Cycling UK Forum

Ayesha wrote:They paved paradise and buried a journo clot.
With pink flowery willies, a Barbour and cycle tyre mark across her bot.

Did you mean:



Or were you casting Nasturtiums at her private life?

Horses can’t be ridden on it, because you can’t canter on tarmac.

The track is segregated with a natural grass track for horses and a firm track — made from recycled materials and Derbyshire limestone — for other users.

Can anyone think of anyway of reconciling these two statements (first form the author, second from the council), makes you wonder if she's actually been along the path since it was redeveloped. And it's bitmac not tarmac and this path is, apparently, neither

Cunobelin wrote:

Ayesha wrote:They paved paradise and buried a journo clot.
With pink flowery willies, a Barbour and cycle tyre mark across her bot.

Did you mean:



Or were you casting Nasturtiums at her private life?

I couldn't find a photo of a lady face down with a tyre mark across her bare buttocks.

reohn2 wrote:

PaulCumbria wrote:...........Why doesn't she just write a piece slagging off black people, gay people, poor people - we know that's what she'd like to do if she could get away with it...

Ah! well that would be against the law wouldn't it?

BTW,you missed out Gypsies

That's because they're apparently still fair game.

Ayesha wrote:

Cunobelin wrote:

Ayesha wrote:They paved paradise and buried a journo clot.
With pink flowery willies, a Barbour and cycle tyre mark across her bot.

Did you mean:



Or were you casting Nasturtiums at her private life?

I couldn't find a photo of a lady face down with a tyre mark across her bare buttocks.

I couldn't possibly confirm this being at work, but I bet it wouldn't take long with the right google terms.

karlt wrote:

reohn2 wrote:

PaulCumbria wrote:...........Why doesn't she just write a piece slagging off black people, gay people, poor people - we know that's what she'd like to do if she could get away with it...

Ah! well that would be against the law wouldn't it?

BTW,you missed out Gypsies

That's because they're apparently still fair game.

Like cyclists

PS, My post was a feeble attempt at black humour .

The comments section indicates that she's misjudged her audience somewhat. She's taken a bit of a beating, as have a few who attempted to support her.

I loved this one: "Err how is it "unspoilt countryside" if it used to be a RAILWAY LINE?!"

Succinct.

Time trials??? Not very believable. Strava maybe?

Who this woman? Read some of her other Spectator articles, and about her book
eg
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/a ... -KITE.html

says everything you need to know about who she is, and why this article is incorrect, biased and written by a complete snob.
Not even worth wrapping your chips with (if H & S and COSHH would let you)!

I have some sympathy for the writer of this article. I cycle in all three categories (trail, road, and leisure) using variously a Carbon fibre road bike with 23mm tyres, a hybrid, full sus-mountain bike and occasionally a tandem. Sometimes I use the sort of converted railway line /cycle path featured in the Spectator piece as a short cut home at the end of a big ride (usually to miss out a ghurt great big hill) and I do think it is a shame when these routes are tarmac'ed over completely.

The thought of holding time trials on them (if this is in fact happening) is downright inconsiderate but then I seriously fell out with my local cycle club by suggesting that holding time trials on dual carriage ways, even early on Sunday morning, was little short of lunacy so I have little sympathy with this genre of cyclist. (I am that much derided specimen a middle aged man in lycra but I definitely do not time trial).

We have a number of converted railway lines in Derbyshire which are covered with a sort of dense "hogging" (not tarmac), which is perfect for leisure and mountain cycling, walking and horse riding but less so for road bikes although the surface is still better than some of the roads round here if a bit sloppy in the wet. In all it is the perfect solution and much better than tarmac which destroys any sense of being "outdoors" for walkers and others not on two wheels. Despite this there is still friction between cyclists and walkers when the former fail to announce their presence or moderate their speed when approaching from behind. Road cyclists and those wishing to compete in time trials have the majority of Britain's roads to use do we need every footpath and bridle path covered with tarmac as well?

Harnell wrote:I have some sympathy for the writer of this article. I cycle in all three categories (trail, road, and leisure) using variously a Carbon fibre road bike with 23mm tyres, a hybrid, full sus-mountain bike and occasionally a tandem. Sometimes I use the sort of converted railway line /cycle path featured in the Spectator piece as a short cut home at the end of a big ride (usually to miss out a ghurt great big hill) and I do think it is a shame when these routes are tarmac'ed over completely.

The thought of holding time trials on them (if this is in fact happening) is downright inconsiderate but then I seriously fell out with my local cycle club by suggesting that holding time trials on dual carriage ways, even early on Sunday morning, was little short of lunacy so I have little sympathy with this genre of cyclist. (I am that much derided specimen a middle aged man in lycra but I definitely do not time trial).

We have a number of converted railway lines in Derbyshire which are covered with a sort of dense "hogging" (not tarmac), which is perfect for leisure and mountain cycling, walking and horse riding but less so for road bikes although the surface is still better than some of the roads round here if a bit sloppy in the wet. In all it is the perfect solution and much better than tarmac which destroys any sense of being "outdoors" for walkers and others not on two wheels. Despite this there is still friction between cyclists and walkers when the former fail to announce their presence or moderate their speed when approaching from behind. Road cyclists and those wishing to compete in time trials have the majority of Britain's roads to use do we need every footpath and bridle path covered with tarmac as well?

If you half tarmac it then guess which half the pedestrians favour - particularly if there has been some rain, or even dew

I think some of the wellie comments are a little OTT. If we are going to be grown up about this lets admit that some cyclists on shared paths can act in a selfish and inconsiderate manner. Sometimes it's the roadie who thinks 'if it's tarmac, it must be a road', sometimes its the 'Just-got-me-bike-out-of-the-shed-and-its-not-a-car-so-no-brain-required' type.( Actually these bug me the most. They generally ride towards you two abreast,chatting away, with a last minute swerve and panic brake when a collision is inevitable). Its all a matter of attitude; if you use a shared path you have to have the right head on (and in my case, helmet off). Smile, say 'No problem' when you have to stop for harrassed parents with wobbly toddlers, say 'thank you' to dog walkers who call in their dog out of your way. If your head's not in the right place, use the road. OK, I admit I am lucky to have the choice; lots of B roads as well as the trail.But as cyclists we generally do have a choice. Dog walkers and families dont, therefore, we are on their turf- they are not on ours.
We cannot excuse every action of every cyclist by claiming a perennial 'victim' status. Every pedestrian one cyclist manages to ***** off, is a lost cause that the rest of us will have to work harder to win back;whether they are a journalist or not.

^^^ Spot on!

the vicar wrote:I think some of the wellie comments are a little OTT. If we are going to be grown up about this lets admit that some cyclists on shared paths can act in a selfish and inconsiderate manner. Sometimes it's the roadie who thinks 'if it's tarmac, it must be a road', sometimes its the 'Just-got-me-bike-out-of-the-shed-and-its-not-a-car-so-no-brain-required' type.( Actually these bug me the most. They generally ride towards you two abreast,chatting away, with a last minute swerve and panic brake when a collision is inevitable). Its all a matter of attitude; if you use a shared path you have to have the right head on (and in my case, helmet off). Smile, say 'No problem' when you have to stop for harrassed parents with wobbly toddlers, say 'thank you' to dog walkers who call in their dog out of your way. If your head's not in the right place, use the road. OK, I admit I am lucky to have the choice; lots of B roads as well as the trail.But as cyclists we generally do have a choice. Dog walkers and families dont, therefore, we are on their turf- they are not on ours.
We cannot excuse every action of every cyclist by claiming a perennial 'victim' status. Every pedestrian one cyclist manages to ***** off, is a lost cause that the rest of us will have to work harder to win back;whether they are a journalist or not.

There should be no hierarchy at all, but reasonable shared use.

It is no-one's "turf", and anyone who claims or thinks that any single group has more "right" to use or act in an unsafe manner is being unhelpful to say the least.


Mind you we must be unique!

in our case (Bath Lane) the biggest hazard is the cricket club who think the cycle path is a place to put up their scoring tables, seat spectators and dump their bags!

Cunobelin wrote:
There should be no hierarchy at all, but reasonable shared use.

It is no-one's "turf", and anyone who claims or thinks that any single group has more "right" to use or act in an unsafe manner is being unhelpful to say the least.

I think it only fair to be considerate to walkers on shared paths,consideration means being prepared to give way,slow down and even stop for families and dog walkers,etc.This would be the same as a car driving through crowded town centres at a reasonable speed (I know this doesn't happen most of the time,but IMHO it should,cars should forced to slow to sub 20mph where appropriated)
I agree about "turf" TBH it's everyone's "turf" but in the presence of cyclists the pedestrian is the vulnerable road/path user and as such should be given priority.

Mind you we must be unique!

I think we as a group are,in that we're,to a greater or lesser extent despised at worst and unliked at best,by elements of every other type of road user.
We need to ask ourselves why that is,sometimes it's unfounded and sometimes justified.It's some cyclists actions that define that justification.
I can't help other road users prejudices or other cyclists bad cycling, but I can as a cyclist go some way to try to dispel them by being courteous and considerate to others.

in our case (Bath Lane) the biggest hazard is the cricket club who think the cycle path is a place to put up their scoring tables, seat spectators and dump their bags!

Incredible! that's got to be a case of reporting to either police or local council? If enough people complain they'd surely have to stop it.