A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Compulsory Motorways



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old December 30th 19, 09:04 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Jester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,727
Default Compulsory Motorways

On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 7:26:15 PM UTC, GB wrote:
On 30/12/2019 13:54, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 11:10:45 AM UTC, GB wrote:
On 29/12/2019 18:56, Simon Jester wrote:

You miss the point.
The motorist could have used the parallel motorway and there would have been no problem.



That must count as the daftest point of 2019. Perhaps he's not going
that way? Why should he be banned from a B road? Above all, you were the
one at risk, not him.

Thank you for proving my point. The subsidised road user chose to put paying road users at risk rather than using the motorway.


You're getting dafter the deeper you dig your hole. Can you explain the
car driver's choice here? How much signage had you put up explaining
that you and your mate would be cycling along this main road two abreast?

If you hadn't provided advance signage, then the only choice he could
make was when he came across you. At that point, he slowed down and
waited for an opportunity to pass you. You demonstrated greater faith in
the average motorist's common sense than I would have done.


The driver had the choice to use the motorway. My wife and myself had no choice.


Utter nonsense. You had a choice, unless you suffer from some weird
compulsion to cycle along that particular road. If so, you should seek
urgent medical help.

I doubt you are suffering from that, just some weird temporary
affliction that causes you to write nonsense arguments on Usenet.


Cyclists have a RIGHT to use that road, motorists are only there under licence.
We were not impeding the subsidised road user in any way even though the subsidised road user could have been on the motorway paid for by cyclists.
Ads
  #32  
Old December 30th 19, 09:11 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
jnugent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,574
Default Compulsory Motorways

On 30/12/2019 19:26, GB wrote:
On 30/12/2019 13:54, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 11:10:45 AM UTC, GB wrote:
On 29/12/2019 18:56, Simon Jester wrote:

You miss the point.
The motorist could have used the parallel motorway and there would
have been no problem.



That must count as the daftest point of 2019. Perhaps he's not going
that way? Why should he be banned from a B road? Above all, you
were the
one at risk, not him.

Thank you for proving my point. The subsidised road user chose to
put paying road users at risk rather than using the motorway.


You're getting dafter the deeper you dig your hole. Can you explain the
car driver's choice here? How much signage had you put up explaining
that you and your mate would be cycling along this main road two
abreast?

If you hadn't provided advance signage, then the only choice he could
make was when he came across you. At that point, he slowed down and
waited for an opportunity to pass you. You demonstrated greater faith in
the average motorist's common sense than I would have done.


The driver had the choice to use the motorway. My wife and myself had
no choice.


Utter nonsense. You had a choice, unless you suffer from some weird
compulsion to cycle along that particular road. If so, you should seek
urgent medical help.

I doubt you are suffering from that, just some weird temporary
affliction that causes you to write nonsense arguments on Usenet.


"temporary"?
  #33  
Old December 30th 19, 09:33 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,875
Default Compulsory Motorways

On 30/12/2019 19:30, GB wrote:
On 30/12/2019 13:17, TMS320 wrote:

Sorry, you're the one missing the point. Motorists tell cyclists to
use facilities provided (paid from their "road tax", whatever that
is), even if useless, dangerous or don't go where the cyclist wants to
go.


I clearly am missing that particular point, as it's nothing I've ever
done or would ever dream of doing.

I would obviously recommend that cyclists take reasonable precautions to
keep themselves as safe as reasonably possible, because there are some
pretty awful drivers around (me included).


That's a different matter to drivers demanding that cylists using the
roads perfectly legally should not be there.
  #34  
Old December 31st 19, 11:24 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
GB[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 151
Default Compulsory Motorways

On 30/12/2019 20:04, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 7:26:15 PM UTC, GB wrote:
On 30/12/2019 13:54, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 11:10:45 AM UTC, GB wrote:
On 29/12/2019 18:56, Simon Jester wrote:

You miss the point.
The motorist could have used the parallel motorway and there would have been no problem.



That must count as the daftest point of 2019. Perhaps he's not going
that way? Why should he be banned from a B road? Above all, you were the
one at risk, not him.

Thank you for proving my point. The subsidised road user chose to put paying road users at risk rather than using the motorway.


You're getting dafter the deeper you dig your hole. Can you explain the
car driver's choice here? How much signage had you put up explaining
that you and your mate would be cycling along this main road two abreast?

If you hadn't provided advance signage, then the only choice he could
make was when he came across you. At that point, he slowed down and
waited for an opportunity to pass you. You demonstrated greater faith in
the average motorist's common sense than I would have done.

The driver had the choice to use the motorway. My wife and myself had no choice.


Utter nonsense. You had a choice, unless you suffer from some weird
compulsion to cycle along that particular road. If so, you should seek
urgent medical help.

I doubt you are suffering from that, just some weird temporary
affliction that causes you to write nonsense arguments on Usenet.


Cyclists have a RIGHT to use that road, motorists are only there under licence.


So, both you and the motorists were lawfully using that road. No
argument there, then.


We were not impeding the subsidised road user in any way


Were they going in the opposite direction to you, then? If in the same
direction, then they must have caught you up and overtaken you.
Otherwise, there'd never have been any discussion. Unless it was you
doing the overtaking?

I'll just repeat that it seems rather dangerous for cyclists to ride two
abreast, and you might be better off adopting a different strategy. If
you impede other road users, some of them will get very impatient and
make dangerous attempts to pass you, putting themselves and other road
users at risk.


even though the subsidised road user could have been on the motorway paid for by cyclists.


Just as well that most of them were, or you'd have been choked by fumes
in the enormous traffic jam.

I can see that the mystery affliction has you firmly in its grip still.



  #35  
Old December 31st 19, 11:47 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling
TMS320
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,875
Default Compulsory Motorways

On 31/12/2019 10:24, GB wrote:
On 30/12/2019 20:04, Simon Jester wrote:


even though the subsidised road user could have been on the motorway
paid for by cyclists.


Just as well that most of them were, or you'd have been choked by fumes
in the enormous traffic jam.


That is a fairly normal state off affairs. Still complaining that the
traffic they are part of is somebody else's fault.

  #36  
Old December 31st 19, 02:53 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Jester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,727
Default Compulsory Motorways

On Tuesday, December 31, 2019 at 10:24:35 AM UTC, GB wrote:
On 30/12/2019 20:04, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 7:26:15 PM UTC, GB wrote:
On 30/12/2019 13:54, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 11:10:45 AM UTC, GB wrote:
On 29/12/2019 18:56, Simon Jester wrote:

You miss the point.
The motorist could have used the parallel motorway and there would have been no problem.



That must count as the daftest point of 2019. Perhaps he's not going
that way? Why should he be banned from a B road? Above all, you were the
one at risk, not him.

Thank you for proving my point. The subsidised road user chose to put paying road users at risk rather than using the motorway.


You're getting dafter the deeper you dig your hole. Can you explain the
car driver's choice here? How much signage had you put up explaining
that you and your mate would be cycling along this main road two abreast?

If you hadn't provided advance signage, then the only choice he could
make was when he came across you. At that point, he slowed down and
waited for an opportunity to pass you. You demonstrated greater faith in
the average motorist's common sense than I would have done.

The driver had the choice to use the motorway. My wife and myself had no choice.


Utter nonsense. You had a choice, unless you suffer from some weird
compulsion to cycle along that particular road. If so, you should seek
urgent medical help.

I doubt you are suffering from that, just some weird temporary
affliction that causes you to write nonsense arguments on Usenet.


Cyclists have a RIGHT to use that road, motorists are only there under licence.


So, both you and the motorists were lawfully using that road. No
argument there, then.


The difference is we had a RIGHT to use than road, the motorist was only there under licence and should have been on the motorway paid for by cyclists.



We were not impeding the subsidised road user in any way


Were they going in the opposite direction to you, then? If in the same
direction, then they must have caught you up and overtaken you.
Otherwise, there'd never have been any discussion. Unless it was you
doing the overtaking?


The road paid for by cyclists was straight and clear. The subsidised road user chose to endanger our lives by using his vehicle as a weapon.


I'll just repeat that it seems rather dangerous for cyclists to ride two
abreast, and you might be better off adopting a different strategy. If
you impede other road users, some of them will get very impatient and
make dangerous attempts to pass you, putting themselves and other road
users at risk.


All the danger was brought to the situation by the subsidised road user.



even though the subsidised road user could have been on the motorway paid for by cyclists.


Just as well that most of them were, or you'd have been choked by fumes
in the enormous traffic jam.

I can see that the mystery affliction has you firmly in its grip still.


I have nothing against cars I just object to 'The roads are for cars' mindset.

  #37  
Old December 31st 19, 03:39 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
GB[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 151
Default Compulsory Motorways


All the danger was brought to the situation by the subsidised road user.


And I can assure you that the motorist would suffer none of the damage.
It's a bit like William Tell's son insisting that it's his right to jump
up and down with the apple on his head.

  #38  
Old December 31st 19, 06:01 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Jester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,727
Default Compulsory Motorways

On Tuesday, December 31, 2019 at 2:39:26 PM UTC, GB wrote:
All the danger was brought to the situation by the subsidised road user.


And I can assure you that the motorist would suffer none of the damage.
It's a bit like William Tell's son insisting that it's his right to jump
up and down with the apple on his head.


In 1 percent of collisions between a subsidised vehicle and a pedestrian the occupier of the motor vehicle dies. I suggest you do some research before posting in future.
  #39  
Old December 31st 19, 06:19 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Mr Pounder Esquire
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,896
Default Compulsory Motorways

Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, December 31, 2019 at 2:39:26 PM UTC, GB wrote:
All the danger was brought to the situation by the subsidised road
user.


And I can assure you that the motorist would suffer none of the
damage. It's a bit like William Tell's son insisting that it's his
right to jump up and down with the apple on his head.


In 1 percent of collisions between a subsidised vehicle and a
pedestrian the occupier of the motor vehicle dies. I suggest you do
some research before posting in future.


GB I suspect was referring to this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcfykK8Iw7w
But you are too stupid to understand.
I suggest that you think before you post.



  #40  
Old December 31st 19, 08:36 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Simon Jester
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,727
Default Compulsory Motorways

On Tuesday, December 31, 2019 at 5:19:47 PM UTC, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, December 31, 2019 at 2:39:26 PM UTC, GB wrote:
All the danger was brought to the situation by the subsidised road
user.

And I can assure you that the motorist would suffer none of the
damage. It's a bit like William Tell's son insisting that it's his
right to jump up and down with the apple on his head.


In 1 percent of collisions between a subsidised vehicle and a
pedestrian the occupier of the motor vehicle dies. I suggest you do
some research before posting in future.


GB I suspect was referring to this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcfykK8Iw7w
But you are too stupid to understand.
I suggest that you think before you post.


Where was the cyclist?
This is a cycling group.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cyclists should not try to ride across motorways Mrcheerful UK 0 July 29th 14 03:53 PM
Cycling on motorways Judith[_15_] UK 4 March 7th 14 04:36 PM
2 second rule on motorways Mr. Bean UK 100 March 21st 12 03:17 PM
[OT] Pathetic motorways Zog The Undeniable UK 17 February 6th 05 05:42 PM
Cyclists, motorways and pseudomotorways Epetruk UK 111 January 18th 05 05:11 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.