Cyclist fined for riding on the M58

[Cunobelin]

Anyone with one ounce of common sense would not follow a satnav onto a motorway once..twice is just too stupid for words.

There are numerous cases of motorists driving into deep fords and other stupid places because a satnav told them to.

I stand by my above statement.

Anyone with one ounce of common sense

Common sense is needed with the designers of SatNavs.

They are the one's that show passable roads that are simply not.

One near us is fine as you turn into it, but after a mile becomes little more than a track. a favourite spot for HGVs to become stuck

[Carlton green]

You seem to have mis-read my post which I think was number 12 in your list. If you re-read what I said I didn’t refer to the misguided soul who cycled on the motorway but rather complained at the lack of equal provision for cyclists. If we as a country can provide fast, level and direct routes for cars and lorries then we can and should treat cyclists equally and provide them with similar. I would like to see the balance between cars and cyclists redressed and feel that society took a wrong turn when we decided that roads (Motorways in particular) could allowably be so unsafe for cyclists that to avoid accidents cyclists needed excluding from them. Let’s be greener as a country, let’s get people cycling more and over longer distances, and let’s change the way in which cars and lorries are used.

I did say I was going to paraphrase the posts to annoy you...

I paraphrased you in that way precisely because you'd made no mention of the absolutely lunatic behaviour which this thread is about. I'm doing what you asked me to in your penultimate post to me: I'm putting people's comments into context. The context here is that this is a thread about a monumentally bad display of cycling, and to use this as a segway into a complaint about road infrastructure without the faintest acknowledgement of how bad that riding was, makes it look like you're defending it. You may not have intended this, but by paraphrasing the totality of what's been said, I'm hoping to illustrate to you that that's how it looks. Your points above are worthy of debate, but don't you think they'd be better raised in any thread other than this one?

Why you should think it OK to deliberately annoy another forum member is a mystery to me and IMHO pretty poor behaviour. My posts are civil and I see no reason why responses should be anything else.

I do not accept that my posts defend the action of any particular cyclist but if you choose to read them that way then that’s your choice. In subtle difference my post questions the acceptability of excluding forms of users from some roads. Though I don’t agree that a separate thread is needed I thank you for acknowledging that the points that I raised are worthy of debate; a start point for debate is on threads such as this where an event or topic is discussed both in both detail and in broader terms or context (I was looking at broader context and made that clear).

[reohn2]

Common sense is needed with the designers of SatNavs.........

Sense isn't always as common as we're led to believe as the cyclist in the OP illustrates

[reohn2]

My reading of the link in the OP is that the cyclist was an idiot pure and simple,to do what he did once was was idiocy to do it a second time was mad beyond belief anyone who thinks otherwise IMO is as daft as he is.
The van driver who swerved from lane 1 into lane 2 on the face of it was not paying good ipenough attention to road conditions.That said we don't really know all the circumstances of the crash he was involved in only that he swerved from one lane to the other
That's my interpretation of the article.

[Graham]

Enough !