Utter drivel from some numpty about cycling

tomisitt

This is genuinely shocking:

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/road- ... nt-1101524

Do people genuinely think like this, or is this just a pi55-poor attempt to boost traffic on their website?

markhewitt1978

The latter, and you've just bought into it. (As have I!)

sloppyschleckonds

What it say?

tomisitt

markhewitt1978 wrote:

The latter, and you've just bought into it. (As have I!)

So do we just let this kind of ignorance go unchallenged?

markhewitt1978

No; but it's difficult as it's basically just trolling.

mfin

Well I thought it made some fair points, albeit in a somewhat inflammatory way.

HellsCyclist

The roads are simply unable to efficiently support the sheer number and variety of vehicles using them currently, and this is the result.

ravenvrider

Whilst the article is very Clarkson-esq, the actual points about 2 or more abreast...especially when going slowly uphill are valid, i have encountered it many times as a driver....and if honest probably done it a few times whilst riding.

Initialised

ravenvrider wrote:

Whilst the article is very Clarkson-esq, the actual points about 2 or more abreast...especially when going slowly uphill are valid, i have encountered it many times as a driver....and if honest probably done it a few times whilst riding.

So you've never been overtaking a slower cyclist up a hill and had a driver assume you are riding together as they "squeeze" past in the empty right hand lane?

They don't seem to have any external adds so it's not like a click is giving them money. So, chime in but don't mention you're a cyclist, and let them know you wont be buying their insurance if they support and encourage this kind of drivel. In other words kick them in the bottom line.

rolf_f

Initialised wrote:

So, chime in but don't mention you're a cyclist, and let them know you wont be buying their insurance if they support and encourage this kind of drivel. In other words kick them in the bottom line.

It's not going to be easy buying insurance off a car magazine even if you want to! You're probably better off threatening to cancel your subscription!

awavey

Im a little :shock: that its come via Motor Sport magazine though they are far more like the James May of the motorsport press, the ones who enjoy reminiscing about the old days at Goodwood over a bottle of claret, than tearing round the roads Clarkson style, I mean he cites Ronnie Peterson as his out of control driving style of choice, you have to be in your 40s at least to get that kind of journalistic nudge.

and yes it has classic click bait properties of this kind of trolling article, sets up a situation that has nothing to do with cyclists, a car approaching a crest of a hill at 50mph is just as likely to drive into the back of a parked lorry, tree, small goat, pedestrian etc etc, chucks in the likes cycling really aspect,but complains cyclists are smug/entitled/angry, but Ive a nasty feeling its not in the normal sense at least that these things are done for, though as someone in the comments has pointed out its had 6x the number of comments his stuff normally attracts so maybe it was.

be interesting to see how this one pans out (grabs some popcorn)

lakesluddite

Genuinely shocking? Fairly typical more like...an argument so full of holes it's hard to think it's actually serious! :roll:

chris_bass

is the link broken? i just get page not found

markhewitt1978

The link was working, must have been taken down? Good stuff anyway, it had nothing whatsoever to do with motorsport.

bianchimoon

he was getting such a lot of flack, looks like they've taken it down to save him further embarrassment

markhewitt1978

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... =firefox-a

tomisitt

I was pretty shocked that a respected motoring journalist (not some goon from Top Gear) held opinions that are so stupid, and admitted to driving so dangerously, and would admit as much on his magazine's website. Clearly the web editor wanted to drive traffic, but the vast majority of people commenting on the piece (177 responses by the time it was taken down) were ripping into Andrew Frankel for being a moron. Bit of an own-goal for Motor Sport magazine.

Phil Fouracre

What a load of rubbish he talks, looks like it was taken down. Just found Motorsport web page and written then a pertinent response

lawrences

It's not that bad. I've seen worse.

The guys a twat but most people are to be honest.

Initialised

bianchimoon wrote:

he was getting such a lot of flack, looks like they've taken it down to save him further embarrassment

Job well done!

*pats back*

beski

We have those cycle lanes he enthuses over painted on the roads round where I live. They are nest to useless, they dissappear at roundabouts and motorists generally ignore them if it means they can use the road space for an extra queue of cars at junctions. Even more annoying is that cars are regularly parked over them forcing you out into the traffic! :roll:

rolf_f

beski wrote:

We have those cycle lanes he enthuses over painted on the roads round where I live. They are nest to useless, they dissappear at roundabouts and motorists generally ignore them if it means they can use the road space for an extra queue of cars at junctions. Even more annoying is that cars are regularly parked over them forcing you out into the traffic! :roll:

You are making the same sort of generalisations that Frankel is. Frankel assumes all cyclists are crap and you assume all cycle lanes are crap; they are not. Sometimes they need double yellows to stop car parking and some cycle lanes have exactly that. Drivers are allowed to go into cycle lanes if the white line demarcating them is broken. So maybe if there are problem ones with broken lines you need to write to the council and explain why they should be unbroken. If we gave up on everything just because the implementation was sometimes crap we'd still be living in caves.

markhewitt1978

His argument was never going to work anyway. He was talking about driving down the road enjoying himself and then was held up by cyclists who had the temerity to be out riding for enjoyment - how dare they!

markhewitt1978

Rolf F wrote:

If we gave up on everything just because the implementation was sometimes crap we'd still be living in caves.

But it's not just "sometimes" crap is it. It's crap most of the time, and 'good' almost never. If we could get it to 80% as just being 'ok', then it would be amazing.

rolf_f

markhewitt1978 wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

If we gave up on everything just because the implementation was sometimes crap we'd still be living in caves.

But it's not just "sometimes" crap is it. It's crap most of the time, and 'good' almost never. If we could get it to 80% as just being 'ok', then it would be amazing.

80% of roads in total or 80% of cycle lanes? I think maybe 80% of cycle lanes are better than no cycle lanes but that doesn't mean that those cycle lanes are themselves 80% good (if you see what I mean).

I think you are being a bit glass half empty here - at least from the perspective of a confident road cyclist. For the nervous shopper cyclist, the average cycle lane might be rather inadequate but I usually find that they do improve things.

markhewitt1978

I mean that 80% of cycle lanes provided were actually useful as cycle lanes. Designating ordinary footpaths in towns as cycle paths isn't helpful, whereas having a footpath alongside a dual carriageway as 'shared use' often is.

Obviously having cycle lanes on 80% of road is never going to happen, nor is it remotely necessary.

beski

You are making the same sort of generalisations that Frankel is. Frankel assumes all cyclists are crap and you assume all cycle lanes are crap; they are not. Sometimes they need double yellows to stop car parking and some cycle lanes have exactly that. Drivers are allowed to go into cycle lanes if the white line demarcating them is broken. So maybe if there are problem ones with broken lines you need to write to the council and explain why they should be unbroken. If we gave up on everything just because the implementation was sometimes crap we'd still be living in caves.[/quote]

No generalisation was intended. I'm just talking about the cycle lanes in my area, they are all marked by broken lines, drivers go into them and park over them. There are no double yellows and they dissappear at roundabouts. They are next to useless, a token jesture.

rolf_f

beski wrote:

No generalisation was intended. I'm just talking about the cycle lanes in my area, they are all marked by broken lines, drivers go into them and park over them. There are no double yellows and they dissappear at roundabouts. They are next to useless, a token jesture.

But you likened your cycle lanes to the ones Frankel was talking about as providing a solution. Cycle lanes can be a solution - bad cycle lanes can make things worse. We all know that cycle lanes created without consultation with cyclists can be useless but it doesn't mean that cycle lanes are a bad idea.

markhewitt1978 wrote:

I mean that 80% of cycle lanes provided were actually useful as cycle lanes. Designating ordinary footpaths in towns as cycle paths isn't helpful, whereas having a footpath alongside a dual carriageway as 'shared use' often is.

Obviously having cycle lanes on 80% of road is never going to happen, nor is it remotely necessary.

Completely agree!

markhewitt1978

"Drivers" don't know the difference between a good cycle lane you're going to want to use and one which is bad. Hence the cause of some amount of anger "There's a cycle lane right there, why aren't they using it!!!!!!1"

A friend of mine recently got road raged at for not using a nearby cycle path, as cycle paths go it's fairly good one, but it's gravel, and so not unreasonably he decided to take the road instead.

beski

I never said cycle lanes were a bad idea, just that the ones near me are poorely executed.