eh?
wrapped in leather and armor that can survive triple digit speed slides is a damn sight more protected than some crotch hugging Lycra.
UK an offended nation
- Thread starter Brutal biff
- Start date
eh?
wrapped in leather and armor that can survive triple digit speed slides is a damn sight more protected than some crotch hugging Lycra.
A lot of the "offence" is down to the media ramping up a situation that is trivial in most cases, not all but most.
Dailymail ramps up the offence line a lot which in turn gets people on to their site to post comments under the stories, which in turn drives more traffic to the site which advertisers pay money for.
It's all about money...
Dailymail ramps up the offence line a lot which in turn gets people on to their site to post comments under the stories, which in turn drives more traffic to the site which advertisers pay money for.
It's all about money...
Jesus wept I am offended it took 104 posts to get this video up!
He says 'Thankyou' and people laugh... what the?
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
Nope, should be on the road unless the pavement has a dedicated cycle path or share used designation.
I don't get cyclists who use the pavement. It is too slow, what with all the other users and crossing junctions. The roads are safe enough if you cycle defensively and pay attention and predict what road users are going to do.
Spot on, Gilly.
Everybody knows that Lycra is the hardest substance know to man and protects cyclists from all damage.
It's also the most offensive.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
It has its uses, for cycle races and the like. I have no idea why Joe Bloggs needs to wear full Sky Cycling Team replica kit on his way to work though.
I'm primarily a mountain biker for fun (I commute on a road bike) so baggy shorts and tops are much more preferable.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,671
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
You have a point and something I would agree to, in fact I said something similar above.
However I already have a driving license which covers me for other forms of transport.
Mine is also my original one from 1975.
If you could predict what other road users are going to do there would be no accidents addendum for Tefal: involving other road users..(I really didn't think it needed clarifying but obviously it did).
As is evidenced by the regular cyclist bashing threads on this forum, elsewhere and the wider lack of understanding in the media, until attitudes change, there won't be the will to change the infrastructure, which is what is needed.
Last edited:
i would like to see cycalists have some form of insurance as mandatory though.
maybe say under 18 you can ride of pavements and not need insurance, over 18 you must ride on the road and have insurance.
i say this as a motorcyclist as a cyclist being an idiot to a car results in some dents or scratches it can result in loss of limb/life and a totaled motorcycle for us and no chance to recoup the losses realistically.
maybe say under 18 you can ride of pavements and not need insurance, over 18 you must ride on the road and have insurance.
i say this as a motorcyclist as a cyclist being an idiot to a car results in some dents or scratches it can result in loss of limb/life and a totaled motorcycle for us and no chance to recoup the losses realistically.
So you should, they're not supposed to do that and can be fined for it.
Last edited:
Majority? Lets see some proof for your sweeping, and idiotic, statement.
well that's just utter ******** for cars and bicycles.
or did all those crashes into parked cars, patches of black ice and momentary losses of concentration happen because of another road user?
Perhaps we should just go the whole hog and require every person to have public liability/3rd person insurance, regardless of what activities they may or may not do.
Jesus way to take my post out of context. Let me edit it for you so you can untwist your panties.
oh if we're going to absolutes why not remove the requirement for cars to be insured?
You may think this an 'out there' off the wall suggestion, but I have felt this way since I understood that having at least 3rd party for driving was mandatory.
It just feels to me that we've in someway failed as a society if it is required. Couldn't explain to you why either, it would just make me uncomfortable.
The bottom line is that there are different kinds of road users. And instead of trying to change peoples attitudes to realise that human lives are at stake, the same old reciprocal crap gets spouted over and over and over. It shouldn't matter what type of road user it is, the concern should be peoples attitudes towards them, and the infrastructure on which they reside. Sure we'd all love separate infrastructure but we can neither afford it nor is it practical in many places. So instead of getting upset and in some cases downright unpleasant and vitriolic, why can people not just look out for each other?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
I agree attitudes must change. This thread says they aren't though.
As for 'predicting' it is like a sixth sense that long term cyclists get. Like the morning when I knew a car was going to ignore me and turn in front of me despite my bright orange top, lights, defensive road position (and all that)