Non-Football threads

[Herman 9,717]

Less of the old, Indy.

[Indy 3,286]

1 minute ago, Herman said:

Less of the old, Indy.

Sorry Herman, I should say load of different aged but mainly old duffers!

[canarydan23 4,060]

15 hours ago, lake district canary said:

My suggestion was that stupid is what stupid does, whether it's drivers or cyclists.  If that wasn't clear in my post then I am sorry. 

What should interest a cyclist is self-preservation, not their ego and being like "I am here and I am going to hold my ground".

I was taught as a driver to assume that every other road user, whatever it is, car, bike, lorry etc is an idiot and therefore you should exepct anything at any time.  My impression of many cyclists I see is that they don't do that - and that is a dangerous attitude for them.  It is heck of a scary on a bike having a lorry pass you at the best of times - my advice would be get out of the way at the first opportunity and let them pass, not because they should get past, but because it will be safer for you if you do.

It's not rocket science - bike/lorry...or bike/big 4x4.......the contest is uneven.  Safety first!

 

I think the saying on this forum is stupid is what LDC does.

Look, the reason I get so riled about the ignorant tosh spouted by people like you is that, whilst many don't know it, you are contributing to the sustaining of a culture that increases the likelihood of people being killed.

When we're driving a one tonne metal killing machine, we make hundreds and hundreds of subconscious decisions. For an example of that, when you buy a new car all of a sudden you will see dozens and dozens of the make and model you have just purchased. Did they all buy them at the same time as you? No. You saw them before you had your car but your reticular activating system, powered by your subconscious, filtered it out so it never registered.

Now, for too many people behind the wheel, people on bikes are being filtered out, or at least their significance is being filtered out, by their subconscious. And the reason for that is because too often in the media and by idiot car drivers they are simply grouped as "cyclists". I'm not a cyclist. I'm not a motorist. I'm a dad, husband and brother who rides bikes and drives cars. Yet even in death this is ignored. You only need to read the differences in headlines, "Cyclist killed in roundabout collision" compared to when a motorist dies, "Dad of three tragically killed when lorry hit car".

Staggeringly, our behaviour behind the wheel changes depending on whether a cyclist is wearing a helmet or not. Many studies have shown that cars will be more careful when passing or driving near a helmet-less cyclist. Now, no one will consciously say that they do this, but it's been proven that it happens.

So, to prevent this culture, that in a European environment is almost exclusive to the UK, I'm dutybound to tackle thoughtless comments when I see fit. It won't be enough, legislation needs to change and we, like the majority of other developed nations, need to adopt a presumed liability stance when a cyclist is involved in an RTA, whereby the motorist is automatically assumed as the at fault party in any incident and the burden is upon them to prove otherwise. The reason for this has nothing to do with who foots the bill for the damages but entirely to do with the culture and directing the subconscious of drivers of motorised vehicles so that they start to see people on bikes as people on bikes rather than just "cyclists" with all the negative connotations that people will apparently even go into Tour de France threads on internet message boards to spread and preach.

So, I won't apologise for my rudeness at you because chucking a few blue phrases at someone is a significantly lesser sin than actively contributing to a culture that increases the likelihood of mums, dads and children dying on our roads.

Oh, and it's not in the least bit scary to be passed by a lorry who gives you the appropriate space. And if a lorry doesn't give you the appropriate space, then the lorry driver is an idiot, not the vulnerable person on the bike, and they will hopefully one day do it to one of the plain-clothed police officers who too infrequently patrol our roads on bikes so that they can be dealt with in accordance with the law of the land. As it stands in the absence of appropriate policing, I'll just give the side of their lorry a whack, not in anger, just in an effort to re-calibrate their subconscious so that next time they approach a bike their brain will automatically think that it might not be such a good idea.

I suspect if you lived here I'd probably have given your car the odd tap on the roof.

[Mr Apples 1,317]

An interesting stat on how unaware drivers may be of their responsibilities/the law.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-48181424

Apples

[king canary 7,580]

22 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

I think the saying on this forum is stupid is what LDC does.

Look, the reason I get so riled about the ignorant tosh spouted by people like you is that, whilst many don't know it, you are contributing to the sustaining of a culture that increases the likelihood of people being killed.

When we're driving a one tonne metal killing machine, we make hundreds and hundreds of subconscious decisions. For an example of that, when you buy a new car all of a sudden you will see dozens and dozens of the make and model you have just purchased. Did they all buy them at the same time as you? No. You saw them before you had your car but your reticular activating system, powered by your subconscious, filtered it out so it never registered.

Now, for too many people behind the wheel, people on bikes are being filtered out, or at least their significance is being filtered out, by their subconscious. And the reason for that is because too often in the media and by idiot car drivers they are simply grouped as "cyclists". I'm not a cyclist. I'm not a motorist. I'm a dad, husband and brother who rides bikes and drives cars. Yet even in death this is ignored. You only need to read the differences in headlines, "Cyclist killed in roundabout collision" compared to when a motorist dies, "Dad of three tragically killed when lorry hit car".

Staggeringly, our behaviour behind the wheel changes depending on whether a cyclist is wearing a helmet or not. Many studies have shown that cars will be more careful when passing or driving near a helmet-less cyclist. Now, no one will consciously say that they do this, but it's been proven that it happens.

So, to prevent this culture, that in a European environment is almost exclusive to the UK, I'm dutybound to tackle thoughtless comments when I see fit. It won't be enough, legislation needs to change and we, like the majority of other developed nations, need to adopt a presumed liability stance when a cyclist is involved in an RTA, whereby the motorist is automatically assumed as the at fault party in any incident and the burden is upon them to prove otherwise. The reason for this has nothing to do with who foots the bill for the damages but entirely to do with the culture and directing the subconscious of drivers of motorised vehicles so that they start to see people on bikes as people on bikes rather than just "cyclists" with all the negative connotations that people will apparently even go into Tour de France threads on internet message boards to spread and preach.

So, I won't apologise for my rudeness at you because chucking a few blue phrases at someone is a significantly lesser sin than actively contributing to a culture that increases the likelihood of mums, dads and children dying on our roads.

Oh, and it's not in the least bit scary to be passed by a lorry who gives you the appropriate space. And if a lorry doesn't give you the appropriate space, then the lorry driver is an idiot, not the vulnerable person on the bike, and they will hopefully one day do it to one of the plain-clothed police officers who too infrequently patrol our roads on bikes so that they can be dealt with in accordance with the law of the land. As it stands in the absence of appropriate policing, I'll just give the side of their lorry a whack, not in anger, just in an effort to re-calibrate their subconscious so that next time they approach a bike their brain will automatically think that it might not be such a good idea.

I suspect if you lived here I'd probably have given your car the odd tap on the roof.

None of this surprises me with LDC- he basically said on a previous thread he couldn't keep an eye on his speed while overtaking so I'm not sure I'd fancy being on the road with him...

[lake district canary 4,531]

3 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

I think the saying on this forum is stupid is what LDC does.

Look, the reason I get so riled about the ignorant tosh spouted by people like you is that, whilst many don't know it, you are contributing to the sustaining of a culture that increases the likelihood of people being killed.

When we're driving a one tonne metal killing machine, we make hundreds and hundreds of subconscious decisions. For an example of that, when you buy a new car all of a sudden you will see dozens and dozens of the make and model you have just purchased. Did they all buy them at the same time as you? No. You saw them before you had your car but your reticular activating system, powered by your subconscious, filtered it out so it never registered.

Now, for too many people behind the wheel, people on bikes are being filtered out, or at least their significance is being filtered out, by their subconscious. And the reason for that is because too often in the media and by idiot car drivers they are simply grouped as "cyclists". I'm not a cyclist. I'm not a motorist. I'm a dad, husband and brother who rides bikes and drives cars. Yet even in death this is ignored. You only need to read the differences in headlines, "Cyclist killed in roundabout collision" compared to when a motorist dies, "Dad of three tragically killed when lorry hit car".

Staggeringly, our behaviour behind the wheel changes depending on whether a cyclist is wearing a helmet or not. Many studies have shown that cars will be more careful when passing or driving near a helmet-less cyclist. Now, no one will consciously say that they do this, but it's been proven that it happens.

So, to prevent this culture, that in a European environment is almost exclusive to the UK, I'm dutybound to tackle thoughtless comments when I see fit. It won't be enough, legislation needs to change and we, like the majority of other developed nations, need to adopt a presumed liability stance when a cyclist is involved in an RTA, whereby the motorist is automatically assumed as the at fault party in any incident and the burden is upon them to prove otherwise. The reason for this has nothing to do with who foots the bill for the damages but entirely to do with the culture and directing the subconscious of drivers of motorised vehicles so that they start to see people on bikes as people on bikes rather than just "cyclists" with all the negative connotations that people will apparently even go into Tour de France threads on internet message boards to spread and preach.

So, I won't apologise for my rudeness at you because chucking a few blue phrases at someone is a significantly lesser sin than actively contributing to a culture that increases the likelihood of mums, dads and children dying on our roads.

Oh, and it's not in the least bit scary to be passed by a lorry who gives you the appropriate space. And if a lorry doesn't give you the appropriate space, then the lorry driver is an idiot, not the vulnerable person on the bike, and they will hopefully one day do it to one of the plain-clothed police officers who too infrequently patrol our roads on bikes so that they can be dealt with in accordance with the law of the land. As it stands in the absence of appropriate policing, I'll just give the side of their lorry a whack, not in anger, just in an effort to re-calibrate their subconscious so that next time they approach a bike their brain will automatically think that it might not be such a good idea.

I suspect if you lived here I'd probably have given your car the odd tap on the roof.

For your information I am incredibly careful when I see bikes - because I know they are vulnerable.  I also know that others are not and that is something that needs work. You would not be able to tap my roof because I would be nowhere near you when I overtake.  

You are coming from it from a one sided point of view - yes drivers need educating, be aware and be patient.....but it works the other way round too.   Cyclists need to be aware when they are holding up traffic and take appropriate action. 

Before you going shouting out "stupid" again just stop and think about it.  Tractors on the road pull off the road to let the flow of traffic through...it's common courtesy.  I have travelled miles behind groups of cyclists who are so close together making overtaking almost impossible on some roads.  That will lead to frustration in even the most patient of driver.  It is perfectly possible for groups of cyclists to ride in such a way as to leave gaps to allow overtaking easier.....but how often do you see that? Very rarely.....even though the advice given by cyclist organisations is to do just that. 

Blanket condemning of drivers is just passing the buck - I agree they need to be more careful, but cyclists could do a lot more to be good road users.  I've given several instances of things I have seen or experienced either on the road or off it which I consider rude, uncaring or downright stupid and dangerous - and I don't think I am unique in that. 

I agree with some of what you say, but it is a one sided argument. It is two sided and as much as drivers need to improve their conduct with cyclists - cyclists in general could be a lot more aware about how to cycle in groups, could show a lot more courtesy to other road users and make using roads a much better experience for all.  Having to pass a cycling/road awareness test would be a start.

 

 

[canarydan23 4,060]

7 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

Blanket condemning of drivers is just passing the buck

I didn't think my opinion of your self-awareness could plummet any lower.

Call me a radical, but my opinion is that we should focus on the instances of road behaviour that, you know, regularly kill people and that prioritising the eradication of behaviours that occasionally cause cars to have to sit behind some cyclists for thirty seconds or so is not logical. Wouldn't you agree, LDC?

And people cycle in groups because they want to, you know, cycle in groups. It's a lot more fun and is as much a social thing as it is a means of exercise. You're talking out of your backside if you think organisations advise group cyclists to do what you say. The advice is to always ride two abreast. If you think it's easier to pass ten bikes strung out along 100 metres of road then I've got a bridge to sell you. It's far, far easier to overtake a group of ten bikes if they are cycling in five rows of two. Yes, there are occasions where you may have to sit behind them for a bunch of seconds, but once you pass them you pass them all. Having to drift into the opposite lane ten times to get past the whole group is nonsensical; it's bizarre for you to even suggest it never mind claim that "cycling organisations" tell people to do it.

 

19 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

just stop and think about it

Sage advice, apart from one think. You need to direct it at the man in the mirror, not me. Your actions and attitudes have consequences, all too often devastating ones.

[Flying Dutchman 744]

Absolute shambles this thread hasn't been moved to Non-Football 😉

Club's in crisis.

Edited July 16, 2019 by Flying Dutchman
No excuse for missing the apostrophe

[lake district canary 4,531]

55 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

I didn't think my opinion of your self-awareness could plummet any lower.

Call me a radical, but my opinion is that we should focus on the instances of road behaviour that, you know, regularly kill people and that prioritising the eradication of behaviours that occasionally cause cars to have to sit behind some cyclists for thirty seconds or so is not logical. Wouldn't you agree, LDC?

And people cycle in groups because they want to, you know, cycle in groups. It's a lot more fun and is as much a social thing as it is a means of exercise. You're talking out of your backside if you think organisations advise group cyclists to do what you say. The advice is to always ride two abreast. If you think it's easier to pass ten bikes strung out along 100 metres of road then I've got a bridge to sell you. It's far, far easier to overtake a group of ten bikes if they are cycling in five rows of two. Yes, there are occasions where you may have to sit behind them for a bunch of seconds, but once you pass them you pass them all. Having to drift into the opposite lane ten times to get past the whole group is nonsensical; it's bizarre for you to even suggest it never mind claim that "cycling organisations" tell people to do it.

What a poor response. I explained my care when I see cycling and my awareness of the danger involved, but you ignore that, you ignored my other reasoning totally,  taking part sentences and ignoring the whole meaning of what I say and showing up  your own blinkered and superficial approach to the subject.

Your lack of knowledge about overtaking - which is perfectly safe if done properly - is telling.  I presume you aren't a driver, because you don't seem to know much about driving. It's far better to overtake one or two bikes than a long group, any time.  

It's a daily occurence up here that you see cyclists, individually, in pairs, and in large groups.  To me single bikes are incredibly vulnerable, pairs of bikes better - but not two abreast....that advice seems flawed to me....whenever I've seen two bikes abreast, the act of overtaking them, even if the road ahead is clear, is not a comfortable experience, mainly because I would always give cyclists a wide berth when overtaking and that is hard when one of them is in the middle of their lane.

Large groups are the worst. Whether those out on a jaunt with friends or an organised cycling group with all the gear, they can hold up other traffic for miles.  I know several fervent cyclists and we've had many conversations about this and they all agree that it is better to cycle in twos (in line, not abreast) leaving a gap for cars to overtake one pair at a time.

I've tried to take a balanced approach to this and imo you need to be a bit more understanding of the whole picture. 

Think on, after your persistent lack of understanding, I won't be responding to you again. 

Edited July 16, 2019 by lake district canary

[lappinitup 629]

14 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

 I won't be responding to you again. 

Huzzah!

[lake district canary 4,531]

9 minutes ago, lappinitup said:

Huzzah!

I'll respond to you though.......

[canarydan23 4,060]

27 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

It's far better to overtake one or two bikes than a long group, any time.  

You f*cking moron, I'm talking about bike riding in groups. A group of bikes are advised by cycling organisations to ride two abreast. And as I said, it is far, far easier to overtake 10 cyclists who are bunched in 5 rows of two than ten cyclists who are stretched out across a large stretch of road. I'm intrigued as to who your mythical cycling organisations who advise a contrary means of group riding?

 

29 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

they can hold up other traffic for miles

Miles? Right, if you're having to resort to hyperbole (and outright fiction as in the other thread) then it's a sure sign you're struggling.

At the end of the day, your railing against people who are choosing to either keep fit, reduce congestion (bikes take up less space than cars), benefit the environment or a bit of all three because they occasionally hold up traffic. I'm railing against a culture, perpetrated by idiots like you on message boards but that exists at all levels of government in this country, that contributes to people on bikes dying.

 

31 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

I won't be responding to you again. 

Your concession, even if completely cowardly, is accepted. I hope you reflect on your inability to continue this argument and your own contribution to the creation of a culture that increases the prospect of people dying on our roads.

[lake district canary 4,531]

I don't engage with those who can't argue their case without using abusive language. There are two sides to the story which you fail to recognise. Totally. Good day. 

 

 

[Flying Dutchman 744]

I'm really glad this is the direction this thread took.

[king canary 7,580]

48 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

Think on, after your persistent lack of understanding, I won't be responding to you again. 

Didn't you call someone a snowflake on another thread for refusing to listen to your nonsense any longer?

[canarydan23 4,060]

50 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

I won't be responding to you again. 

 

5 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

I don't engage with those who can't argue their case without using abusive language. There are two sides to the story which you fail to recognise. Totally. Good day. 

Well done, Lakey.

Quite a lot of people get abusive with you, don't they. Someone with self-awareness and the ability to conduct a bit of introspection might locate a common denominator.

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

25 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

I don't engage with those who can't argue their case without using abusive language. There are two sides to the story which you fail to recognise. Totally. Good day. 

 

 

It's always everybody else's fault when people respond to your clueless nonsense. I see you're now using right-wing terms like 'snowflake', yet flounce off whenever anybody calls you out on your yawn-inducing ramblings. Your views on certain topics suggest you have a very ignorant view of the world and quite frankly you come off as a bitter old man.

We've been here time and time again with you winding people up with your pompous and condescending tone; ever think the problem might be your end?!

[lake district canary 4,531]

Lol, there you are again. Would be nice if you could give opinions on the subject being discussed sometimes, rather than ignoring that and casting judgement on someone you don't know or have never met.  As to the subject being discussed, my reasoning has been clear and I have tried to be balanced with it.  Not that it seems to have made much difference.....

As for your interventions - a religious person might say "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". In other words we are all flawed, we can all be right or wrong, including you. 

[canarydan23 4,060]

2 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

and I have tried to be balanced with it

You were trying to be balanced? Oh, you didn't succeed. Best try harder.

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

See. There you go again. You can't resist climbing up onto that moral high ground. No wonder so many think you're a bell end.

PS, using 'lol' is the comeback of a teenage girl, not an old fart like you.

Edited July 16, 2019 by Hoola Han Solo

[lake district canary 4,531]

Lol.