Nuxx:PL94l.25118$i 6.6449@newsfe11.ams2

Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!feeder.news-service.com!eweka.nl!hq-usenetpeers.eweka.nl!cyclone03.ams.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!npeersf01.ams.highwinds-media.com!newsfe11.ams2.POSTED!7564ea0f!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: _  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Wait like the rest of us Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 18:05:15 +0000 References:  <6rcancFj6baU1@mid.individual.net>  <3qv1l45b5tinu86rqnlsd0etrldm7hbk6j@4ax.com>   Lines: 67 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To:  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.21.204.127 X-Complaints-To: http://netreport.virginmedia.com X-Trace: newsfe11.ams2 1230055535 82.21.204.127 (Tue, 23 Dec 2008 18:05:35 UTC) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 18:05:35 UTC Organization: virginmedia.com Bytes: 4084 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:681781

Light of Aria wrote: > > "_"  wrote in message > news:Yr74l.32021$er1.12572@newsfe18.ams2... >> Peter Grange wrote: >>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 14:31:15 +0000, _  wrote: >>> >>>> Paul - xxx wrote: >>>>> _ wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> in the old Landy >>>>> Sounds like you're one of the fucking muppets that gives Landrover >>>>> (4x4) drivers a bad name. >>>>> >>>> Yawn. If you say so, old son >>>> >>>>> What would have been wrong in leaving enough room? You might even >>>>> have >>>>> made someone's day by visibly allowing them free passage, which is so >>>>> much nicer than the bile and grief you seem to prefer. >>>>> >>>> Leave him enough room? Why? Fuck him, cyclist twat. Get on the >>>> sodding cycleway where he should be and I couldn't have held him up :) >>> >>> Where was this cycleway? You must have missed it out of your original >>> post. >> >> Parallel with and about ten feet from the carraigeway. When I've >> mentioned this before, the bikers reckon its not used because it has >> give way lines where side roads cross it at junctions, while the main >> carraigeway has ROW by default. Oh, and apparently cycle paths might >> have broken glass or other debris on them. So the cyclist ignores the >> expensive lane provided for his exclusive use and instead holds up >> traffic thats going faster than him. > > > > These are OK for cycling slowly, or with children, or when tired, or > when with a heavy load. > > However a "top" cyclist who wishes to "make progress" can not always > safely use these converted pavements and has the lawful right to use the > highway like any other lawful highway user

I see. So he has a dedicated facility, that only he can use. But he doesn't fancy it, so he uses one designed for a *different* category of road user. Sort of 'because I *can*' philosophy, then.

> regardless of if you find > their presence inconvenient. > Indeed. Its tough shit whether, on another day when there isn't a Christmas crush, his presence on the main carraigeway (especially when he's with his mate and they insist on riding side by side) is inconvenient to other road users. So its *also* tough shit when, on days when there *is* cars queueing, they impede *his* progress as I stated in the original post. He deliberately and without care to consequence impedes cars, so cars deliberately and without care to consequence impede him. Seems entirely reasonable to me...

> Were I wishing to ride at full speed (up to 30 MPH flat, perhaps 40 MPH > down hill), I don't think I'd want to use a broken cycle path. > Were I wishing to travel at 60MPH on the flat on a NSL road, I don't think I'd want to come across an artic stuck behind a bike because the opposite lane is full.