Drivers "scared" by so many cyclists on a Sunday

On Monday, 19 October 2015 23:23:07 UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
The "disruption" that some
people in Surrey complain about is a matter of opinion. (It's highly
unlikely that any bicycle riders think that a jaunt along the A3 is an
entertaining way to pass the time.) We were in that area today and compared
to the disruption we actually encountered on secondary roads, the effect of
a group of cyclists doing 15mph would have been inconsequential.

Odd that these moaners will tolerate any DAILY disruption to their journeys on the M25 et al JUST so long as it is caused by a multitude of single people in tin boxes pumping out deadly fumes.

They will happily sit in that lot all day long, just so long as they see no cyclists involved.

"JNugent" wrote
On 19/10/2015 23:22, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 19/10/2015 13:29, Bod wrote:
On 19/10/2015 13:15, JNugent wrote:
On 19/10/2015 10:26, Bod wrote:
On 19/10/2015 10:10, Bod wrote:
On 18/10/2015 22:36, David Lang wrote:
On 18/10/2015 22:26, Alycidon wrote:

QUOTE:
"One Surrey resident referred to a rapid growth in cycling
"overtaking" the roads on Sundays, with driving very difficult. He
said some residents are too scared to drive on Sundays because the
roads are so packed with people on bikes."
http://road.cc/content/news/169205-n...a-wearers-dull

Good job cycling has declined drastically since 1948.

It's obvious to everyone except you, that in 1948 very few people
could
afford cars, the main mode of transport was either horses or
bicycles
for the common man.

So is today's general level of affluence higher or lower than it was
in
1948?

Most definitely, especially as you consider that rationing was still
being used for food etc. Very few could afford a TV, only the fairly
well off could afford a car. A telephone was regarded as a luxury.
I was born in 1948 and my parents couldn't afford a tv or a phone
untill I was about 13 yrs old. A car was simply out of the question.
I remember most other residents in our street being in a similar
situation.

Same here.

Somewhere, I have a photograph of my first motor vehicle (when I was 19,
I
think). It's the only one in the terraced street (where today, I can't
easily find a parking space when I visit).

But given this increase in affluence, which is the more likely to
continue
to grow, cycling or driving? You have identified affluence as the
counter-indicator for cycling.

And as an aside, isn't this a side-issue where Surrey is concerned?

After all, the "growth" in cycling there is not the result of an
increase
in cycling generally, but stems from a fad for cycling along the route
of
some fairly recent "sporting" occasion, irrespective of the disruption
it
causes to local residents.

Well yes, it is a leisure activity but it is still a bicycle journey.
Riding
round a loop can't be considered to be any different to a car journey to
one
of south Surrey's popular leafy stops. The "disruption" that some
people in Surrey complain about is a matter of opinion.

Correct.

*Their* opinion.

Does anyone else's matter?

It depends on how much attention is given to "vociferous minorities". You
seem worried that the opinion of one cyclist will lead to far reaching
changes - "how nice it would be to cycle in town without diesel engines".

(It's highly
unlikely that any bicycle riders think that a jaunt along the A3 is an
entertaining way to pass the time.) We were in that area today and
compared
to the disruption we actually encountered on secondary roads, the effect
of
a group of cyclists doing 15mph would have been inconsequential.

I can't accept that there would be this outcry if the "leisure cycling"
was not having a deleterious effect.

Imprisoned in their own homes? Ridiculous.

On Tuesday, 20 October 2015 08:28:48 UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:


Imprisoned in their own homes? Ridiculous.

Especially as cyclists are supposed to be such an "insignificant" minority. How can that tally with these vast hordes of people bringing a whole county to a standstill every Sunday? Why is this cataclysmic event never on the news or travel reports?

Possibly as it only exists in the fevered imagination of the Colonel Blimps of this world.

On 20/10/2015 08:28, TMS320 wrote:

"JNugent" wrote
On 19/10/2015 23:22, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 19/10/2015 13:29, Bod wrote:
On 19/10/2015 13:15, JNugent wrote:
On 19/10/2015 10:26, Bod wrote:
On 19/10/2015 10:10, Bod wrote:
On 18/10/2015 22:36, David Lang wrote:
On 18/10/2015 22:26, Alycidon wrote:

QUOTE:
"One Surrey resident referred to a rapid growth in cycling
"overtaking" the roads on Sundays, with driving very difficult. He
said some residents are too scared to drive on Sundays because the
roads are so packed with people on bikes."
http://road.cc/content/news/169205-n...a-wearers-dull

Good job cycling has declined drastically since 1948.

It's obvious to everyone except you, that in 1948 very few people
could afford cars, the main mode of transport was either horses or
bicycles for the common man.

So is today's general level of affluence higher or lower than it was
in 1948?

Most definitely, especially as you consider that rationing was still
being used for food etc. Very few could afford a TV, only the fairly
well off could afford a car. A telephone was regarded as a luxury.
I was born in 1948 and my parents couldn't afford a tv or a phone
untill I was about 13 yrs old. A car was simply out of the question.
I remember most other residents in our street being in a similar
situation.

Same here.
Somewhere, I have a photograph of my first motor vehicle (when I was 19,
I think). It's the only one in the terraced street (where today, I can't
easily find a parking space when I visit).
But given this increase in affluence, which is the more likely to
continue to grow, cycling or driving? You have identified affluence
as the counter-indicator for cycling.
And as an aside, isn't this a side-issue where Surrey is concerned?
After all, the "growth" in cycling there is not the result of an
increase in cycling generally, but stems from a fad for cycling along
the route of some fairly recent "sporting" occasion, irrespective of
the disruption it causes to local residents.

Well yes, it is a leisure activity but it is still a bicycle journey.
Riding round a loop can't be considered to be any different to a car
journey to one of south Surrey's popular leafy stops. The "disruption"
that some people in Surrey complain about is a matter of opinion.

Correct.
*Their* opinion.
Does anyone else's matter?

It depends on how much attention is given to "vociferous minorities". You
seem worried that the opinion of one cyclist will lead to far reaching
changes - "how nice it would be to cycle in town without diesel engines".

You're avoiding the question.

Whose opinion on over-use of lanes in Surrey matters more than those of
Surrey's residents?

(It's highly
unlikely that any bicycle riders think that a jaunt along the A3 is an
entertaining way to pass the time.) We were in that area today and
compared to the disruption we actually encountered on secondary roads,
the effect of a group of cyclists doing 15mph would have been inconsequential.

I can't accept that there would be this outcry if the "leisure cycling"
was not having a deleterious effect.

And I didn't comment on your last paragraph above (..."it's highly
unlikely that any...") because it was relevance-free.

Imprisoned in their own homes? Ridiculous.

It might be if anyone had said it.

Feel free to search for it above in this series of exchanges. But don't
hold your breath.

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 20/10/2015 08:28, TMS320 wrote:

"JNugent" wrote
On 19/10/2015 23:22, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 19/10/2015 13:29, Bod wrote:
On 19/10/2015 13:15, JNugent wrote:
On 19/10/2015 10:26, Bod wrote:
On 19/10/2015 10:10, Bod wrote:
On 18/10/2015 22:36, David Lang wrote:
On 18/10/2015 22:26, Alycidon wrote:

QUOTE:
"One Surrey resident referred to a rapid growth in cycling
"overtaking" the roads on Sundays, with driving very difficult.
He
said some residents are too scared to drive on Sundays because
the
roads are so packed with people on bikes."
http://road.cc/content/news/169205-n...a-wearers-dull

Good job cycling has declined drastically since 1948.

It's obvious to everyone except you, that in 1948 very few people
could afford cars, the main mode of transport was either horses or
bicycles for the common man.

So is today's general level of affluence higher or lower than it was
in 1948?

Most definitely, especially as you consider that rationing was still
being used for food etc. Very few could afford a TV, only the fairly
well off could afford a car. A telephone was regarded as a luxury.
I was born in 1948 and my parents couldn't afford a tv or a phone
untill I was about 13 yrs old. A car was simply out of the question.
I remember most other residents in our street being in a similar
situation.

Same here.
Somewhere, I have a photograph of my first motor vehicle (when I was
19,
I think). It's the only one in the terraced street (where today, I
can't
easily find a parking space when I visit).
But given this increase in affluence, which is the more likely to
continue to grow, cycling or driving? You have identified affluence
as the counter-indicator for cycling.
And as an aside, isn't this a side-issue where Surrey is concerned?
After all, the "growth" in cycling there is not the result of an
increase in cycling generally, but stems from a fad for cycling along
the route of some fairly recent "sporting" occasion, irrespective of
the disruption it causes to local residents.

Well yes, it is a leisure activity but it is still a bicycle journey.
Riding round a loop can't be considered to be any different to a car
journey to one of south Surrey's popular leafy stops. The "disruption"
that some people in Surrey complain about is a matter of opinion.

Correct.
*Their* opinion.
Does anyone else's matter?

It depends on how much attention is given to "vociferous minorities". You
seem worried that the opinion of one cyclist will lead to far reaching
changes - "how nice it would be to cycle in town without diesel engines".

You're avoiding the question.

Whose opinion on over-use of lanes in Surrey matters more than those of
Surrey's residents?

A lot of those cyclists will be Surrey residents.

(It's highly
unlikely that any bicycle riders think that a jaunt along the A3 is an
entertaining way to pass the time.) We were in that area today and
compared to the disruption we actually encountered on secondary roads,
the effect of a group of cyclists doing 15mph would have been
inconsequential.

I can't accept that there would be this outcry if the "leisure cycling"
was not having a deleterious effect.

And I didn't comment on your last paragraph above (..."it's highly
unlikely that any...") because it was relevance-free.

No comment needed; some people just need reminding of the fact.

Imprisoned in their own homes? Ridiculous.

It might be if anyone had said it.

Feel free to search for it above in this series of exchanges. But don't
hold your breath.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/activ...on-wheels.html

"I am not allowed out of my front door. It's a cul-de-sac. I can't go
anywhere by car," says Mr Huggins, who lives in Esher and runs a
clay-pigeon-shooting school at weekends."

On 20/10/2015 11:24, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 20/10/2015 08:28, TMS320 wrote:

"JNugent" wrote
On 19/10/2015 23:22, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 19/10/2015 13:29, Bod wrote:
On 19/10/2015 13:15, JNugent wrote:
On 19/10/2015 10:26, Bod wrote:
On 19/10/2015 10:10, Bod wrote:
On 18/10/2015 22:36, David Lang wrote:
On 18/10/2015 22:26, Alycidon wrote:

QUOTE:
"One Surrey resident referred to a rapid growth in cycling
"overtaking" the roads on Sundays, with driving very difficult.
He
said some residents are too scared to drive on Sundays because
the
roads are so packed with people on bikes."
http://road.cc/content/news/169205-n...a-wearers-dull

Good job cycling has declined drastically since 1948.

It's obvious to everyone except you, that in 1948 very few people
could afford cars, the main mode of transport was either horses or
bicycles for the common man.

So is today's general level of affluence higher or lower than it was
in 1948?

Most definitely, especially as you consider that rationing was still
being used for food etc. Very few could afford a TV, only the fairly
well off could afford a car. A telephone was regarded as a luxury.
I was born in 1948 and my parents couldn't afford a tv or a phone
untill I was about 13 yrs old. A car was simply out of the question.
I remember most other residents in our street being in a similar
situation.

Same here.
Somewhere, I have a photograph of my first motor vehicle (when I was
19,
I think). It's the only one in the terraced street (where today, I
can't
easily find a parking space when I visit).
But given this increase in affluence, which is the more likely to
continue to grow, cycling or driving? You have identified affluence
as the counter-indicator for cycling.
And as an aside, isn't this a side-issue where Surrey is concerned?
After all, the "growth" in cycling there is not the result of an
increase in cycling generally, but stems from a fad for cycling along
the route of some fairly recent "sporting" occasion, irrespective of
the disruption it causes to local residents.

Well yes, it is a leisure activity but it is still a bicycle journey.
Riding round a loop can't be considered to be any different to a car
journey to one of south Surrey's popular leafy stops. The "disruption"
that some people in Surrey complain about is a matter of opinion.

Correct.
*Their* opinion.
Does anyone else's matter?

It depends on how much attention is given to "vociferous minorities". You
seem worried that the opinion of one cyclist will lead to far reaching
changes - "how nice it would be to cycle in town without diesel engines".

You're avoiding the question.

Whose opinion on over-use of lanes in Surrey matters more than those of
Surrey's residents?

A lot of those cyclists will be Surrey residents.

That is not at all obvious.

(It's highly
unlikely that any bicycle riders think that a jaunt along the A3 is an
entertaining way to pass the time.) We were in that area today and
compared to the disruption we actually encountered on secondary roads,
the effect of a group of cyclists doing 15mph would have been
inconsequential.

I can't accept that there would be this outcry if the "leisure cycling"
was not having a deleterious effect.

And I didn't comment on your last paragraph above (..."it's highly
unlikely that any...") because it was relevance-free.

No comment needed; some people just need reminding of the fact.

Imprisoned in their own homes? Ridiculous.

It might be if anyone had said it.
Feel free to search for it above in this series of exchanges. But don't
hold your breath.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/activ...on-wheels.html

"I am not allowed out of my front door. It's a cul-de-sac. I can't go
anywhere by car," says Mr Huggins, who lives in Esher and runs a
clay-pigeon-shooting school at weekends."

I hope you're not still holding your breath.

"JNugent" wrote
On 20/10/2015 11:24, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 20/10/2015 08:28, TMS320 wrote:

Whose opinion on over-use of lanes in Surrey matters more than those of
Surrey's residents?

A lot of those cyclists will be Surrey residents.

That is not at all obvious...

....because considerably-richer-than-yow bicycle owners never ride within 50
miles of their house?

It is no more obvious that the whingers are Surrey residents. The petition
"Stop Surrey being turned into a cycle track" was raised by Ian Huggins
from... London.

Imprisoned in their own homes? Ridiculous.

It might be if anyone had said it.
Feel free to search for it above in this series of exchanges. But don't
hold your breath.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/activ...on-wheels.html

"I am not allowed out of my front door. It's a cul-de-sac. I can't go
anywhere by car," says Mr Huggins, who lives in Esher and runs a
clay-pigeon-shooting school at weekends."

I hope you're not still holding your breath.

There is no need.

On 20/10/2015 11:37, David Hume wrote:

"TMS320" writes:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/activ...on-wheels.html

"I am not allowed out of my front door. It's a cul-de-sac. I can't go
anywhere by car," says Mr Huggins, who lives in Esher and runs a
clay-pigeon-shooting school at weekends."
"But these roads are dangerous, with 60mph speed limits and blind
corners. I’m terrified there’s going to be an accident.�

Haha.

You find traffic danger amusing, do you?

How could you drive a car if you were terrified of accidents?

He didn't say he was terrified of an accident.

He said he was terrified that there was going to be an accident.

The accident he feared would not necessarily involve him.

Do you always have that much difficulty with English?

They
happen all the time. So this woman must have been in quite a hurry to
get to her steak and ale pie if she overtook three cycles side by side
on such a dangerous road.

What woman?

What steak and ale pie?

Why would three cyclists travel abreast except to obstruct the highway?

You can answer those questions in any order you like.

On 20/10/2015 13:30, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 20/10/2015 11:24, TMS320 wrote:
"JNugent" wrote
On 20/10/2015 08:28, TMS320 wrote:

Whose opinion on over-use of lanes in Surrey matters more than those of
Surrey's residents?

A lot of those cyclists will be Surrey residents.

That is not at all obvious...

...because considerably-richer-than-yow bicycle owners never ride within 50
miles of their house?

Your claim was "a lot".

You have no way of demonstrating its truth.

It is no more obvious that the whingers are Surrey residents.

Well... except it clearly *is* obvious that they are residents.

They say so.

Why on Earth did you say they weren't?

The petition
"Stop Surrey being turned into a cycle track" was raised by Ian Huggins
from... London.

He sounds a very public-spirited person.

He surely must have some connection with the area in question, though,
even if it's just an acquaintance (or family relationship) with someone
who is affected.

Imprisoned in their own homes? Ridiculous.

It might be if anyone had said it.
Feel free to search for it above in this series of exchanges. But don't
hold your breath.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/activ...on-wheels.html
"I am not allowed out of my front door. It's a cul-de-sac. I can't go
anywhere by car," says Mr Huggins, who lives in Esher and runs a
clay-pigeon-shooting school at weekends."

I hope you're not still holding your breath.

There is no need.

Quite so.

The more so since you will not be able to find any reference to
"imprisoned in their own homes".

On Tuesday, 20 October 2015 11:24:17 UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:


"I am not allowed out of my front door. It's a cul-de-sac. I can't go
anywhere by car," says Mr Huggins, who lives in Esher and runs a
clay-pigeon-shooting school at weekends."

Huggins is a 70 year old NIMBY who started his "petition" way back on 31JUL13 in a futile attempt to stop the RideLondon-Surrey cycling event.

So far, after TWO YEARS AND THREE MONTHS, his "petition" has reached the dizzying heights of 3724 - still 1276 short of his target of 5000.

The text is full of errors and "sky falling in" paranoia.

https://www.change.org/p/surrey-coun...share_petition