'Disturbed' by incident involving Wirral cyclist (From Wirral Globe)

You should have emailed the Guiness book of records to verify this finding, I am sure it is worthy of being included, perhaps an MBE for not riding on the pavement,as you see not all cyclists are lycra clad buffoons at least one thinks that the road is not his personal domain and that everybody should not have to allow for three metre all round exculsion zone bubble.

Have any of these people who constantly complain about cyclists (albeit in this case through the use of distinctly second-rate sarcasm) ever actually ridden a bike in heavy traffic and experienced the sensation of being dangerously invisible?
Maybe they should try it before pronouncing sentence on ALL cyclists.

Sorry bickyboy, responding in kind (sarcasm)yes I have cycled to and from work for years Dock Road, Poulton road, Leasowe Road, many times being stopped by the bobbies, for offences including no lights and riding over a footbridge, I accept full responsibility my fault entirely not the motorists fault nor the pedestrians fault,if you made a manouver you looked over your right or left shoulder first before giving the obligatory hand signal failure to do this could up in an RTC with you the cyclist the victim, unfortunately it has become the norm to disregard these actions in most cases and aportion blame on everybody else or dont bother at all and ride on the pavement.

Surely it is only the 'feeble minded' (to coin an old fashioned phrase) who ride on the pavement? Why anyone on a bicyle would choose to use a footway (it being illegal and more dangerous) rather than a road that we all pay for - road tax having ceased in 1937, car/pollution tax not applying to cycles as they neither pollute and aren't cars (oh and police cars pay no tax, nor do most small cars or some HUGE 4x4 that are so called hybrid) so use the road as is your right - and let's face it fuel prices will have everyone on bikes in a very few years.
As an aside if you lot complaining used the word black/muslim instead of cycle then you'd all be arrested as nasty small minded bigots.

"Surely it is only the 'feeble minded' (to coin an old fashioned phrase) who ride on the pavement? Why anyone on a bicyle would choose to use a footway"

You need to look up the term subjective safety and understand that being too nervous of traffic to ride on roads like the A41 or the A540 is not feeble minded, it is a rational choice for many less confident cyclists. I imagine you are an adult male cyclist who fits into the category of the fit and the brave, it's unfortunate that you feel the need to be offensive about other cyclists, women and older people are particularly put off by heavy traffic, just look how few of them cycle compared to 'the fit and the brave' and it's not just a benign problem, they will probably actually die younger because they have never had the opportunity to regularly cycle and feel safe.


PS, the OP is pathetic.

Lovelo Bicycles wrote:
"Surely it is only the 'feeble minded' (to coin an old fashioned phrase) who ride on the pavement? Why anyone on a bicyle would choose to use a footway"

You need to look up the term subjective safety and understand that being too nervous of traffic to ride on roads like the A41 or the A540 is not feeble minded, it is a rational choice for many less confident cyclists. I imagine you are an adult male cyclist who fits into the category of the fit and the brave, it's unfortunate that you feel the need to be offensive about other cyclists, women and older people are particularly put off by heavy traffic, just look how few of them cycle compared to 'the fit and the brave' and it's not just a benign problem, they will probably actually die younger because they have never had the opportunity to regularly cycle and feel safe.


PS, the OP is pathetic.

Lovelo Bicycles wrote:
"... too nervous of traffic to ride on roads like the A41 or the A540 is not feeble minded, it is a rational choice for many less confident cyclists"

Both these are mostly dual carriageway through roads, so a cyclist can occupy one lane and the polluters the other lane? Why ride on a pavement and give way at every turning when you can be in the 'flow' and only have to stop at lights (as most cylists really actually do - I guess some may amber gamble as do almost all cars). If roads frighten you get some training or ride with an easy sedate club like Breeze, Bicycle Belles or WCC or CTC (first two are women only and Breeze very tame, last two are unisex and have various offerings.

Do you really think many people other than experienced adult male 'roadies' are going to take the lane? Please try and think beyond your own perspective, young teenagers, the elderly who might be a little less steady, pregnant women, there are many types of cyclist who shouldn't feel excluded due to being put off by traffic.

It would be better for all if there were proper segregated cycle paths where motor vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians can travel in their own suitable place.

Lovelo Bicycles wrote:
"Surely it is only the 'feeble minded' (to coin an old fashioned phrase) who ride on the pavement? Why anyone on a bicyle would choose to use a footway"

You need to look up the term subjective safety and understand that being too nervous of traffic to ride on roads like the A41 or the A540 is not feeble minded, it is a rational choice for many less confident cyclists. I imagine you are an adult male cyclist who fits into the category of the fit and the brave, it's unfortunate that you feel the need to be offensive about other cyclists, women and older people are particularly put off by heavy traffic, just look how few of them cycle compared to 'the fit and the brave' and it's not just a benign problem, they will probably actually die younger because they have never had the opportunity to regularly cycle and feel safe.


PS, the OP is pathetic.

Lovelo Bicycles wrote:
"... too nervous of traffic to ride on roads like the A41 or the A540 is not feeble minded, it is a rational choice for many less confident cyclists"

Both these are mostly dual carriageway through roads, so a cyclist can occupy one lane and the polluters the other lane? Why ride on a pavement and give way at every turning when you can be in the 'flow' and only have to stop at lights (as most cylists actually do - I guess some may amber gamble as do almost ALL cars). If roads frighten you get some training or ride with an easy sedate club like Breeze, Bicycle Belles or WCC or CTC (first two are women only and Breeze very tame, last two are unisex and have various offerings.
You do realise pedestrians on the pavement die in much greater numbers annualy than cyclists do on the road every decade or (and most of them in London riding up the inside of lorries at lights) or that more people die falling down stairs, or even more so by being fat as you say.
Cycling isn't dangerous just everyone thinks it is!

Lovelo Bicycles wrote:
Do you really think many people other than experienced adult male 'roadies' are going to take the lane? Please try and think beyond your own perspective, young teenagers, the elderly who might be a little less steady, pregnant women, there are many types of cyclist who shouldn't feel excluded due to being put off by traffic.

It would be better for all if there were proper segregated cycle paths where motor vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians can travel in their own suitable place.

If you percieve that taking the lane is what confident roadies do to be safe then copying that is surely the correct technique? If you are a wobbly cyclist then the best place to be is in the centre of the lane to allow for wobbles, it also keeps you away from grids and debris in the gutter which reduces any need to swerve around on the road. Get training to see just how easy cycling really is! Roads are for everyone after all.

Yes, it's the correct technique, I'm sure there is also a correct technique for taming lions, I'm also sure many people do not want to find out if it works by going in to the lion's den.

Vehicular cycling is not a replacement for a safe road network, it's what we are forced to do because a safe road network has not yet been built for cyclists. As I say, it seems self evident that vehicular cycling is a technique almost exclusively tried by adult males, it is also true that adult males make up by far the largest group of cyclists killed each year. Ultimately with vehicular cycling you still rely on drivers to be concentrating and not to be total idiots and small mistakes by the cyclist are violently punished. This is not a situation that will ever lead to mass cycling in this country, that can only come about through the subjective safety provided by segregated cycle facilities.

Lovelo Bicycles wrote:
Yes, it's the correct technique, I'm sure there is also a correct technique for taming lions, I'm also sure many people do not want to find out if it works by going in to the lion's den.

Vehicular cycling is not a replacement for a safe road network, it's what we are forced to do because a safe road network has not yet been built for cyclists. As I say, it seems self evident that vehicular cycling is a technique almost exclusively tried by adult males, it is also true that adult males make up by far the largest group of cyclists killed each year. Ultimately with vehicular cycling you still rely on drivers to be concentrating and not to be total idiots and small mistakes by the cyclist are violently punished. This is not a situation that will ever lead to mass cycling in this country, that can only come about through the subjective safety provided by segregated cycle facilities.

How many cyclists do you think are killed a year in the UK? Far more fat people die, far more pedestrians die, far more stair falls kill - I think you are a cycle hating troll trying to be clever - cycling isn't dangerous!

Why on earth would you think I am a troll?

Is it so incomprehensible to you that a cyclist should want segregated facilities?

Go and cycle in the Netherlands for a few days and on your return consider the appalling conditions British cyclists are expected to deal with, being both banned and hated on the pavement and hated and abused on the road.

Whilst it is true that a huge network of city cycleways exist giving cyclists priority over cars in towns, it is also true that outside of these that cyclists just use the road without any drama or special provision, but that is simply because european cylists occupy the correct position on the road, basically one that allows the cyclist to see hazards ahead, and also allows motorists to see the rider better.

Put simply just ride in the 'car' LH wheeltrack (gutter has grids and debris, lane centre can be oily, but RH track works too). It is then easy to move in when it is safe (for you) to allow a following vehicle to pass - and it stops them squeezing through a gap that isn't there, it also allows a swerve kerbwards to avoid anything (pothole/debris/Nova
) this option to swerve isn't available if you 'gutter grovel' and nor is the enhanced visibilty aspect.

No need for seperate facilities as we are all traffic after all.

"Whilst it is true that a huge network of city cycleways exist giving cyclists priority over cars in towns, it is also true that outside of these that cyclists just use the road without any drama or special provision"

This is just not correct, in small towns and villages there is relatively little segregation, cyclists are protected by the nature of the road design and 18km/h speed limits. In larger towns and cities there are segregated paths and cars are routed in different ways to cycles. In the open country there are broad, fast cycle tracks that distance cyclists can easily travel on at 30-40km/h making it completely unnecessary to interact with motor vehicles.

We are not 'all traffic', a cycle may be a vehicle but it is completely unequal relationship where the cyclist has some of the requirements of a car such as smooth uninterrupted surfaces, but the vulnerability of a pedestrian and because of this cyclists should have their own space.

As for enhancing visibility by riding towards the centre of the lane, again, it is not a good alternative to a proper cycle track, it is what we must do because we are forced to. After all, cars rear end each other all the time, they pull out of side roads into each other's path, being visible is barely any protection at all. I was smidsy'd a few weeks ago while riding up the centre of a lane and wearing a very bright blue coat. I have a friend who was travelling on a double decker bus that was hit by a car, the driver of the car said he hadn't seen the bus!

If training cyclists in vehicular cycling was all that was required we would already be seeing increases in cycling rates amongst less confident road users, after all vehicular cycling is not a new concept. It is however a failed one, it simply does not and cannot lead to mass participation in cycling because it does not address subjective safety in any effective way.

What vehicular cycling teaches you is that cycling is dangerous and these are the ways to best deal with those dangers, of course cycling isn't dangerous, cyclists are vulnerable and being in proximity to motor vehicles is dangerous. There is simple evidence of this in that if you cycled around a Dutch city in a helmet and hi viz vest you'd look like a total paranoid idiot because they are unnecessary accessories.