Cycle to work day 2016

[mjr]

how many other people has he made that impression on though.

Probably scads. I agree it's not a good thing. Not sure how that's relevant here?

I got grief on here when i first raised it and a neighbouring area leader whined that all the LCC area leaders are sooo hard done by giving up sooo much time and if i could do better then to do it.

Heh, "raised it"? To be fair, https://www.cyclechat.net/posts/2737880 was basically leading in with a guideline-busting personal attack more than raising it and https://www.cyclechat.net/posts/2737922 seems a much more reasonable reply than it deserved, not a "whine".

Personally, I object to the idea of ride leaders in general and it takes a fairly strong reason for me to join such rides, but lots of people seem to like such regimented rides with all the snaking and shouting nonsense like "all up" around. Each to their own.

again i wonder if the " speaking for all London Cyclists " bit breaches the ASA rules .

I suggest that if anyone wants to spend time on things with little probability of success, there are probably better targets to aim at.

 

[subaqua]

Probably scads. I agree it's not a good thing. Not sure how that's relevant here?


Heh, "raised it"? To be fair, https://www.cyclechat.net/posts/2737880 was basically leading in with a guideline-busting personal attack more than raising it and https://www.cyclechat.net/posts/2737922 seems a much more reasonable reply than it deserved, not a "whine".

Personally, I object to the idea of ride leaders in general and it takes a fairly strong reason for me to join such rides, but lots of people seem to like such regimented rides with all the snaking and shouting nonsense like "all up" around. Each to their own.


I suggest that if anyone wants to spend time on things with little probability of success, there are probably better targets to aim at.

wow slow day for you today !

I would suggest there are a lot of posts by members that are "guidline busting" that one isn't close to a radar. nice to see that the waltham forest leader didn't respond to my questions , the same one i am asking in this thread but cant get an answer from LCC about.

speaks Volumes about the organisation really


thankfully the FNRttC and similar christmas tourof london rides are not anything like the LCC feeder ride was. they are much more enjoyable.

I dread my commute on LCC Day ( well they seem to have Hijacked it in London) as no doubt will be clogging up the CS2 route meaning those of us who don't want to pootle along at 6mph and want to ride at a sensible speed will need to use the roads stolen to make the segregated tripe it is. Embankment - yes great apart from the speed humps like fecking mountains . but the others that throw you into traffic at multiple points.


again.

if i can ride the CS2 route for several years , with no incident, not change my riding , see a segeregated route built then start getting incidents including getting offed ( not the uberist one at mile end he was just a swivel eyed loon) what do you think the problem might be

whats the ONE thing that changed , and what was constant?

 

[mjr]

wow slow day for you today !

Wow, do you not like criticism so much that you'd rather try to belittle?

nice to see that the waltham forest leader didn't respond to my questions , the same one i am asking in this thread but cant get an answer from LCC about.

As discussed later in that thread, it seems you can't get an answer from LCC because you never actually asked them about it (rather than harangue another random volunteer on here), preferring to keep repeating that the only LCC ride you ever went on rode past a no-cycling sign

if i can ride the CS2 route for several years , with no incident, not change my riding , see a segeregated route built then start getting incidents including getting offed ( not the uberist one at mile end he was just a swivel eyed loon) what do you think the problem might be

Maybe you're not as good at riding cycle tracks as you are at roads and that's fine, keep on the roads.

 

[subaqua]

Wow, do you not like criticism so much that you'd rather try to belittle?


As discussed later in that thread, it seems you can't get an answer from LCC because you never actually asked them about it (rather than harangue another random volunteer on here), preferring to keep repeating that the only LCC ride you ever went on rode past a no-cycling sign

Maybe you're not as good at riding cycle tracks as you are at roads and that's fine, keep on the roads.

1) not belittling but if you must go searching

2) the other LCC nobber from WF didn't answer if he thought demonstrating pi55 poor cycling skills was a good thing . and neither really have you. shall i ask again *

3) yeah right. seems that a lot of cyclists must be bad at it then as it is a common occurence on CS2 and when you chat to people when you stop and help it seems they never had an issue when they could ride the roads , which they cant now because LCC nobbers wanted to separate us so we get the other swivel eyed loon knuckle draggers abusing us for whipping along sharpish in the road.

so we are in a no win situation. speak for all London cyclist do you like fark you do


*again but in less flowery language

Does it do the image of LCC any good when ride leaders and volunteers of the LCC are utter numpties and demonstrate how not to ride when they should be a best practice example ?

Why will the LCC head office not comment when I have sent them a nice letter asking if they think it is a good idea . in fact several questions were asked and asked so that they could be answered individually.

a Quango at its worst.

 

[andrew_s]

http://lcc.org.uk/pages/london-biketubes-2016
The bit about needing to be at bikeability level 2

Given that the participants are expecting to actually arrive at work, I don't think it's unreasonable to require them to be able to ride a bike to a reasonable standard - things like looking behind or indicating without wobbling all over the road, and also working brakes. Arrival won't happen if the leader has to fix someone's bike or teach them how to ride.

I interpret the bikeability bit as a statement of what sort of riding standard you should be at, rather than a requirement to have actually taken & passed the test.

 

[mjr]

3) yeah right. seems that a lot of cyclists must be bad at it then as it is a common occurence on CS2 and when you chat to people when you stop and help it seems they never had an issue when they could ride the roads,

How would do you know? You stopped riding CS2 in 2013...

Does it do the image of LCC any good when ride leaders and volunteers a volunteer ride leader of the LCC are utter numpties is a bit of a numpty and demonstrates how not to ride when they should be a best practice example ?

FTFY. No, it doesn't.

Why will the LCC head office not comment when I have sent them a nice letter asking if they think it is a good idea . in fact several questions were asked and asked so that they could be answered individually.

If they think what is a good idea? When and to whom was the letter sent? I'll ask where it went, in case they listen more carefully to someone from a sibling organisation.

a Quango at its worst.

Quango? How's it quasi?

 

[subaqua]

wow , you been taking stalking lessons from GF.

sadly I have had to use it more often as we have projects along it .

it is still substandard infrastructure, it still floods when the adjacent roads don't. it still has ironworks in the middle of it. all the comments that were made to TfL by me and a lot of others. what did LCC do. nothing they rolled onto backs and sucked Boris dry because they were getting "segregation" alleluia . never mind it was utterly flawed. as pointed out by several Highways engineers on here. and laughed at by the tender teams for a lot of contractors ( small world is construction)

what might have helped is having a decent clerk of works who gets contractors to put right defects, although to be fair SISO stands up here but Riney were useless on CS2

If it was a school report most of the CS routes would be - could try harder E- . had LCC had the nuts to stand up and condemn the designs as utterly rubbish as they are then maybe we would have decent routes and decent protection at Junctions and TfL would enforce the provision of proper lanes at works where the lane gets stolen.

if LCC had that sort of voice then they might be the Voice of London cyclists. until that time they can continue being a 3rd rate bunch of cockwombles

when i rode it yesterday it was full of rubbish . it doesn't get cleaned as conveniently it falls into the black hole TfL and the boroughs use to not do anything when they can by claiming it is somebody else's responsibility.


anyway still doesn't get over the fact the self appointed ( Qu is for Quackpot ) LCC ( London Cockwomble Central has a better ring) are not actually doing stuff to get more people cycling.

did they let the saturday boy write the blurb I wonder.

 

[subaqua]

Given that the participants are expecting to actually arrive at work, I don't think it's unreasonable to require them to be able to ride a bike to a reasonable standard - things like looking behind or indicating without wobbling all over the road, and also working brakes. Arrival won't happen if the leader has to fix someone's bike or teach them how to ride.

I interpret the bikeability bit as a statement of what sort of riding standard you should be at, rather than a requirement to have actually taken & passed the test.

it can be read lots of ways. i showed it to several people in work who said that it put them off by the way it was written.

and whats the definition of unsafe to ride. mine will be different from yours. how worn a brake block is deemed to be unsafe . would a rusty chain squeaking mean the appointed leaders say oh you cant come on the ride.

How many normal punters would know that ? or when they found out would go oooh not sure so i won't bother, when there was a great opportunity to get more people cycling by being a bit more welcoming with the words

 

[G3CWI]

indicating without wobbling all over the road

You would have enjoyed critiquing some of the back-markers that I overtook on my Sportive ride on Sunday. They required a very wide berth and a shout of "bike back, coming through".

 

[steveindenmark]

Given that the participants are expecting to actually arrive at work, I don't think it's unreasonable to require them to be able to ride a bike to a reasonable standard - things like looking behind or indicating without wobbling all over the road, and also working brakes. Arrival won't happen if the leader has to fix someone's bike or teach them how to ride.

I interpret the bikeability bit as a statement of what sort of riding standard you should be at, rather than a requirement to have actually taken & passed the test.

.

But that is only your interpretation of it. It does not say that. To me it says you sgould have passed your test. I wonder how many potential participants it has put off.

 

[User16625]

Not sure I should have put this in joke of the day thread

http://lcc.org.uk/pages/london-biketubes-2016

The bit about needing to be at bikeability level 2

Yaaay great way to get people to join. Prequalify it. Which will immediately put people off

Even if you don't "need"it don't put it as a minimum level for participation .

Twonks

Even T-rex didnt have as much bollox as that bikability stuff seems to have. A qualification for riding a push bike lol. Reminds me a lot of those 10 metre, 50 metre etc swimming badges they used to dole out. It would alrite as part of a school curriculum tho.

 

[srw]

Even T-rex didnt have as much bollox as that bikability stuff seems to have. A qualification for riding a push bike lol. Reminds me a lot of those 10 metre, 50 metre etc swimming badges they used to dole out. It would alrite as part of a school curriculum tho.

Errrrmmmm

That's where it usually sits.

 

[User16625]

Errrrmmmm

That's where it usually sits.

They never done anything like that when I was in school.

 

[subaqua]

Errrrmmmm

That's where it usually sits.

its an option and not all schools take it up . level 1 is done in year 5 ( 3rd year juniors for us old farts).

level 2 and 3 are for secondary school.

@RideLikeTheStig cycling proficiency is what it "replaced " and again not all schools ran that.

 

[mjr]

.But that is only your interpretation of it. It does not say that. To me it says you sgould have passed your test. I wonder how many potential participants it has put off.

I got an email back from LCC. They agree that most people wouldn't know what that means and it may have put people off, beg indulgence with these first-year teething problems and explain that the aim was merely to say the event is aimed at people who are confident cycling but maybe not in busy traffic.