Cycling UK Forum

kwackers wrote:But whenever I've discussed cycling with someone (male or female) it's always "yes, I know I should, but".

Well, that's the difference isn't it. "Yes I know I should, but " vs "yes I want to, but ".

Both points of view exist, but it's only the latter group that are going to do anything about it.

Cyclenut wrote: Now that it's illegal to incite hatred on grounds of race, religion or sexual orientation, all that pent-up bigotry is poured upon cyclists

... and fat people

The Friday Night Ride to the Coast, a CTC Cheam & Morden event. Comes highly recommended (so does the Madeira Cafe in Brighton)

I have a cycle helmet from which I removed the peak. Because, er, because I use it for skating not cycling - unless sometimes I'm cycling to the place where I will skate and it's easier to carry it on my head than tie it to the rack.

The potty helmets are certified to exactly the same standard (EN1078?) as bike helmets, though I don't know if they give more protection in practice. They are, however, an awful lot warmer - most speedskaters wear bike helmets instead, just for the extra ventilation.

A much simpler explanation is that it's just the contrast with the clean-shaven legs

EdinburghFixed wrote:Ironically, if you enter the ASL other than at the provided point you are breaking the same law as the RLJ-er - you've failed to stop at the white line when the light is red!

Lots of people condemn the latter but not the former - illustrating that we all we pick and choose which laws to obey, and when to do so?

Absolutely. Likewise, I was using LED rear lights long before the law was changed to make them legal as an "approved light", and I bet I wasn't the only one doing that either.

nigel_s wrote:The Pedaling Pound?

Good one. Though I think you could shorten it a bit to "Pedal Pound", which is snappier, and has allusions to "pedal power" as well.

thegirlfrommarz wrote:dan_b - what, even if the person has jumped a red light to get ahead of me, while I stop at the red light and wait for the lights to turn green so I can proceed without breaking the law?

For me, personally, yeah. Others may disagree. The bare fact of whether it's legal or not (crossing the stop line into an ASL is at present illegal unless done using the filter lane, but I can think of few people who'd object to that) is not for me a big deal in itself: I'd base my conclusion more on whether in the circumstances it is inconsiderate, antisocial or dangerous to other road users. Which it may well be, but there's usually other things to get "reasonably" annoyed about in the behaviour of cyclists who fit that description

thegirlfrommarz wrote:P.S. Just explaining why I find it particularly annoying in this situation. Don't mind being stuck behind slower cyclists in other circumstances, and will wait till it's safe to overtake before doing so.

Oh, well, I get annoyed when stuck behind slower cyclists in almost any situation - I'm not the most patient of people. But that's really my fault not theirs.

My 2p on the original question, since I'm here: you can already guess I'm going to say that unless he was endangering others, (c) will do nicely. Sometimes I've done the same piece of positioning myself - I don't think there's any obligation on me to make it easier for others to break the law - but if they want to mutter as they go around me it really is their prerogative.

Hmm. It's not an argument I particularly like. I have before now heard "Don't use the ASLs because I find it annoying having to overtake you in my car repeatedly when you've overtaken me by filtering past when I'm stuck in a queue", and I possibly have more sympathy with that POV, because it's even harder to overtake safely in a wider vehicle than it is on a bicycle.

GeoffL wrote:For example, those who chose to ignore the international laws that forbade the mass exterminations and other atrocities that took place during WWII.

So if there hadn't been international laws to forbid mass exterminations and other atrocities it would have been OK to perpetrate them? I don't think so. I think it would have been wrong anyway. The law exists to support social/moral/ethical behaviour, not to define it.

Paul Power wrote:highest casualties + highest deaths + highest number of speed cameras

Correlation/causation/yadda/yadda

It might just be that it's the area that needs most speed cameras...

Simon L6 wrote: 53% is an awful lot more than 47%

Darrell Huff redux

Mick F wrote:It's the pub that's the problem.
Warm and cosy in a sealed environment. People = colds. Not beer.

Hmm. So, since half my pub time lately has been hanging around outside in the cold, I should end up much hardier.

Of course, the passive smoking will get me eventually instead ...

Gisen wrote:"The term profession is applied to those persons who have specialized and technical skill or knowledge which they apply, for a fee, to certain tasks that ordinary and unqualified people cannot ordinarily undertake.

That reads like something out of wikipedia.

The term "professional" is also used as an opposite of "amateur" to distinguish people who earn money through their activity from those who don't. Consider writers, athletes, musicians etc. In that sense of the word it is rarely required that the professionals hew to any higher technical or ethical standard than that the amateurs do - just look at the average press release for a counterexample ...

It's difficult in such circumstances to have much respect for either law (the dogs-on-leads or the no-cycling) if they turn out on closer inspection to be legally dubious anyway.

OK, two wrongs don't make a right, and all that, but from the way Paul tells the story, the dogwalker sounded like an officious little nerk who frankly is unlikely ever to have the people skills to be in a position where he can shape attitudes towards cycling. I for one will not be losing sleep over the damage this has done to the image of cyclists.