Ayesha wrote:They paved paradise and buried a journo clot.
With pink flowery willies, a Barbour and cycle tyre mark across her bot.
Did you mean:
Or were you casting Nasturtiums at her private life?
Ayesha wrote:They paved paradise and buried a journo clot.
With pink flowery willies, a Barbour and cycle tyre mark across her bot.
Horses can’t be ridden on it, because you can’t canter on tarmac.
The track is segregated with a natural grass track for horses and a firm track — made from recycled materials and Derbyshire limestone — for other users.
Cunobelin wrote:Ayesha wrote:They paved paradise and buried a journo clot.
With pink flowery willies, a Barbour and cycle tyre mark across her bot.
Did you mean:
Or were you casting Nasturtiums at her private life?
reohn2 wrote:PaulCumbria wrote:...........Why doesn't she just write a piece slagging off black people, gay people, poor people - we know that's what she'd like to do if she could get away with it...
Ah! well that would be against the law wouldn't it?
BTW,you missed out Gypsies
Ayesha wrote:Cunobelin wrote:Ayesha wrote:They paved paradise and buried a journo clot.
With pink flowery willies, a Barbour and cycle tyre mark across her bot.
Did you mean:
Or were you casting Nasturtiums at her private life?
I couldn't find a photo of a lady face down with a tyre mark across her bare buttocks.
karlt wrote:reohn2 wrote:PaulCumbria wrote:...........Why doesn't she just write a piece slagging off black people, gay people, poor people - we know that's what she'd like to do if she could get away with it...
Ah! well that would be against the law wouldn't it?
BTW,you missed out Gypsies
That's because they're apparently still fair game.
Harnell wrote:I have some sympathy for the writer of this article. I cycle in all three categories (trail, road, and leisure) using variously a Carbon fibre road bike with 23mm tyres, a hybrid, full sus-mountain bike and occasionally a tandem. Sometimes I use the sort of converted railway line /cycle path featured in the Spectator piece as a short cut home at the end of a big ride (usually to miss out a ghurt great big hill) and I do think it is a shame when these routes are tarmac'ed over completely.
The thought of holding time trials on them (if this is in fact happening) is downright inconsiderate but then I seriously fell out with my local cycle club by suggesting that holding time trials on dual carriage ways, even early on Sunday morning, was little short of lunacy so I have little sympathy with this genre of cyclist. (I am that much derided specimen a middle aged man in lycra but I definitely do not time trial).
We have a number of converted railway lines in Derbyshire which are covered with a sort of dense "hogging" (not tarmac), which is perfect for leisure and mountain cycling, walking and horse riding but less so for road bikes although the surface is still better than some of the roads round here if a bit sloppy in the wet. In all it is the perfect solution and much better than tarmac which destroys any sense of being "outdoors" for walkers and others not on two wheels. Despite this there is still friction between cyclists and walkers when the former fail to announce their presence or moderate their speed when approaching from behind. Road cyclists and those wishing to compete in time trials have the majority of Britain's roads to use do we need every footpath and bridle path covered with tarmac as well?
the vicar wrote:I think some of the wellie comments are a little OTT. If we are going to be grown up about this lets admit that some cyclists on shared paths can act in a selfish and inconsiderate manner. Sometimes it's the roadie who thinks 'if it's tarmac, it must be a road', sometimes its the 'Just-got-me-bike-out-of-the-shed-and-its-not-a-car-so-no-brain-required' type.( Actually these bug me the most. They generally ride towards you two abreast,chatting away, with a last minute swerve and panic brake when a collision is inevitable). Its all a matter of attitude; if you use a shared path you have to have the right head on (and in my case, helmet off). Smile, say 'No problem' when you have to stop for harrassed parents with wobbly toddlers, say 'thank you' to dog walkers who call in their dog out of your way. If your head's not in the right place, use the road. OK, I admit I am lucky to have the choice; lots of B roads as well as the trail.But as cyclists we generally do have a choice. Dog walkers and families dont, therefore, we are on their turf- they are not on ours.
We cannot excuse every action of every cyclist by claiming a perennial 'victim' status. Every pedestrian one cyclist manages to ***** off, is a lost cause that the rest of us will have to work harder to win back;whether they are a journalist or not.
Cunobelin wrote:
There should be no hierarchy at all, but reasonable shared use.
It is no-one's "turf", and anyone who claims or thinks that any single group has more "right" to use or act in an unsafe manner is being unhelpful to say the least.
Mind you we must be unique!
in our case (Bath Lane) the biggest hazard is the cricket club who think the cycle path is a place to put up their scoring tables, seat spectators and dump their bags!