by BakfietsUK
30 Oct 2017, 9:35am
Forum: Cycling UK Topics and Discussions
Topic: Where are "We are CUK" wrt aggression against cyclists ?
Replies: 32
Views: 22579

Re: Where are "We are CUK" wrt aggression against cyclists ?

You have now lost me PH. The message is that all opinions matter here, whether from members or not. To value one post against another on the basis of CUK membership leads to a failure to acknowledge real problems. If I "keep bringing" anything up on this forum it's of CUK's seeming lack of relevance per se. If the posters are not members, maybe that helps to prove a point. Maybe those people need some other body not yet in existence.
by BakfietsUK
29 Oct 2017, 11:01am
Forum: Cycling UK Topics and Discussions
Topic: Where are "We are CUK" wrt aggression against cyclists ?
Replies: 32
Views: 22579

Re: Where are "We are CUK" wrt aggression against cyclists ?

To PH, I am not sure how you know about the features of the posters here. Whatever the posters' attributes, they represent views in themselves like I do. I am a member and a regular poster. Just because posters may or may not be members is irrelevant, it's the view that matters. People are responding to real issues out on the road when they post here, like I do. If CUK is doing anything right it is in providing this forum, even when it's open to non members.

To Si, Perhaps people are complaining because they ARE unhappy. I am certainly unhappy about having to wonder if I am going to be killed this ride or the next. I agree, getting "bums on saddles" is one beneficial way ahead. From my experience, though the impact of more cyclists on other road users' behaviour can not be ignored. There's no point in getting more people to ride if they encounter a hostile environment. The increasing number of cyclists, in my experience seems linked to an increase in the level of hostility toward cyclists in general. At some point, I think there will be a counter reaction by drivers. This, it could be argued is happening already on an individual basis and to some extents on a systematic basis. If my experience of foreboding is common to many cyclists, then we have a massive problem. It's great to get more people cycling to perhaps neutralise the minority effect, but who are going to be the casualties of this culture change. There is perhaps greater potential for conflict in the period leading to when cycling has a status befitting it's benefit to this country. So maybe it will get worse before it gets better.

Specifically Si, CUK needs to look at what cycling IS actually like in the UK and get into urgent dialogue with cyclists specifically to gauge perceptions of safety. I.e. do some research. CUK needs to declare loudly it's distain for cyclists who break the law and to underline the fact that we don't all behave like that. CUK needs to develop a culture where Cycling speaks with ONE CLEAR voice throughout the UK and to show a coherent public persona. Once CUK has created a coherent, consistent message and culture within it's self then I think it will be better placed to get other organisations to join up their thinking too. Then maybe the authorities will have to listen, because at the moment I don't think they are. If CUK is limited by it's charitable status then it needs to review it's status to enable it to act in a manner concordant with it's motivation.

My vision is of a time which can be illustrated by a confidence that cycling and cyclists are taken seriously as a means of transport in the UK. When you go to authorities for help, they actually listen. That driving cars is not the be all and end all of transport in the UK and that if you tell someone in polite company that you are a cyclist, you don't get a lecture about "us" going through red lights.
by BakfietsUK
28 Oct 2017, 8:05pm
Forum: Cycling UK Topics and Discussions
Topic: Where are "We are CUK" wrt aggression against cyclists ?
Replies: 32
Views: 22579

Re: So Where are "We are CUK"

My understanding is that CUK claim to represent all cyclists. It sounds like it is not up to the job or has not got the appetite to push for the changes that some of the people on this forum, including me would benefit from.

I have no problem with CUK promoting leisure, but I would hope that it is not misleading us and mis-selling it's self in it's message and public persona.

I think it is wise to reflect on the lack of a consistent voice on cycling that this apparent mismatch may indicate all over the UK. OK if others think CUK is cutting it, then fair enough. It does not hurt to ask the question and check out what CUK's potential for growth is. If CUK are content and most of it's members are happy with the way it campaigns, no problem. If the members are represented accurately by this forum, then I would say that there is quite a fair degree of dissatisfaction with the cycling experience in this country and CUK needs to listen and adjust quickly to the demands of the 21st century. Maybe it's doing what it can within the rules of it's existence, but I joined in the hope that it was making progress. I see some progress, but the deaths and injuries still continue to rise. What's the point of cycle touring if you are not safe on the roads you are supposed to be enjoying.

If CUK does not want the job of improving cycling for it's members in terms defined by the evidence contained in this forum, then maybe it's time to re-engineer cycle campaigning in the UK and acknowledge the alarm bells. It seems like CUK is just one of many voices on cycling which may or may not be consistent with multitudes of other voices on cycling. The outcome of these mixed messages is surely a lack of general credibility and of a movement that is famed for it's internal conflicts of strategy and opinion. The only winners are those who would wish cycling to disappear.
by BakfietsUK
28 Oct 2017, 1:37pm
Forum: Cycling UK Topics and Discussions
Topic: Where are "We are CUK" wrt aggression against cyclists ?
Replies: 32
Views: 22579

Re: So Where are "We are CUK"

CUK needs a reality check and to listen to it's members. Otherwise it is in real danger of becoming irrelevant. It's not the 1950's when BTF could film us in Warwickshire having a lovely day out with no close passes of bad mouthing. In 2017 there are more important issues than which scenic routes to ride. If CUK want to encourage this then I have no problem, just don't claim to represent us without listening to what a growing proportion of us need. Primarily, at the moment to stay alive.
by BakfietsUK
20 Oct 2017, 9:17am
Forum: On the road
Topic: Common Assault
Replies: 65
Views: 6351

Re: Common Assault

The right to give opinions carries the responsibility of answering to others' rights of reply. Blaming the victim may be a cliché, but if we are not careful we'll fall into a trap of denouncing our own arguments and our right to be on the road. My opinion.

I am not a perfect cyclist, I make mistakes, like all other human beings. This makes me completely unqualified to judge another's behaviour in a context where I was not present and know very little about.

So my on-going goal is to listen to the aggrieved and challenge those who may be inclined to judge their behaviour. We get far too much unworthy judgement from others anyway, without adding to the problem ourselves.

We make our own judgements all the time in the context of the situation we are in at the time on close passes and motorist behaviour. So in that context I gladly accept a philosophy of "I wouldn't do that" or "they are driving inconsiderately". However, I will challenge a view that seeks to assert an element of complicity from the injured party. The Police would have that job.
by BakfietsUK
19 Oct 2017, 7:44pm
Forum: On the road
Topic: Common Assault
Replies: 65
Views: 6351

Re: Common Assault

PDQ Mobile are you saying that the offenders behaviour was justified. I would be careful about your answer and have a jolly good think about what you might imply.

Just to make my opinion clear. There can be no justification for the violence that seemed to be evident in this case. Even if this poster has made an error in their road positioning, there is absolutely no reason to resort to violence to "correct" their behaviour. Violence is NEVER justified and it's clear to me that in this case the Police were in agreement to who was occupying the moral low ground. If you want to stand as judge and jury on the roads, you'll always be attracting the attention of the Police and I hope anyone doing this will be met with the full force of the law.
by BakfietsUK
18 Oct 2017, 9:09am
Forum: On the road
Topic: Common Assault
Replies: 65
Views: 6351

Re: Common Assault

A caution will be recorded and the next time the individual comes under scrutiny it will be taken into account. It sounds like a good outcome as it seems you were not physically hurt and an assault charge would be difficult to prosecute. It seems the camera helped out too and gave the Police enough information to take action. Without any evidence like this, it would have probably gone nowhere. Having a caution on your record for assault is not trivial and I really think this outcome is the best you could have hoped for in the circumstances. So if this rider is stopped for anything at all it is likely the officers involved will request any "form" that he has already. As he now has form, if he is stopped for some reason he is going to be under even more scrutiny. Make no mistake, he made a bad move by assaulting you, he may handle it with some bravado, but it means more bother for him in the long run. It may even stop him doing anything like that again. Had it been a traffic offence that they investigated I fear the Police would have not been so willing to pursue it. Getting the Police to investigate it as an assault is a result in it's self.

The amount of effort that you went to in order to get this outcome seems to indicate a certain amount of inertia amongst the Police. It almost seems they are reluctant to do anything which would result in satisfaction for you as a victim of crime. This is something I have noticed in my own experience and I find it deeply unfortunate to have to resort to so much time and energy to get an agreeable outcome. Even when Police resources were far more widespread, getting them to actually listen was never easy. They just did not seem to sense the "victimhood" of the situation. Nowadays I can only imagine it being more difficult as officer numbers are fewer. My only hope in this is for the a real culture shift away from trivialising real crime by labelling it as a traffic offence.
by BakfietsUK
12 Oct 2017, 9:30am
Forum: On the road
Topic: Front Light for daytime
Replies: 85
Views: 8198

Re: Front Light for daytime

Cyclists are perfectly visible during daylight hours and clear conditions without lights. If you feel safer with them, then I would not argue. The danger is that in taking up this strategy we are reinforcing cyclists obligation to account for others inattention and incompetence. The responsibility is then shifted unjustifiably onto the more vulnerable to become, somehow less vulnerable whilst the real problem goes unchallenged.

I bet if it was claimed that cyclists were safer with orange flashing lights on stalks and have 100 dB sirens, somebody would believe them and behave accordingly. I would suggest playing around with concepts of reverse psychology. As a thought experiment if cyclists never had lights day or night, how much more risk would result. There is perhaps a possibility that drivers behaviours would change as they had to work harder to see cyclists and be more attentive as a result. Just something to think about OK, not a recommendation.
by BakfietsUK
7 Oct 2017, 9:45pm
Forum: On the road
Topic: Cycle Parking Would you pay?
Replies: 31
Views: 3689

Re: Cycle Parking Would you pay?

The sheer mass of people who do have a transport choice, but choose to drive are surely mucking it up for those who have no choice but to drive. If one tenth of the people who could go by other means did go by other means, then those that absolutely have to drive would have to be better off. For some, as you say murphy195 it is not possible to go by any other means and in a way, those who doggedly stick with their cars despite all the potential benefits to themselves and others are limiting life choices for those in greater need. I think there would be masses of room for everyone if car use was lower amongst those who are able to choose, so any potential dispute between "special drivers" and cyclists would be irrelevant. take the denial merchants out of the equation and the field changes completely.
by BakfietsUK
5 Oct 2017, 8:09pm
Forum: On the road
Topic: Cycle Parking Would you pay?
Replies: 31
Views: 3689

Re: Cycle Parking Would you pay?

Secure cycle parking sited so that errant drivers didn't bash into them, yes maybe I would pay. However in the spirit of evening up the way way out of balance facilities for car parking I would think proper cycle parking facilities should be funded by car parking revenue.

Paying for the stuff we are expected to use now would be immoral and punish people who are doing their bit for the environment. Beside the fact that it should be included in all new developments at the developers expense. Where this does not apply it should come out of council tax. Even a cycle parking levy on car tax would be morally justified. I really do not think it is the interests of anyone to charge for cycle parking. Given that a car can take up the same space as maybe 8 bikes, then say 10 parking spaces could fund 80 bike spaces. If a supermarket can be allowed to provide hundreds of car park spaces free of charge, then they should be made to provide free bike spaces too. Right now, they can get away with providing nothing at all for cyclists as the planning officers don't seem to be able to enforce the conditions of the original planning application. Where they charge to park a car, they should be made to hand over some of that for bike parking and if they have not put on the ground what they promised on the plans, they should be prosecuted.

Actually after writing all this, I see no reason at all to have to pay for bike parking, we scarcely get what we are entitled to anyway, so it's a big NO actually.