'Real' Cyclists as opposed to people riding cycles?

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15191
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: 'Real' Cyclists as opposed to people riding cycles?

Post by Si »

..and if we are to use this kind of story as evidence then we can link to loads of stories where cyclists have been knocked off while on the road, thus suggesting the pavement is safer, and demonstrating why this kind of 'evidence' is of little value.
leftpoole
Posts: 1492
Joined: 12 Feb 2007, 9:31am
Location: Account closing 31st July '22

Re: 'Real' Cyclists as opposed to people riding cycles?

Post by leftpoole »

reohn2 wrote:
leftpoole wrote:More exciting cycling on pavement news below.
John


http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/1 ... ng_attack/


Other than the victim of this despicable robbery riding a bicycle,what exactly does it have to do this thread? :?



If she had been riding on the road and not through the Underpass it would most likely not have taken place!
I live here and know where this took place.
End of thread I hope.
John
User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15191
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: 'Real' Cyclists as opposed to people riding cycles?

Post by Si »

Story says nothing about being in an underpass.

The simple fact is that wherever she was, you can't base a road vs pavement determination on one or two ill-reported cases.
As said before...for every case of a pavement cyclist being robbed, we could easily produce ten cases of a road cyclist being run down. Which would 'prove' that road cycling is inherently dangerous compared to pavement cycling. Of course, we know that road cycling is not inherently dangerous, thus it must be this basis for argument (quoting odd cases from the press) that is really inherently dangerous.

Indeed, assuming she was cycling on the pavement when attacked......what if she'd been a pedestrian instead? Are we using this evidence to claim that walking along the road is just too dangerous to contemplate?
AlaninWales
Posts: 1626
Joined: 26 Oct 2012, 1:47pm

Re: 'Real' Cyclists as opposed to people riding cycles?

Post by AlaninWales »

Si wrote:Story says nothing about being in an underpass.

The simple fact is that wherever she was, you can't base a road vs pavement determination on one or two ill-reported cases.
As said before...for every case of a pavement cyclist being robbed, we could easily produce ten cases of a road cyclist being run down. Which would 'prove' that road cycling is inherently dangerous compared to pavement cycling. Of course, we know that road cycling is not inherently dangerous, thus it must be this basis for argument (quoting odd cases from the press) that is really inherently dangerous.

Indeed, assuming she was cycling on the pavement when attacked......what if she'd been a pedestrian instead? Are we using this evidence to claim that walking along the road is just too dangerous to contemplate?

No Si, obviously it is beng in pedestrian areas which is inherently unsafe: Obviously any cyclist - and any pedestrian, should avoid all these no-go crime-ridden pavements and cycle or walk along the roads as that will make them much safer!

Heaven knows why pavements - or underpasses, are built in the first place, they are obviously going to be such dangerous places for any but criminal scum (such as pavement-riding cyclists) :lol:
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: 'Real' Cyclists as opposed to people riding cycles?

Post by reohn2 »

leftpoole wrote:If she had been riding on the road and not through the Underpass it would most likely not have taken place!
I live here and know where this took place.

And if she'd been walking? :?

End of thread I hope.
John

I really don't get your logic throughout this thread.
Yes there are some people who ride on pavements endangering others including themselves,these people are idiotic and a menace to society.
In the same way as are pedestrians who wander around in a daydream wearing earbuds with the volume turned up so they can't hear much else,or motorists who text and drive(which IMO is far worse than talking on a mobile,as bad as that is) and a thousand and one other stupid things humans are capable of.
There are others who ride on pavements at certain points or times for reasons of safety,perceived or real or even,heaven forbid, convenience.But who also have a clear sense of social conscience,are polite and sensitive to the the needs of other road users and pavement users FTM.
Last week on a climb which slowed me to -10mph a tractor and trailer was approaching from behind at about double my speed and a line of traffic approaching in the opposite direction.
I could've exercised my right to remain on the road,but luckily there was a dropped curb and no sign of anyone using the pavement so I did the ''idiotic'' thing and rode on it whilst the tractor passed,with a friendly wave of thank you from the driver,after which I carried on for another law breaking 150m on the deserted footpath until the next drop curb,where I rejoined the carriageway.
It's all to do with context,most people like to have sex,but not in public,however some people......... :?

It won't be the end of the thread until you stop tarring everyone who doesn't agree with your POV with the same idiotic brush!
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Post Reply