WIRRAL cyclist and all please read

ben@31

homers double wrote:

I ran over a cat once...

A badger once ran out in front of me on a dark night. First time I've ever seen a badger for real, I was surprised how big they are, it looked so big that it would write your bike off if you ran into it.

Next time I was along that disused railway at night, there were men in the adjacent field acting suspicious, ether the Badgeradar forum or hunters?

ben@31

F'ing professional Grand Tour cyclists! How s*** are they for hitting by a dog? Should have been cycling <15mph with a bell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZrxyijba50

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3p0dmeecwE

First.Aspect

PBlakeney wrote:

The problem is that people think cycle paths are for cycling on, including cyclists.
The are designed to be pooled along.
If you are fit enough, fast enough, and want to cycle, stick to the roads.

This is really all there is to it. Some people on here have questioned why the other users shouldn't accommodate bikes because its a shared use path. Well, a shared use path is a pavement you can ride on. Pedestrians simply don't have to give way to you or accommodate you in any way. Get used to it.

If you don't like long leads, use the road. If you don't like dogs not on leads, use the road. If you don't like slowing down to walking pace and asking for space to pass, use the road. If you don't like using the road, try another sport.

Most of the rest of this thread appears to have been populated by little boys still living with their mum, but who have spent all their pocket money on a nice bike.

Matthewfalle

First Aspect wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

The problem is that people think cycle paths are for cycling on, including cyclists.
The are designed to be pooled along.
If you are fit enough, fast enough, and want to cycle, stick to the roads.

This is really all there is to it. Some people on here have questioned why the other users shouldn't accommodate bikes because its a shared use path. Well, a shared use path is a pavement you can ride on. Pedestrians simply don't have to give way to you or accommodate you in any way. Get used to it.

If you don't like long leads, use the road. If you don't like dogs not on leads, use the road. If you don't like slowing down to walking pace and asking for space to pass, use the road. If you don't like using the road, try another sport.

Most of the rest of this thread appears to have been populated by little boys still living with their mum, but who have spent all their pocket money on a nice bike.

I don't live with my mum but I have spent all your taxes on a nice bike, so really I should take this opportunity to say thank you! I may well spend some more of your taxes on some new Lightweights next pay day.

tlw1

First Aspect wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

The problem is that people think cycle paths are for cycling on, including cyclists.
The are designed to be pooled along.
If you are fit enough, fast enough, and want to cycle, stick to the roads.

This is really all there is to it. Some people on here have questioned why the other users shouldn't accommodate bikes because its a shared use path. Well, a shared use path is a pavement you can ride on. Pedestrians simply don't have to give way to you or accommodate you in any way. Get used to it.

If you don't like long leads, use the road. If you don't like dogs not on leads, use the road. If you don't like slowing down to walking pace and asking for space to pass, use the road. If you don't like using the road, try another sport.

Most of the rest of this thread appears to have been populated by little boys still living with their mum, but who have spent all their pocket money on a nice bike.

the danger of cycling on the road is an attack of the 'master' butcher

First.Aspect

matthew h wrote:

the danger of cycling on the road is an attack of the 'master' butcher

What on earth are you on about? If you can't do wit, try getting some inspiration from others before posting. No one will be able to tell.

tlw1

First Aspect wrote:

matthew h wrote:

the danger of cycling on the road is an attack of the 'master' butcher

What on earth are you on about? If you can't do wit, try getting some inspiration from others before posting. No one will be able to tell.

I'm on about current affairs, you wouldn't understand

sloppyschleckonds

matthew h wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

matthew h wrote:

the danger of cycling on the road is an attack of the 'master' butcher

What on earth are you on about? If you can't do wit, try getting some inspiration from others before posting. No one will be able to tell.

I'm on about current affairs, you wouldn't understand

First Aspect is stuck in his own time warp. Even has his fingers in his ears pretending he can't hear you.

dodgy

pinarello001 wrote:

Don't worry folks, there won't be a single cyclist on this stretch by mid December when all that decking goes green and slippy.

It doesn't get slippy, they've treated the surface with some kind of grippy material from the day it went in.

veronese68

Bloke in front of me got chased by a large Weimaraner today on a shared path through a park, it then turned and went for me. Not pleasant, the owner was clearly a complete tool that couldn't control his dog. The guy in front of me was really quite shaken by the whole thing.
Some dog owners are complete tools, I will not be going onto a forum for doggers to preach at all dog owners as the ones that are cautious and responsible will probably take umbrage at being tarred with the same brush as the simpletons.

First.Aspect

matthew h wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

matthew h wrote:

the danger of cycling on the road is an attack of the 'master' butcher

What on earth are you on about? If you can't do wit, try getting some inspiration from others before posting. No one will be able to tell.

I'm on about current affairs, you wouldn't understand

aside from the fact that it barely qualifies as a sentence, it's a bit non sequitur don't you think? And not witty, which is my point.

What other current affairs are you following? The latest happenings on Big Brother or is Susanna Reid trending right now?

You know there's a bottom bracket forum for posting b0llocks don't you. It's all chimpanzees and typrewriters down there, you'd fit right in.

Brakeless

First Aspect wrote:

matthew h wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

matthew h wrote:

the danger of cycling on the road is an attack of the 'master' butcher

What on earth are you on about? If you can't do wit, try getting some inspiration from others before posting. No one will be able to tell.

I'm on about current affairs, you wouldn't understand

aside from the fact that it barely qualifies as a sentence, it's a bit non sequitur don't you think? And not witty, which is my point.

What other current affairs are you following? The latest happenings on Big Brother or is Susanna Reid trending right now?

You know there's a bottom bracket forum for posting b0llocks don't you. It's all chimpanzees and typrewriters bracketdoen there, you'd fit right in.

Aahh Bless.

bendertherobot

First Aspect wrote:

matthew h wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

matthew h wrote:

the danger of cycling on the road is an attack of the 'master' butcher

What on earth are you on about? If you can't do wit, try getting some inspiration from others before posting. No one will be able to tell.

I'm on about current affairs, you wouldn't understand

aside from the fact that it barely qualifies as a sentence, it's a bit non sequitur don't you think? And not witty, which is my point.

What other current affairs are you following? The latest happenings on Big Brother or is Susanna Reid trending right now?

You know there's a bottom bracket forum for posting b0llocks don't you. It's all chimpanzees and typrewriters down there, you'd fit right in.

It's a cycling forum. Most people will be familiar with the master butcher story. It went more than a bit viral.

thegreatdivide

First Aspect wrote:

matthew h wrote:

the danger of cycling on the road is an attack of the 'master' butcher

What on earth are you on about? If you can't do wit, try getting some inspiration from others before posting. No one will be able to tell.

woooooooooooooosh!

RAFcyclist

OK to clear some things up that have been asked

Taon24, the dog was on its back next to its owner another dog and its owner, the dog was not darting around and if it moved it was only to get up, the point is if the cyclist had alerted to his approach (there were 2 cyclists) further precautions would have been taken to prevent an accident. the gap he tried to squeeze past by was small, common sense dictates to slow down also.

saou823 the section near where the large new gate was added and then vandalised, ie removed, twice.

pinarellooo1 I only used the child analoagy to try and get through to the posters who seemed to be struggling with the concept/point I was trying to make. Dogs are often part of the family anyway and sometimes just as important to some people.


The first paragraph above is the essential part of this that some are still missing.. Thanks matthewh and pblakeney good points there lets hope they get through ...

on shared paths this type of incident can be avoided, by cyclist simply ringing a bell or similar and slowing if required. it's common sense and the only safe option. Its not like its a hardship to do. If u don't like it then don't cycle on a shared path.

I agree that dogs that are not able to be controlled should be kept on a short lead on shared paths, but they still need cyclist to alert them of there approach regardless.

Brakeless

Dogs should be on a lead on shared paths regardless.

nferrar

The dog was lying down on a shared use path that you know is used by cyclists often going too quickly? I'm not condoning your dog being hit and far too many cyclists do ride too quickly on shared use paths (and only idiots create Strava segments on them) but it sounds a little negligent on your part. If the dog was off the path and the cyclist left the path to avoid you and hit the dog then that's pretty crappy and may they be infested with a thousand saddle sores...

homers_double

Veronese68 wrote:

I will not be going onto a forum for doggers

:shock:

bendertherobot

RAFcyclist wrote:

OK to clear some things up that have been asked

Taon24, the dog was on its back next to its owner another dog and its owner, the dog was not darting around and if it moved it was only to get up, the point is if the cyclist had alerted to his approach (there were 2 cyclists) further precautions would have been taken to prevent an accident. the gap he tried to squeeze past by was small, common sense dictates to slow down also.

saou823 the section near where the large new gate was added and then vandalised, ie removed, twice.

pinarellooo1 I only used the child analoagy to try and get through to the posters who seemed to be struggling with the concept/point I was trying to make. Dogs are often part of the family anyway and sometimes just as important to some people.


The first paragraph above is the essential part of this that some are still missing.. Thanks matthewh and pblakeney good points there lets hope they get through ...

on shared paths this type of incident can be avoided, by cyclist simply ringing a bell or similar and slowing if required. it's common sense and the only safe option. Its not like its a hardship to do. If u don't like it then don't cycle on a shared path.

I agree that dogs that are not able to be controlled should be kept on a short lead on shared paths, but they still need cyclist to alert them of there approach regardless.

Dogs don't need to be alerted. Owners of dogs do. One of the issues is speed. The other is audible warning. A bell is useful. But often a bell brings resentment from pedestrians who believe that a bell is an entitlement to use. It's hard to know what to do on a path sometimes. Especially when confronted with multiple peds walking together with multiple dogs.

Could I ask.....what efforts were you making to keep a good lookout on a shared use path? To often I see all path users make no effort to keep aware of their surroundings. And that applies to cyclists failing to shoulder check or look ahead, runners occupying the entire path and dogs pretty much everywhere. I slow down around dogs primarily because you have absolutely no idea what they will do.

the_hundredth_idiot

I think you're misunderstanding why you've got some quite snipey replies.

Most (probably all) of us would agree that cyclists should take care when on shared use paths (or anywhere, for that matter). But I don't think you've thought how your message comes across here. You seem to be falling into the trap of imposing collective responsibility on cyclists - we are not the cyclist who ran over your dog and I quite resent being lumped into the same category as him and told how to mend my ways.

Plus, I still think your story has a few holes in it. I'm sceptical that a dog laying quietly next to its owner would get run over - even putting aside wider considerations, from a purely selfish point of view I wouldn't want to run over a dog because it would probably make me fall off my bike and hurt myself and damage my bike. If the dog was right next to you, then there would presumably be a big risk of hitting you as well with even greater likelihood of falling off.

Flâneur

At that location the person was a special. Hardly a stretch to go fast on especially with the blind right bend to mentioned gate and it all being narrow.

Bet the cyclist went that way to avoid Denhall lane, lazy.


What is wrong with spending all my pocket money on a nice bike, or two, maybe three? If it helps a chunk of my pocket money is now paid for by your taxes (and mine) or the education fees paid by your child.
I think what you are commenting on is people enjoying themselves and keeping a post light hearted when it could turn into a bashing topic with what are often uninformed or polarised views. Bit grumpy aren't you, did you wake up next to pina?

veronese68

The Hundredth Idiot wrote:

I think you're misunderstanding why you've got some quite snipey replies.

I think a few people have.

First.Aspect

Veronese68 wrote:

The Hundredth Idiot wrote:

I think you're misunderstanding why you've got some quite snipey replies.

I think a few people have.

...from which you would conclude?

(a) people not getting it are sad and can't understand our subtle repartee ; or
(b) crikey, we must come across like Beavis and Butthead.

I'm going to say "b".

veronese68

First Aspect wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

The Hundredth Idiot wrote:

I think you're misunderstanding why you've got some quite snipey replies.

I think a few people have.

...from which you would conclude?

I'm not jumping to conclusions, but I understand why people get frustrated and respond by taking the p!ss.
I think the majority of people using this forum probably think about their cycling more than most cyclists otherwise they wouldn't bother being on here. The likelihood of that particular bellend or his ilk being on here is slim. It's preaching to the converted.
Hence my comment about the incident with a dog this morning. Telling that bloke off might have an effect on his behaviour, going on a forum of dog owners and telling them all to behave responsibly would just irritate the vast majority of them and make me sound like a sanctimonious fool. No doubt a lot of responses would be about cyclists all jumping red lights or something.

First.Aspect

Fair enough. I think your opinion of cycling stanrdards of even keen cyclists is a bit optimistic though.

You have a point about bundling independent people together as "cyclists" or what have you, but we all do it to some extent. I am most uncomfortable with claiming that the story is a fiction. It must be because that sort of thing rarely happens?

Let's at least give the OP the benefit of the doubt that it did happen, can we? And its a little harsh to conflate him being upset with being sanctimonious. I'm being sanctimonious. Surely you can tell the difference?

Philly8mt

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19621011#p19621011]The Hundredth Idiot[/url] wrote:

I think you're misunderstanding why you've got some quite snipey replies.

Most (probably all) of us would agree that cyclists should take care when on shared use paths (or anywhere, for that matter). But I don't think you've thought how your message comes across here. You seem to be falling into the trap of imposing collective responsibility on cyclists - we are not the cyclist who ran over your dog and I quite resent being lumped into the same category as him and told how to mend my ways.

Plus, I still think your story has a few holes in it. I'm sceptical that a dog laying quietly next to its owner would get run over - even putting aside wider considerations, from a purely selfish point of view I wouldn't want to run over a dog because it would probably make me fall off my bike and hurt myself and damage my bike. If the dog was right next to you, then there would presumably be a big risk of hitting you as well with even greater likelihood of falling off.

This ^^^^^

Matthewfalle

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19621015#p19621015]sa0u823e[/url] wrote:

At that location the person was a special. Hardly a stretch to go fast on especially with the blind right bend to mentioned gate and it all being narrow.

Bet the cyclist went that way to avoid Denhall lane, lazy.


What is wrong with spending all my pocket money on a nice bike, or two, maybe three? If it helps a chunk of my pocket money is now paid for by your taxes (and mine) or the education fees paid by your child.
I think what you are commenting on is people enjoying themselves and keeping a post light hearted when it could turn into a bashing topic with what are often uninformed or polarised views. Bit grumpy aren't you, did you wake up next to pina?

Today work was quiet so we drank coffee in the sun and rode around on work's mountain bikes and pulled skids, endos and wheelies whilst giggling insanely. Not only were our wages paid for by your taxes but so were the bikes.

I also went out for dinner tonight. This also was paid for by your taxes.

So I just thought I'd say: thank you!

pblakeney

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19620804#p19620804]First Aspect[/url] wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

The problem is that people think cycle paths are for cycling on, including cyclists.
The are designed to be pooled along.
If you are fit enough, fast enough, and want to cycle, stick to the roads.

This is really all there is to it. Some people on here have questioned why the other users shouldn't accommodate bikes because its a shared use path. Well, a shared use path is a pavement you can ride on. Pedestrians simply don't have to give way to you or accommodate you in any way. Get used to it.

If you don't like long leads, use the road. If you don't like dogs not on leads, use the road. If you don't like slowing down to walking pace and asking for space to pass, use the road. If you don't like using the road, try another sport.

Most of the rest of this thread appears to have been populated by little boys still living with their mum, but who have spent all their pocket money on a nice bike.

OI!
I spend my money on what I choose, and that is none of your business. Yes, some of it was on a very nice bike and as others have mentioned, it would have been subsidised by your tax payments all very nice and legal.
I also live with my Mum who needs care. Why should that be a point of derision?
You sound like a very bitter little man if we are going down the road of drawing (false) conclusions.

chris_bass

You know who I think is a very bitter man?

Keith lemon!

pblakeney

[url=http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19621568#p19621568]Chris Bass[/url] wrote:

You know who I think is a very bitter man?

Keith lemon!

I shall take your word for it.