Another pathetic dim witted tweeting driver...

[Spinney]

Do you remember the chap who tweeted that he was going to blow Robin Hood airport up if they didn't clear the snow in time for him to make his flight?

Do you remember how when he was convicted of an offence, most people thought it was ridiculous because clearly he didn't mean he was literally going to blow the airport up - and in fact he was cleared on appeal and everyone thought the whole thing had been very silly and a waste of time and money?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19009344

This reminds me of that.

The difference is that very few people try to blow up airports. There have been drivers convicted of deliberately ramming cyclists, so her threat is far more credible than the blowing-up-the-airport threat.

 

[John the Monkey]

Ah but how many people thought the world was flat?

Loads. Honest. Absolutely tons of 'em. Like, a couple of vasts, if not more.

 

[Sara_H]

How have we got to a situation where even those who have only just passed their driving test have this bully boy attitude when driving around vulnerable road users? Something deeply wrong here.

 

[summerdays]

How is she going to become enlightened unless the police have a word with her?

 

[ufkacbln]

The young lady in question arguably was in proper control of her vehicle.

But not her brain?

 

[Zcapp96]

All sorts of people think all sorts of stuff that is arrant nonsense. Would you suggest that we go for the majority view in all matters?

Err, actually that's the way democracy works! If the majority decide to vote for UKIP next May, we all have to live with the consequences. If someone starts deciding when we start ignoring democracy when it doesn't suit their group then we are heading into very murky waters. IF the majority of people decide that cycling two abreast is anti social then we just have to accept that it is. Anti social does not mean wrong or unsafe, it just means against the wishes or beliefs of the society in is contained within.

As an interesting aside to this, On my first driving test I came up behind a cyclist who was riding 1-2m from the kerb. I stayed behind him for about 200m because it was a fairly busy road and there was traffic coming in the opposite direction. I was failed on that because the examiner said I should have overtaken the cyclist. To do so I would have had to have passed less than a metre from him as there was no room to overtake in the opposite lane. He would have been an instructor before becoming an examiner so who knows how many people he has taught and passed with the wrong attitude!

 

[Retribution03]

Soooo anyone want to discuss the pros and cons of cycle helmets.....runs haha

 

[theclaud]

No time gap, no TMN.

HBF

 

[theclaud]

As an interesting aside to this, On my first driving test I came up behind a cyclist who was riding 1-2m from the kerb. I stayed behind him for about 200m because it was a fairly busy road and there was traffic coming in the opposite direction. I was failed on that because the examiner said I should have overtaken the cyclist. To do so I would have had to have passed less than a metre from him as there was no room to overtake in the opposite lane. He would have been an instructor before becoming an examiner so who knows how many people he has taught and passed with the wrong attitude!

Which merely suggests that driving instructors are rubbish. My observations of their driving when they don't have a pupil tend to reinforce this view. I only allow myself to be drawn down this side-alley because the quality of our driving instructors should tell us something...

 

[Zcapp96]

Which we don't have. If we did, and put various issues to referenda I reckon we would
Have a death penalty
Outlaw cycling on public roads
Ban Burka's
Etc. etc. etc.

I very much doubt that any of those are a majority viewpoint in this country because if they were then every political party would promise them to the voters or the public would be screaming for their inclusion. Let's face it, politicians are not an ethical bunch, the didn't ban fox hunting because of the poor foxes. They banned it because if they didn't they would lose more votes than they would gain.

 

[Zcapp96]

Burka Ban

Death penalty. Less clear now but for a long time after it was abolished the law was out of step with public opinion.

If you notice the ban on the burka is highest among the ukip supporters and if current trends continue then they may well be in a position to implement such a ban in the future, democracy in action!

This is all well and good but the point was about anti social behavior which is not necessarily criminal in itself but goes against the wishes of those around you. That's what anti social means, against society. Playing music loudly is not a criminal offence but if you do it in a block of flats at 4am when the rest of the block are trying to sleep then it becomes anti social. If every other road user (rightly or wrongly, decides that riding two abreast is anti social then it is as it is the view of the majority of the road using society. They may well be wrong but we cannot stop it being anti social unless we can educate them into the reality of the situation. Otherwise we are no different to the loud music player shouting that 'it is my stereo and I can play what I want.'

 

[theclaud]

If you notice the ban on the burka is highest among the ukip supporters and if current trends continue then they may well be in a position to implement such a ban in the future, democracy in action!

This is all well and good but the point was about anti social behavior which is not necessarily criminal in itself but goes against the wishes of those around you. That's what anti social means, against society. Playing music loudly is not a criminal offence but if you do it in a block of flats at 4am when the rest of the block are trying to sleep then it becomes anti social. If every other road user (rightly or wrongly, decides that riding two abreast is anti social then it is as it is the view of the majority of the road using society. They may well be wrong but we cannot stop it being anti social unless we can educate them into the reality of the situation. Otherwise we are no different to the loud music player shouting that 'it is my stereo and I can play what I want.'

Duff analogy alert! Playing loud music at 4am prevents people sleeping. Riding two abreast does not deprive drivers of anything. Except their sense of superiority. Which, of course, is the real reason they don't like it. We should all do it far more often.

 

[John the Monkey]

Riding two abreast does not deprive drivers of anything. Except their sense of superiority. Which, of course, is the real reason they don't like it. We should all do it far more often.

Which is why, should it happen, it will be brought in "for our safety", of course.

 

[400bhp]

I am genuinely interested in the subject of single file/two abreast riding. If you ask car drivers they all will claim that two abreast is an ignorant way to ride and not considerate of other road users. If you ask cyclists some will agree with this and some will not.
So a simple question: If two cyclists are riding two abreast does this, in your opinion, have any effect on a car driver's ability to overtake compared to riding single file? If the answer is no, why do you think car drivers disagree?

No agenda here, a genuine question as two road user groups appear to have very different positions on this

Sight lines is the only reason really. It can be harder to see a safe overtaking opportunity passing cyclists riding 2 abreast.

The rest is in people's heads, in that motorists believe they have a right to travel faster than cyclists, which dumbs down to get lout of my way.

 

[theclaud]

"And in the kingdom of the bland, its 9 o'clock on ITV."

Bingo!