Cyclists !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Eloise posted:

 

To be frank Chris ... I'm not sure Don was being entirely serious in his post (okay I may be wrong but thats the impression I got).  He was deliberately over the top for satirical effect.  That means that Don isn't a moron ... its those who read his post as him presenting "fact" who are morons* (IMO).  As someone who isn't in power (and isn't seeking power) Don's rants are entirely different from someone like Trump who is now turning rants into policy - but thats a completely different topic!

*actually I wouldn't call anyone a moron in this thread ... just throwing your insult back at you!

Sorry, but the formatting goes askew when edited down to the salient points.

If he is being satirical, which i really do doubt, the joke wore off on page 1. His repeated attempts to justify his childlike musings grate after a bit, so every few pages I'll happily call him out.

No problem with you throwing insults my way; I know where I stand on this and which is the right side. If I've fallen prey to the worst prank ever and Don really is stringing us along let him come on here and either enjoy the moment with a triumphant 'gotcha you fell for it', or admit that this barmy scheme really is what he believes in. Personally anyone who thinks that adding £2k to the cost of doing something healthy, non-polluting and good in every respect really has no concept of how the world works, and is too dense to be able to see the bigger picture. 

I'm out for another few pages, unless the old goat comes back with another weird justification that he somehow is right. He's not. He's a berk.

You are obviously rattled by my proposal that cyclists should pay in order to use our road system. I appreciate this proposal amounts to a change from the situation today and people who get things for free today don’t like the mere thought of having to pay for them tomorrow.

Don Atkinson posted:

You are obviously rattled by my proposal that cyclists should pay in order to use our road system. I appreciate this proposal amounts to a change from the situation today and people who get things for free today don’t like the mere thought of having to pay for them tomorrow.

We're not "rattled" Don. We're either in on the joke and laughing along with you, or perhaps should be concerned about your mental health. Which is it?

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

You are obviously rattled by my proposal that cyclists should pay in order to use our road system. I appreciate this proposal amounts to a change from the situation today and people who get things for free today don’t like the mere thought of having to pay for them tomorrow.

We're not "rattled" Don. We're either in on the joke and laughing along with you, or perhaps should be concerned about your mental health. Which is it?

Just don't vote for Don as President* ... just in case!  :-)

*President of what I don't know!

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

You are obviously rattled by my proposal that cyclists should pay in order to use our road system. I appreciate this proposal amounts to a change from the situation today and people who get things for free today don’t like the mere thought of having to pay for them tomorrow.

We're not "rattled" Don. We're either in on the joke and laughing along with you, or perhaps should be concerned about your mental health. Which is it?

Oh, I don't know winky (well, I do, but i'm being polite) , one or two people who have commented in this thread have gotten themselves rattled at my ever so reasonable proposal that cyclists might be asked to pay to have access to our roads. The evidence is clear when people's responses are reduced to personal insults.

This is my idea of cycling.

And we always give way to hikers, never mind just on the trestles.

Tea break !

Possibly even in my lifetime, I predict that petrol fuelled cars will all but disappear from our streets, and driverless cars will become the norm. City centres in particular will only permit cars that are non-polluting and driverless. Bicycles will be positively welcomed and encouraged. And to help us get there, far from being taxed, cyclists and electric car drivers will receive tax breaks to encourage them. 

Oh, I believe something along the lines of the latter has already been happening in the UK...  it seems the politicians see the sense.

Mind you, roads do make useful navigation features FOC (Free Of Charge).

(approaching Three valley Gap, Mrs D's finger - we must have hit a bump!)

Innocent Bystander posted:

Possibly even in my lifetime, I predict that petrol fuelled cars will all but disappear from our streets, and driverless cars will become the norm. City centres in particular will only permit cars that are non-polluting and driverless. Bicycles will be positively welcomed and encouraged. And to help us get there, far from being taxed, cyclists and electric car drivers will receive tax breaks to encourage them. 

Oh, I believe something along the lines of the latter has already been happening in the UK...  it seems the politicians see the sense.

You might well be right IB. Who knows.

But when 30 million motorists in the UK stop contributing £40 bn pa to the exchequer, somebody, somewhere, is going to have to fill that gap.

............and I don't mean the Three Valley Gap !

Don Atkinson posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

You are obviously rattled by my proposal that cyclists should pay in order to use our road system. I appreciate this proposal amounts to a change from the situation today and people who get things for free today don’t like the mere thought of having to pay for them tomorrow.

We're not "rattled" Don. We're either in on the joke and laughing along with you, or perhaps should be concerned about your mental health. Which is it?

Oh, I don't know winky (well, I do, but i'm being polite) , one or two people who have commented in this thread have gotten themselves rattled at my ever so reasonable proposal that cyclists might be asked to pay to have access to our roads. The evidence is clear when people's responses are reduced to personal insults.

Why would I be "rattled" by your entirely unreasonable, unworkable, absurd and obviously ineffective suggestions? They'll obviously never see the light of day unless the majority of the populace completely loses its mind (but hey, with the rise of the orange buffoon and brexit this may in fact be real trend/possibility). Why should I buy into your overblown and largely imaginary observations of risk to pedestrians? (I am a little concerned that you refuse to acknowledge the real risk to pedestrians and cyclists, which is that motorists kill them)

This idea that you seem to have that you are in fact some visionary crusader for equitable cost-sharing and risk reduction, and that your profound and practical ideas are simply too radical for my puny brain to comprehend is a construct entirely within your own head. My concern for your mental health should be interpreted as just that, a concern, rather than an insult.

Don Atkinson posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Possibly even in my lifetime, I predict that petrol fuelled cars will all but disappear from our streets, and driverless cars will become the norm. City centres in particular will only permit cars that are non-polluting and driverless. Bicycles will be positively welcomed and encouraged. And to help us get there, far from being taxed, cyclists and electric car drivers will receive tax breaks to encourage them. 

Oh, I believe something along the lines of the latter has already been happening in the UK...  it seems the politicians see the sense.

You might well be right IB. Who knows.

But when 30 million motorists in the UK stop contributing £40 bn pa to the exchequer, somebody, somewhere, is going to have to fill that gap.

 

What "gap"? Motoring consumes vast resources and is destroying our environment. Stop consuming the resources and there will be no "gap". Quite the opposite.

Don Atkinson posted:

This is my idea of cycling.

And we always give way to hikers, never mind just on the trestles.

Yeah, nice recreational trail, but it doesn't really GO anywhere, does it, Don? Not in the sense that the road I ride to work everyday does, anyway.

Don Atkinson posted:

Mind you, roads do make useful navigation features FOC (Free Of Charge).

(approaching Three valley Gap, Mrs D's finger - we must have hit a bump!)

Don.

I must say, my immediate thought was. You’re at the controls of a Stuka, on the lookout for errant cyclists.

fatcat posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Mind you, roads do make useful navigation features FOC (Free Of Charge).

(approaching Three valley Gap, Mrs D's finger - we must have hit a bump!)

Don.

I must say, my immediate thought was. You’re at the controls of a Stuka, on the lookout for errant cyclists.

Hunting for winky . .....!

winkyincanada posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

This is my idea of cycling.

And we always give way to hikers, never mind just on the trestles.

Yeah, nice recreational trail, but it doesn't really GO anywhere, does it, Don? Not in the sense that the road I ride to work everyday does, anyway.

Well, that just captures the essence of why I started this thread. Recreational cyclists who ride without due consideration to hikers or walkers in general. Not all. Not you (hopefully), but many.

You choose to cycle rather than take public transport. You have assessed the threats and decided you can avoid the hazards and manage any remaining risk. You are nevertheless entitled to express your concern about that risk. As am I.

Cars are not going to disappear. Their prime-movers might change, but we are going to be with them for decades to come.

Don Atkinson posted:

This is my idea of cycling.

And we always give way to hikers, never mind just on the trestles.

Don it's physically impossible to be rattled by something that is 100% never going to happen; you just don't understand how the world really works and naively continue to believe that your ridiculous idea could be implemented; it can't, it won't. I may as well be rattled by worrying over the fate of the cow in The Magic Roundabout (I'm not btw, but I recognise now that you ignore everything and pick up on some minor point for cheap point-scoring). You've still failed completely to rebut any of the reasons why it's so unworkable, but that's what we'd expect from you - you know but won't acknowledge that there is no argument in favour of reducing cycling.

Nice photo there, but that so typifies why you're so wrong. "This is my idea of cycling." That's it in a nutshell everybody, for Don cycling is something to do out of the way from everybody else, something to fill the time at the weekend. Cycling for a lot of us is going to work, nipping to the shops, visiting friends & family - i.e displacing our car usage. That's what you can't grasp, that inviting people to pay a stupid sum to make your life easier that at the same time makes ours more difficult and more importantly drives the vast majority away from cycling, is never going to work. But that's your ultimate wet dream Don, to rid the roads of cyclists. Sorry. Never going to happen.

And for the umpteenth time, we have paid. End of, as you like to say.

Motorists wear seat belts, motorcyclists wear crash helmets - both of which are a legal requirement. In terms of safety why aren't cycle helmets mandatory, along with the requirement to pass some kind of test and to have insurance?

If some car drivers didn't drive like complete dicks, cycle helmets wouldn't be needed. I was mown down by a half blind 89 year old driver who shouldn't have been on the road. It's bad driving that's 99% of the issue. 

BevC posted:

Motorists wear seat belts, motorcyclists wear crash helmets - both of which are a legal requirement. In terms of safety why aren't cycle helmets mandatory, along with the requirement to pass some kind of test and to have insurance?

Have you read the research about cycle helmets? I do wear one but the evidence about their usefulness is mixed. And of course they are only designed to protect a cyclist who falls off and hits their head, they offer no protection in the kind of impact that poor HH suffered.

i agree about testing but not quite in the way you mean. I think you will find that the majority of cyclists hold driving licenses but it is not the case that most drivers have experience of road cycling. So the driving test should include road cycling proficiency with a road test. That would improve road behaviour considerably!

Clive

Cdb posted:

BevC posted:

Motorists wear seat belts, motorcyclists wear crash helmets - both of which are a legal requirement. In terms of safety why aren't cycle helmets mandatory, along with the requirement to pass some kind of test and to have insurance?

Have you read the research about cycle helmets? I do wear one but the evidence about their usefulness is mixed. And of course they are only designed to protect a cyclist who falls off and hits their head, they offer no protection in the kind of impact that poor HH suffered.

i agree about testing but not quite in the way you mean. I think you will find that the majority of cyclists hold driving licenses but it is not the case that most drivers have experience of road cycling. So the driving test should include road cycling proficiency with a road test. That would improve road behaviour considerably!

Clive

Nice idea, but It won't happen Clive.

Better idea than taxing cyclists - and likewise that won't happen!

BevC posted:

Motorists wear seat belts, motorcyclists wear crash helmets - both of which are a legal requirement. In terms of safety why aren't cycle helmets mandatory, along with the requirement to pass some kind of test and to have insurance?

Society works on the basis of risk.

Self-inflicted risk (such as cycling) only incurs mandatory legal requirements when larger numbers of injuries or fatalities to the participants occur. eg the wearing of seat belts. This cuts down on general costs and burdens to society.

If the risks to non-participants is perceived as unlikely to occur, or of little consequence, such as injury to pedestrians caused by careless or inconsiderate cyclists, then mandatory legal requirements might not be imposed eg there is no mandatory requirement for cyclists to be third-party insured.

It generally makes sense (but not always). Until you are personally involved !

Perhaps it's time for a change ?

OMG. This thread is still going.