Girl hits cyclist then jokes about it on Twitter.

Sorry not acceptable if motorists have to put up with driving on motorways at 70mph with sodding great potholes in. Use the surface that is provided for you, end of...
The surface that is provided for me is the one I'd use: the road.

And for the record, the pathway is in generally good condition and certainly no worse than the road.
Rare, very rare, both cycle paths and roads.
 
Sorry not acceptable if motorists have to put up with driving on motorways at 70mph with sodding great potholes in. Use the surface that is provided for you, end of...

And for the record, the pathway is in generally good condition and certainly no worse than the road.

Can you not understand how much of a difference road surfaces make to a light weight, 2 wheeled vehicle compared to you in your suspensioned 4 wheeled vehicle? It is extremely dangerous for cyclist to ride on uneven surfaces as they can cause sudden changes in direction and crashes due to loss of control.

The second part of your post is surely a troll?
 
Sorry not acceptable if motorists have to put up with driving on motorways at 70mph with sodding great potholes in. Use the surface that is provided for you, end of...

And for the record, the pathway is in generally good condition and certainly no worse than the road.

You said it had multiple junctions that cut across it on either side. So as mentioned, i suspect he wanted to avoid what i was pointing out - having to continually jump from the path to the road to the path again. It's generally deemed safer to stick to the road.

Either way, he is as entitled to be on the road as any car driver. I don't see what the problem is other than if the car driver has some kind of frustration/rage issue. As mentioned previously, the cyclist is visible and there is space to pass.
 
The surface that is provided for me is the one I'd use: the road.

Rare, very rare, both cycle paths and roads.

In this instance, the surface that is provided for the cyclists is the cycle path NOT the road. It is a busy dual carriageway that narrows to single lane on more than one occasion, has right hand turns across the carriageway in both directions as well as a lot of agricultural land around the area.

Your argument just doesn't wash by being stubborn in saying, the road is where I have a right to be so I am going to use it...
 
You said it had multiple junctions that cut across it on either side. So as mentioned, i suspect he wanted to avoid what i was pointing out - having to continually jump from the path to the road to the path again. It's generally deemed safer to stick to the road.

Either way, he is as entitled to be on the road as any car driver. I don't see what the problem is other than if the car driver has some kind of frustration/rage issue. As mentioned previously, the cyclist is visible and there is space to pass.

I take your point but they are junctions that can easily be navigated by a cyclist travelling the cycle path.
 
In this instance, the surface that is provided for the cyclists is the cycle path NOT the road. It is a busy dual carriageway that narrows to single lane on more than one occasion, has right hand turns across the carriageway in both directions as well as a lot of agricultural land around the area.

Your argument just doesn't wash by being stubborn in saying, the road is where I have a right to be so I am going to use it...

do you cycle?
 
In this instance, the surface that is provided for the cyclists is the cycle path NOT the road. It is a busy dual carriageway that narrows to single lane on more than one occasion, has right hand turns across the carriageway in both directions as well as a lot of agricultural land around the area.

Your argument just doesn't wash by being stubborn in saying, the road is where I have a right to be so I am going to use it...
I'm sorry that you don't find cyclists using the road acceptable, but thats the way it is. I'll be as courteous as is possible whilst using the roads, but the vast majority of cycle paths where I am at least are not safe.
 
And for the record, the pathway is in generally good condition and certainly no worse than the road.
Even in Cambridge, where much of the road infrastructure has been updated with cyclists in mind, the cycle paths provided are often not fit-for-purpose. In many cases, a cycle path is just a pavement that's had a line drawn down the middle of it, so it isn't safe to cycle along at any speed. There's no space for cyclists to pass each other, and pedestrians invariably don't know (or care) which side they're supposed to walk down. Dogs don't tend to respect the white line, and prams and buggies are generally wider than the pedestrian side of the path.

Add to that junctions that the cyclist has to cross rather than cycle past -- and in some cases, has to then join the road rather than the opposing pavement -- along with driveways and the hedges/fences that obscure them, bus stops, trees (and tree roots) and associated debris, and it turns out that it's much safer to cycle on the road where none of those dangers exist. I've seen more accidents involving cyclists on cycle paths than on the road.

The main benefit of having a cycle path is that cyclists who aren't confident won't find themselves riding down a busy road. For those of us that are confident in traffic (and also confident enough to plant ourselves in the middle of the lane if that's the safest place to be) cycle paths are an unsafe nuisance. Let people have the choice, but it is not and should not be mandatory to use a cycle path if one has been provided, if cycling on the road is the safer option.
 
I take your point but they are junctions that can easily be navigated by a cyclist travelling the cycle path.

Easily navigated you say, lets guess your idea of easily navigated.

1)Stop at junction
2)wait for gap in traffic
3)cross hoping someone doesn't turn while you cross
4)slowly build speed back up again.

Repeat this 10 times each day and you will soon prefer staying on the road as well.
 
I'm sorry that you don't find cyclists using the road acceptable, but thats the way it is. I'll be as courteous as is possible whilst using the roads, but the vast majority of cycle paths where I am at least are not safe.

Now I am afraid you have definitely mistaken what I posted. I have no issue with cyclists on the road at all, I cycle myself (granted not as much as I used to) but I take issue with someone cycling on a busy, dangerous dual carriageway when a cycle path is provided. It puts them in danger and drivers in a difficult situation which could be avoided.
 
Now I am afraid you have definitely mistaken what I posted. I have no issue with cyclists on the road at all, I cycle myself (granted not as much as I used to) but I take issue with someone cycling on a busy, dangerous dual carriageway when a cycle path is provided. It puts them in danger and drivers in a difficult situation which could be avoided.

id better cycle taking half the road than allow drivers to squeze past me inches away from my bars ;)

and cycle paths are always full of man hole covers, derbis and so on! they are FAR from safe.

no personal attacks and understand that you have and cyclists have the same right on the road, just because someone holds you up you can't go around spitting fumes at them.

the number of times drivers hold me up on my commute to work and back(20 miles central london) is crazy.. why don't they just fly? think of the kids.
 
id better cycle taking half the road than allow drivers to squeze past me inches away from my bars ;)

and cycle paths are always full of man hole covers, derbis and so on! they are FAR from safe.

stop being an ignorant tool and understand that you have and cyclists have the same right on the road, just because someone holds you up you can't go around spitting fumes at them.

the number of times drivers hold me up on my commute to work and back(20 miles central london) is crazy.. why don't they just fly? think of the kids.

I wish these drivers would get out of my way so I could cycle more quickly in the mornings. Always jamming up the roads! ;-)
 
Why would you go in front of the cars that just overtook you, just for them to have to overtake you again a few seconds later and potentially cause more hold ups/ cars having to go on the opposite side of the road.

It is bonkers.

Because lots of cars have a tendancy to run cyclists over when turning left...

If the cyclist is in front they can get away first before the car has a chance to turn into them.
 
Are people really using a rough surface as an excuse for not riding their bike there? Pretty sure as a kid i used to speed through wooded areas with ditches tree roots and rocks everywhere. What a bunch of man babies
 
Are people really using a rough surface as an excuse for not riding their bike there? Pretty sure as a kid i used to speed through wooded areas with ditches tree roots and rocks everywhere. What a bunch of man babies

On a road bike? Kudos. Personally I don't enjoy riding where there is regularly broken glass and people walk their dogs covering the whole path. Add that to the groups of people who think its nice to take up the whole path while they have a little chin wag.
 
Are people really using a rough surface as an excuse for not riding their bike there? Pretty sure as a kid i used to speed through wooded areas with ditches tree roots and rocks everywhere. What a bunch of man babies

You know the difference between a road bike/racing bike and a mountain bike/xc, right?
 
id better cycle taking half the road than allow drivers to squeze past me inches away from my bars ;)

and cycle paths are always full of man hole covers, derbis and so on! they are FAR from safe.

stop being an ignorant tool and understand that you have and cyclists have the same right on the road, just because someone holds you up you can't go around spitting fumes at them.

the number of times drivers hold me up on my commute to work and back(20 miles central london) is crazy.. why don't they just fly? think of the kids.

I don't think I am being a tool (as you so eloquently put it) at all, although perhaps labouring a point somewhat because I do not feel I should back down in a discussion (not argument) where cyclists have come back with the excuse that cycling on a dangerous dual carriageway is somehow more acceptable than having to cycle on a path that has been provided for them.

Adults can generally have a discussion without having to resort to the insults. Come now grudas surely you can step up to the place? :)

What do drivers do when they are presented with a surface that is in poor condition and of danger to their car? Slow down, that's what they do, so do it on your bike on YOUR cycle path.

I once again feel the need to stress that this is on particular roads I am talking about here, not roads in general. I have no problem with cyclists, I really don't.
 
On a road bike? Kudos. Personally I don't enjoy riding where there is regularly broken glass and people walk their dogs covering the whole path. Add that to the groups of people who think its nice to take up the whole path while they have a little chin wag.

But you would rather take on countless tonnes of metal on a daily basis? Go figure...
 
Back
Top Bottom