Reply to: Surrey speeds

[Zigenare]

when are you going to start quoting facts?

Leave him alone, he's loved up! Haven't you seen the picture?

[Whorty]

when are you going to start quoting facts?

Oh the irony!

[vetran]

I understand what it means thanks, but I also understand that Vetty makes up stuff with no proof so I chose to ignore it.

So you think I should back down by quoting facts, and defending cyclists? Hmmm, I see. No, sorry. There is plenty of evidence out there that cyclists are disproportionately (see what I did there) injured due to bad car driving than are injured due to their own reckless cycling. If that wasn't the case the new highway code rules would not be implemented to protect cyclists more from idiot drivers.

Seems most of the anti-cycling brigade forget that us cyclists we drive too. We see what you see out on the roads. We also come across cyclists. But we see their cycling from a position of knowledge. Maybe more car drivers need to get off their fat ass, get out there on a bike and see how bad car driving really is when you're not protected by a 3 ton steel shell.

when are you going to start quoting facts?

[vetran]

You're totally right. Any accident involving a car and a cyclist is automatically the cyclists fault. I guess the same logic applies to any car that hits a pedestrian too?


So your definition of 'reckless cycling' (whatever that is, and you'd be wrong) will 'probably' cost more. Yep, clear argument there fella. Well done. Beat me again.

Strange in 45 years on a cycle or motorcycle I only had one crash involving a car, I was turning right and he came round the corner very fast and rammed me from behind. The Police confirmed it was his fault.

A few cars have been discourteous and foolish which I have to avoid. But I see plenty of bikes illegally on pavements, shooting lights, undertaking etc.

Now the number of times I have come off my motorcycle for riding like a muppet or similar on a bike were all me failing to understand road conditions like you seem to have.

If you go into the bike ward (major fracture ward) the tales you will hear are of idiots riding dangerously not psychotic car drivers hunting cyclists/motorbikes.

[malvolio]

Snip....

You're getting almost as tedious yourself now.

Nobody is against cyclists. Most of us go out of our way to protect them, all too often from themselves.

All we have said is that cyclists ought to think about not causing an obstruction by refusing to move out of the way of legitimately faster traffic.

For all your claims of athletic prowess and endeavour on your machine, on any open road you are never less than 50% slower than the surrounding traffic. Deal with it.

And I've seen a Sunday peloton land in a hedge, when they came around a blind bend and found three cars coming the other way. Luckily (for them) we all stopped in time.

[WTFH]

Maybe more car drivers need to get off their fat ass, get out there on a bike and see how bad car driving really is when you're not protected by a 3 ton steel shell.

If your little hairdresser's car weighs 3 tons, that would explain why it's so slow.
It's also so low to the ground that you get a completely different view to cyclists, meaning you can't see as far.

Your attack on "all car drivers" started when I said cyclists could fall off (nothing to do with interaction with car drivers) on a road that is declared dangerous by Strava, but you consider to be straight and safe.

[Whorty]

Are you being stupid on purpose or do you not know what 'disproportionately' means? Maybe you two should just have your via DM or something; you're neither of you doing yourselves any favours.

I understand what it means thanks, but I also understand that Vetty makes up stuff with no proof so I chose to ignore it.

So you think I should back down by quoting facts, and defending cyclists? Hmmm, I see. No, sorry. There is plenty of evidence out there that cyclists are disproportionately (see what I did there) injured due to bad car driving than are injured due to their own reckless cycling. If that wasn't the case the new highway code rules would not be implemented to protect cyclists more from idiot drivers.

Seems most of the anti-cycling brigade forget that us cyclists we drive too. We see what you see out on the roads. We also come across cyclists. But we see their cycling from a position of knowledge. Maybe more car drivers need to get off their fat ass, get out there on a bike and see how bad car driving really is when you're not protected by a 3 ton steel shell.

[d000hg]

You're totally right. Any accident involving a car and a cyclist is automatically the cyclists fault. I guess the same logic applies to any car that hits a pedestrian too?

Are you being stupid on purpose or do you not know what 'disproportionately' means? Maybe you two should just have your via DM or something; you're neither of you doing yourselves any favours.

[Whorty]

I see this topic has made the front page of the Wail as an exclusive, and on the same day is on the front page of the Torygraph and Times (although they aren't claiming it as an exclusive)

Anti cyclist stories will always go down well with Wail readers ... perfect click bait. And I love the horse story ... I think I smell something there, and it's not from the horse I cycle country lanes all the time, encounter loads of horse riders, and I've never, ever seen any cyclist ride fast near horses (I've seen loads of cars though doing so). One reason we wouldn't is a horse is bigger than us, if we spook it there is a chance we get injured - so ignoring that we are curteous around horses, we're actually quite keen not to get hurt ourselves.

The insurance point is interesting ... seems reasonable but in big cities those who are most likely to jump red lights, ride on pavements etc are not likely to be 'cyclists' ... and are less likely to get insurance. All my mates, proper cyclists on expensive bikes, all have insurance already by choice.

Re number plates - again not against this but would be a nightmare to implement and would be cost prohibitive given the number of bikes out there already. Be interesting though, if only to keep the anti bike brigade quiet.

Re the 20 mph speed limits in towns/villages. Could only be enforced if there was an accurate speedometer on each bike, as there is in cars. Without that how would a cyclist even know how fast they are going? I use a bike computer (Element) but this relies on GPS which constantly drops out and is not that accurate.

Most of this is click bait for the likes of you lot on here. Most cyclists and cycling groups would not be against much of this (to save those 5 lives in 2019, compared to the hundreds killed by car drivers), but it's not as simple to implement as the Wail readers who, let's face it, are very simple.

[WTFH]

I see this topic has made the front page of the Wail as an exclusive, and on the same day is on the front page of the Torygraph and Times (although they aren't claiming it as an exclusive)

[Whorty]

Cyclists feature in accidents disproportionally to mileage covered. So are more expensive to the NHS than those who drive, those are just the facts. Even if you pay the same tax as everyone else reckless cycling will probably cost more. Same for organ donors on motorcycles and electric scooter or tits in Audi TTs.

I wasn't bragging, just recounting how I had travelled at about 25 MPH on a closed road during the London to Brighton cycle race, I don't need to brag I can assure you my ego is big enough to survive without your meaningless approval . There wasn't anyone else in front of me so I didn't need to stop.

You're totally right. Any accident involving a car and a cyclist is automatically the cyclists fault. I guess the same logic applies to any car that hits a pedestrian too?

reckless cycling will probably cost more

So your definition of 'reckless cycling' (whatever that is, and you'd be wrong) will 'probably' cost more. Yep, clear argument there fella. Well done. Beat me again.

[SueEllen]

Cyclists feature in accidents disproportionally to mileage covered. So are more expensive to the NHS than those who drive, those are just the facts. Even if you pay the same tax as everyone else reckless cycling will probably cost more. Same for organ donors on motorcycles and electric scooter or tits in Audi TTs.

And car drivers appear disproportionately in the diabetes statistics that are 10% of NHS England's budget.

[vetran]

I know, you're right. Us cyclists never pay our taxes. It's only all those car drivers who never cause accidents that subsidise us cyclists.

Can I say a big thank you ... we appreciate your charity.

Oh, hold on, wasn't you bragging in an earlier post that you get up to 25mph .... given your weight your stopping distance will be way longer than the average cyclist. But hey ... you're always right so what do I know

Cyclists feature in accidents disproportionally to mileage covered. So are more expensive to the NHS than those who drive, those are just the facts. Even if you pay the same tax as everyone else reckless cycling will probably cost more. Same for organ donors on motorcycles and electric scooter or tits in Audi TTs.

I wasn't bragging, just recounting how I had travelled at about 25 MPH on a closed road during the London to Brighton cycle race, I don't need to brag I can assure you my ego is big enough to survive without your meaningless approval . There wasn't anyone else in front of me so I didn't need to stop.

[Whorty]

Well as us taxpayers have to fund the medical expenses of the idiots exceeding the speed limit and riding recklessly apologies for giving a tulip!

Plenty of cyclists round our way think going at a speed where they can't stop or avoid traffic approaching them is sensible. Scraping them off the bumper is tiresome!

I know, you're right. Us cyclists never pay our taxes. It's only all those car drivers who never cause accidents that subsidise us cyclists.

Can I say a big thank you ... we appreciate your charity.

Oh, hold on, wasn't you bragging in an earlier post that you get up to 25mph .... given your weight your stopping distance will be way longer than the average cyclist. But hey ... you're always right so what do I know

[vetran]

So what are you whining about then? If you're a competent cyclist you'd have no issue with that descent and you'd understand that some people are better descenders than others. You'd also understand that in all areas of society there are dicks - but a minority of dicks doesn't make everyone in that 'group' a dick - thinking so leads to bigoted views. Much better to treat all individuals as such, don't you think?

Looks pretty straight to me, with the odd curve in the road, but not a particularly technical descent. No tight bends that I saw (or can see on the map). Road wide enough that if you meet a car coming the other way then there is space to cross. No traffic lights. No speed bumps that I could see.

I never said you didn't know the road. In fact the opposite; you said it was a local road so I assumed that you did know the road well.

I think we've exhausted this ... you have your anti cyclist view. It's not good, but hey, up to you. Let's hope you keep it on here and you don't take those views out when you go driving.

Well as us taxpayers have to fund the medical expenses of the idiots exceeding the speed limit and riding recklessly apologies for giving a tulip!

Plenty of cyclists round our way think going at a speed where they can't stop or avoid traffic approaching them is sensible. Scraping them off the bumper is tiresome!