Stupid Cyclist Options

[GMR]

Obviously.

Not always obvious to the cyclist/ driver.

[Iommi]

I must say that I agree with pretty much everything you say, I think the response to your comments shows a running theme of ignorance to a certain degree.

It is a pity you didn't explain why. Disagreeing with someone doesn't always mean ignorance, but it is disappointing that GrumblingAgain has to be abusive.

In my view GrumblingAgain was speaking with ignorance of the issue. He/she missed the point about enthusiastic cyclists - different to a casual one. (shared use) Cycle lanes - in Newbury's case, a path that was once just a path that has had a white line painted down the middle - inconvenience the pedestrian and the cyclist. Cycling on a narrow road only inconveniences a car driver. I feel however, turning one of GrumblingAgain's arguments against him/her; are there that many cyclists on the road for this to be a real issue?

The other point about cycle lanes, I presume being a car driver and having paid my car tax, I would be excluded from a bike tax? An idea in itself that is a bad one if we are ever going to tempt people in to using a bike rather than a car.

There are roads, Hambridge Road for instance, where I will use the path, but that is because it can be very busy at certain times of the day and cycling on the path keeps me out of their way, plus I can make good progress avoiding the queues of cars.

[GMR]

It is a pity you didn't explain why. Disagreeing with someone doesn't always mean ignorance, but it is disappointing that GrumblingAgain has to be abusive.

In my view GrumblingAgain was speaking with ignorance of the issue. He/she missed the point about enthusiastic cyclists - different to a casual one. (shared use) Cycle lanes - in Newbury's case, a path that was once just a path that has had a white line painted down the middle - inconvenience the pedestrian and the cyclist. Cycling on a narrow road only inconveniences a car driver. I feel however, turning one of GrumblingAgain's arguments against him/her; are there that many cyclists on the road for this to be a real issue?

The other point about cycle lanes, I presume being a car driver and having paid my car tax, I would be excluded from a bike tax? An idea in itself that is a bad one if we are ever going to tempt people in to using a bike rather than a car.

There are roads, Hambridge Road for instance, where I will use the path, but that is because it can be very busy at certain times of the day and cycling on the path keeps me out of their way, plus I can make good progress avoiding the queues of cars.

Just a matter of interest; cycling on paths that are not designated cycle paths is illegal. The paths down Hambridge road are not for cyclists.

[GrumblingAgain]

It is a pity you didn't explain why. Disagreeing with someone doesn't always mean ignorance, but it is disappointing that GrumblingAgain has to be abusive.

Abusive? Hardly!

"Abusive" is the kind of response as mentioned by Gumbo in their opening post or the experience GMR gets from both cars and pedestrians or from the people he meets on the paths/ cycle paths.

My comments were nothing of the kind.

My main issues was the way GMR was stating that cycle paths were dangerous, strewn with glass etc and your comments that you have to stop at every left turn. When the comments become colourful with unneccesary exaggeration to make a point expect to get something similar back in return!

An amount of tax payer's money was spent on building and painting the cycleway on Lower Way, for example, including buying up somebody's front verge for the purpose. To then have someone instruct all cyclists to ignore it (as GMR did) is just unwarranted.

To have comments saying that no one wants to use the paths (and I have seen many "non enthusiastic" cyclists doing that especially along Lowe Way) just confirms my thoughts that perhaps no more tax payer money should be spent on cyclist related matters or if it is, the money should come soley from cyclists and cyclist organisations themselves.

[GMR]

Abusive? Hardly!

"Abusive" is the kind of response as mentioned by Gumbo in their opening post or the experience GMR gets from both cars and pedestrians or from the people he meets on the paths/ cycle paths.

My comments were nothing of the kind.

My main issues was the way GMR was stating that cycle paths were dangerous, strewn with glass etc and your comments that you have to stop at every left turn. When the comments become colourful with unneccesary exaggeration to make a point expect to get something similar back in return!

An amount of tax payer's money was spent on building and painting the cycleway on Lower Way, for example, including buying up somebody's front verge for the purpose. To then have someone instruct all cyclists to ignore it (as GMR did) is just unwarranted.

To have comments saying that no one wants to use the paths (and I have seen many "non enthusiastic" cyclists doing that especially along Lowe Way) just confirms my thoughts that perhaps no more tax payer money should be spent on cyclist related matters or if it is, the money should come soley from cyclists and cyclist organisations themselves.

It wasn't an exaggeration; I've cycle for many years and I speak as I find. I am not the only one who has complained about the state of the cycle paths.

[Iommi]

I think the following quotes demonstrate either abuse, albeit a mild form, or sarcasm.

That's rubbish through isn't it.

well news for you but cars too don't get right of way at every junction

Utter cobblers

More hysterical nonsense.

You could have made your point just as successfully and not appeared so arrogant if you would have just used language like 'disagree', instead of insulting people with your opinion of their point of view. It is one of the big regrets of 'faceless' forums, the speed in which people are so readily rude. Often behaving in a way they wouldn't face to face with someone.

My main issues was the way GMR was stating that cycle paths were dangerous, strewn with glass etc and your comments that you have to stop at every left turn. When the comments become colourful with unnecessary exaggeration to make a point expect to get something similar back in return!

Putting it simply, GMR and myself did not get personal and while we all might exaggerate to emphasize a point - a common trait amongst people - our points were based on fact. You dismissed ours and other people's similar points as 'rubbish', 'utter cobblers' and 'hysterical nonsense', I therefore have to question who is really guilty of 'unnecessary exaggeration'?

While it might not be true that one does have to stop at every turn (I corrected this in a subsequent post), one's progress is hindered by them as one has to slow down in anticipation of a pedestrian, car or similar. On the road this is not such a problem and that was my substantive point.

At the end of the day, a number of cyclists have voiced their opinions of cycle paths and the majority of cyclists on here seem to agree about the problems of shared use paths. It is quite true that cyclists idling along when they could be using a cycle path instead, can be frustrating - I know because I also drive everyday - but there are so few cyclists on main routes, that I don't see it as a real problem.

Cyclists paying for paths? Not until pedestrians start coughing up as well! .

As for cycling on Hambridge Road (if ever a road needs a cycle lane it is that road), I know the path isn't a cycle route, but when it is clear to do so, I'll use the path out of courtesy for drivers and safety for me.

[Guest_Bill1_*]

I know of four unmarked cycle paths.

One is the wrong way down Queens Road, another is the wrong way along Livingstone Road, then theres the one the wrong way up Railway Road and finally the wrong way along the one way section of Kings Road, where the pavement seems to be part of the route should the cyclist need to use it due to large vehicles coming towards them.

[Iommi]

I know of four unmarked cycle paths. One is the wrong way down Queens Road, another is the wrong way along Livingstone Road, then theres the one the wrong way up Railway Road and finally the wrong way along the one way section of Kings Road, where the pavement seems to be part of the route should the cyclist need to use it due to large vehicles coming towards them.

I have to use the path when it is dark because I don't have any lights!

[GMR]

I have to use the path when it is dark because I don't have any lights!

Why did they not put cycle lanes in down Lower way instead of letting the cyclist compete with arrogant pedestrians and litter on the cycle paths?

[lordtup]

I have long been of the opinion that motorists fall into two distinct camps when it comes to cyclists.
Half of them think it's a right of passage to see how close they can get when overtaking without actually hitting the hapless two wheeler,the other half don't see you in the first place

[GMR]

I have long been of the opinion that motorists fall into two distinct camps when it comes to cyclists.
Half of them think it's a right of passage to see how close they can get when overtaking without actually hitting the hapless two wheeler,the other half don't see you in the first place

I'll go along with both. The amount of times I've nearly been hit.

[Guest_Bill1_*]

Two kinds of cyclist too.

[Gumbo]

I have long been of the opinion that motorists fall into two distinct camps when it comes to cyclists.
Half of them think it's a right of passage to see how close they can get when overtaking without actually hitting the hapless two wheeler,the other half don't see you in the first place

Do you drive? if so what camp do you fit in? if you don't then your opinion is obviously biased. Either way your post is, to put it as politely as I can, total tosh!

[Gumbo]

I'll go along with both. The amount of times I've nearly been hit.

That's probably just Iommi.

[GMR]

That's probably just Iommi.

[Road User]

Two kinds of cyclist too.

Yes those who follow the law and those who feel they own the road and there for don't need to stop at red traffic lights, follow one way systems the right way or can ride without due care and attention in pedestrian areas.

Or they like to block the road by riding side by side so that to get around them you have to drive very close to them......perfect example on Monks Lane today. 3 cyclists holding up traffic by riding side by side.

[GMR]

Yes those who follow the law and those who feel they own the road and there for don't need to stop at red traffic lights, follow one way systems the right way or can ride without due care and attention in pedestrian areas.

Or they like to block the road by riding side by side so that to get around them you have to drive very close to them......perfect example on Monks Lane today. 3 cyclists holding up traffic by riding side by side.

I've seen two coppers do that; riding beside each other without a care in the world.