Cyclists on a Backroad

hoodwinked · 08-04-2013 02:34PM

94tgdmxj6s370p wrote: »

a cyclist doing 50kmh is akin to a car driver doing 150kmh+ - reckless and dangerous in the extreme - no excuses. Unbelievably some here try to justify it:rolleyes:

depends on the situation, if they are on a 50km/h speed road, like a back road, that speed is just fine, if its a 50km/h road in a city with schools/people/traffic....then it is dangerous as they may need to stop suddenly but won't have the brake power to do so like a car at that speed would. (plus they could go over the handlebars where thats not so much going to happen in car)...

Sauve · 08-04-2013 02:35PM

94tgdmxj6s370p wrote: »

a cyclist doing 50kmh is akin to a car driver doing 150kmh+ - reckless and dangerous in the extreme - no excuses.

Link to evidence of your ridiculous claim please?

hoodwinked · 08-04-2013 02:35PM

Sauve wrote: »

The same as a car would, what else? brake like fcuk.

yeah but a car would have an easier breaking time, therefore the cyclist should realistically slow down...

The Bishop Basher · 08-04-2013 02:35PM

Seaneh wrote: »

Not if people obey the rules of the ****ing road, he's not.

Stop talking nonsense.

Nonsense how ?

Icyseanfitz claims cyclists don't need licenses because bikes can't cause any damage and yet a couple posts later he's talking about swerving into traffic at 50kmh causing an accident. Which is it ?

And I also used the word potential. If you don't see yourself as having the potential for causing or being involved in a collision you probably shouldn't be on the road. The worst drivers of them all are the ones that think they're invincible.

kylith · 08-04-2013 02:37PM

Sauve wrote: »

The same as a car would, what else? brake like fcuk.

Or do what a motorist can't do; drop the bike.

thebullkf · 08-04-2013 02:40PM

Swanner wrote: »

No point trying to reason with cyclists on boards. Their arrogance and self righteousness coupled with their hatred and intolerance of other road users blinds them from seeing any form of reason in these debates.

A quick trip to the cycling forum will show you how they talk about their bikes and related matters as if they were talking about cars. I have no doubt that many of them own cars, but you could be forgiven for concluding that many of them are closet frustrated motorists and would own a car if they could.

They demand all the rights of motorists but dare mention tax, insurance, licensing or competency tests and you'll be hit with a barrage of abuse and farcical reasons why they should be exempt.

They will continue to travel in significant numbers especially while on their "sportifs" which is just a fancy word to help them flout the law, and hog the road as they see fit because "they can" and "they have a right to".

The comments in this thread are a indicative of the mindset and it's no wonder motorists grow more and more impatient and weary when listening to this tripe.

A bit of courtesy and cop on would go a long way on all sides but every time i read one of these threads, my disdain for the attitude demonstrated by cyclists and as a result for cyclists themselves, grows that little bit more.

this.

Sauve · 08-04-2013 02:40PM

kylith wrote: »

Or do what a motorist can't do; drop the bike.

Or ditch it

Skin grows back, 3 grand of carbon doesn't

Technoprisoner · 08-04-2013 02:42PM

ahh yes....the famous MAMIL's (middle aged men in lycra)

seriously though...can they not cycle in normal clothing?

Seaneh · 08-04-2013 02:42PM

Swanner wrote: »

Nonsense how ?

Icyseanfitz claims cyclists don't need licenses because bikes can't cause any damage and yet a couple posts later he's talking about swerving into traffic at 50kmh causing an accident. Which is it ?

That, obviously, would be a car causeing damade, by driving dangerously and causing an accident.

Have you no brain at all?

seamus · 08-04-2013 02:45PM

Technoprisoner wrote: »

ahh yes....the famous MAMIL's (middle aged men in lycra)

seriously though...can they not cycle in normal clothing?

No. Try playing a game of soccer in jeans and an aran sweater and you'll understand why cyclists wear funny clothes.

Swanner wrote: »

CI should make you their PR guru. While they're at it, they should hire you to teach these simple acts of courtesy to everyone in the cycling fraternity. Your non combative and unself righteous attitude is a breath of fresh air and if all cyclists and motorists adopted your approach, the roads would be a lot happier, a lot more efficient, and most importantly, a lot safer for everyone.

http://i.qkme.me/35so6h.jpg

glic71rods46t0 · 08-04-2013 02:47PM

Sauve wrote: »

Link to evidence of your ridiculous claim please?

Quit with the attitude sister - go look up studies of safe cycling speeds yourself. Only the severely retarded would think 50kmh is a safe cycling speed while interacting with other road users - grow a brain!

mod: banned

Technoprisoner · 08-04-2013 02:49PM

seamus wrote: »

No. Try playing a game of soccer in jeans and an aran sweater and you'll understand why cyclists wear funny clothes.

who said anything about aran sweaters? whats wrong with shorts and tshirt

seamus · 08-04-2013 02:52PM

Technoprisoner wrote: »

who said anything about aran sweaters? whats wrong with shorts and tshirt

Too much wind resistance. Too much chafing. Tshirts get all soggy and stick to you. Then you get cold. Seriously, even soccer players wouldn't wear a tshirt, they wear special clothes too.

It's not that cyclists think they don't look silly, it's that they don't care.

Sauve · 08-04-2013 02:52PM

94tgdmxj6s370p wrote: »

Quit with the attitude sister - go look up studies of safe cycling speeds yourself. Only the severely retarded would think 50kmh is a safe cycling speed while interacting with other road users - grow a brain!

Less of the personal attacks, yeah?
Thanks hon

Knasher · 08-04-2013 02:56PM

hoodwinked wrote: »

the south and the west?

we're a very angry people....lots to be angry about....lots of cyclists take the piss on our backroads

I'm in the city center and on the north side, so you won't see too much of me in the south and the west.

But I (and most cyclists in the city) make an effort to be courteous to other road users. The roads I take to work each morning are narrow and so generally motorists drive faster than me for a short distance before stopping and pulling in to let oncoming traffic pass. If I cycled discourteously I could occupy a position in the road that would stop other traffic from overtaking, allowing me to maintain a constant speed (I wouldn't affect oncoming traffic as the road is wide enough for me to pass that), get to work much quicker and with a lot less effort on my part. Instead I occupy a place close to the kerb, as does every other cyclist I pass in the morning, and then generally spend most of my journey slowed or stopped by traffic that has overtaken me during one of their short spurts of speed. I would also be a little safer as I often encounter motorists who overtake me and then immediately stop in front of me forcing me to break sharply.

When I do cycle in a way that might seem discourteous to motorists, like stopping them from overtaking me, it is for a damn good reason. For example some of my route is quite steep so during wet conditions when I'm going down it I like to leave myself a good bit of stopping room from the cars in front of me. If I were to cycle on the kerb then a motorist would overtake me into that room I've left for stopping. Or there is a hill with a sharp blind right turn, and if I cycle on the kerb then there are motorists who would attempt to overtake and possibly be forced into me by oncoming traffic.

I cycle every day being courteous to motorists, even though it inconveniences me to do so.

ThisRegard · 08-04-2013 02:57PM

Technoprisoner wrote: »

ahh yes....the famous MAMIL's (middle aged men in lycra)

Seriously though, a bit of originality would be nice too.

dr.bollocko · 08-04-2013 02:58PM

Fencer banned.

Sauve · 08-04-2013 02:59PM

seamus wrote: »

It's not that cyclists think they don't look silly, it's that they don't care.

It's cos they know they look awesome naked too.

They see me rollin'......

:pac:

Jawgap · 08-04-2013 03:00PM

Technoprisoner wrote: »

ahh yes....the famous MAMIL's (middle aged men in lycra)

seriously though...can they not cycle in normal clothing?

"A Mamil is defined as a man between 35 and 45 with a family, who opts for a high-end bike instead of a sports car as he hits middle age. Cyclists in the UK who use their bike at least once a week are more likely to shop at posh supermarkets and have a household income in excess of €65,000 a year, according to Mintel."

The true MAMIL does not wear normal clothing - Rapha is the preferred brand, especially now as they are sponsoring Sky - also you have to have a a carbon fibre machine (preferably Pinarello) with electronic shifting to reach the elite levels of MAMIL'ism

I'm a wannabe MAMIL - I fit the age profile but only one of my bikes is carbon fibre - I don't wear Rapha and I confine my team gear to vintage livery as worn by Kelly or Merckxx.

Deedsie · 08-04-2013 03:01PM

hoodwinked wrote: »

yeah but a car would have an easier breaking time, therefore the cyclist should realistically slow down...

No, stopping distance for a bike would be much quicker... Do you know the weight of a car compared to a bike? The velocity of the car would be much harder to stop... When a car and a bike are travelling at the same speed!

And you can't text or make calls when you cycle! You have to actually focus on the road other road users.

I'm not saying all cyclists are great, obviously there are a few douches out there. And it's the very same for motorists. Some great, some impatient dickheads.

And for those complaining about what cyclists wear, what business is that of yours? Mind your own business and let others mind their's.

The roads belong to us all, share them!

Technoprisoner · 08-04-2013 03:03PM

well it is a prominently middle aged men sport and they do dress in lycra...so they are all mamils to me

The Bishop Basher · 08-04-2013 03:08PM

seamus wrote: »

http://i.qkme.me/35so6h.jpg

Completely serious seamus. Unfortunately though, from my own experience, I would have to say cyclists with your sense of courtesy are a tiny minority.

The Bishop Basher · 08-04-2013 03:08PM

Seaneh wrote: »

That, obviously, would be a car causeing damade, by driving dangerously and causing an accident.

Have you no brain at all?

No need for the personal attack Seaneh. It belittles your argument.

In this case the car would be partially at fault. ISF would also be partially at fault given that you should expect the unexpected and travel at a speed that allows you to so this safely. Evidently, 50kmh was not a safe speed for a bike in this scenario.

gramar · 08-04-2013 03:11PM

Unregistered. wrote: »

No stats to back this up however a lot of adult cyclists already have driving licences.

Stats to back what up?

Yes, a lot of adult cyclists have driving licences. It doesn't necessarily make them competent cyclists.

lardossan · 08-04-2013 03:11PM

General General wrote: »

Wind down the window & give them some cheer using a super soaker filled with [content redacted] for their delectation.

hope to catch you doing that to me one day you pathetic tub of lard.

Banned

gramar · 08-04-2013 03:16PM

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

If I'm reading that correctly it says 64% of drivers were at fault and 59% of cyclists were at fault, the overlap being where both were at fault.

So that means that 41% of accidents were where drivers were solely at fault and 35% were where cyclists were solely at fault.

If thats correct, that to me supports the "there are a**holes from all walks of life" theory.

I also assume that is only studying accidents between cars and bikes? Not all road accidents. Correct me if I'm wrong. The implication I got from your previous post was that cyclists were responsible for 20 - 60% of all road accidents, which just sounds unbelievable to me.

Not all accidents - just those involving cars and bikes.

Amirani · 08-04-2013 03:37PM

lardossan wrote: »

hope to catch you doing that to me one day you pathetic tub of lard.

Banned

Ironic username?

Ray Palmer · 08-04-2013 03:41PM

gramar wrote: »

Not all accidents - just those involving cars and bikes.

Is there a link to this study?
As it doesn't apply to this country its relevance is limited for a number of reasons. First you have bigger roads and cars in the US. Different rules of the road and markings.

Icyseanfitz · 08-04-2013 03:43PM

94tgdmxj6s370p wrote: »

if you're cycling at in excess of 50kmh on a public road and stuff like what you quoted above is happening to you then you need to seriously reassess your road use - you are obviously a dangerous road user and like I said in the earlier post a dangerous road user doesn't have to be the one driving the biggest vehicle - it can be a reckless cyclist doing in excess of 50kmh and swerving into the path of oncoming traffic - you have proven my point, well done sir!

50kmh a danger, i dont even know where to begin with this tripe, so a car swerves in front of me while im traveling at a modest 50kmh and im the one at fault :rolleyes:

tell me this, have you ever been on a racer? i can average 30-35 kmh, ive hit speeds of 75 kmh, the pro's go to 100 kmh

Icyseanfitz · 08-04-2013 03:46PM

hoodwinked wrote: »

without rehashing my last post what would said cyclist do if it was a child suddenly ran in front?

they shouldn't be going so fast that they can't stop if an unexpected situation should occur.

and what would happen if a child ran in front of a car traveling at the speed limit of 100 kmh :rolleyes:

Cyclists on a Backroad

Comments