Why SCR isn't always a good thing

[Friz]

I can't take a moral stance on what people call SCR, because I am not immune to a go myself. What does tickle me is when someone posts one of those (bizarrely frequent) pieces of SCR ego-puffery

Too bloody right. Ride it like ye feckin stole it.

 

[Browser]

I have no idea what that meant, but it sounded impressive

TLA - Three-Letter Acronyms
FLA - Four-Letter Acronyms
FFM - Fellow Forum Members
TFI - The Faintest Idea
JSF - Jesus Sufferin' F**k!
GOA - Going On About
I've a loathing of three-letter acronyms ever since they started their insidious creep into managers presentations at work. My best victory was to ask one manager what one of the new one's he was casually throwing about meant and he didn't know!!

 

[Dan B]

The guidelines states if you are cycling at or above 18mph then you should be on the road

I think they're guidelines for the construction of cycle paths, rather than for their use as such (though obviously one should inform the other). At least, that's the only context I've seen that said in. ICBW

Be that as it may, when I said "somewhere around the upper end of acceptable speed for a shared use path" I quite deliberately did not specify whether it was above or below said limit. :-) Depends on circumstance, though. A wide straight and empty shared-use path with good sightlines is very different from a narrow or twisty or well-trafficked one.

 

[BSRU]

I think they're guidelines for the construction of cycle paths, rather than for their use as such (though obviously one should inform the other). At least, that's the only context I've seen that said in. ICBW

Be that as it may, when I said "somewhere around the upper end of acceptable speed for a shared use path" I quite deliberately did not specify whether it was above or below said limit. :-) Depends on circumstance, though. A wide straight and empty shared-use path with good sightlines is very different from a narrow or twisty or well-trafficked one.

All of the cycle paths in Swindon are shared paths, which were originally pedestrian only paths but were altered to met some government targets.

 

[wiggydiggy]

I think they're guidelines for the construction of cycle paths, rather than for their use as such (though obviously one should inform the other). At least, that's the only context I've seen that said in. ICBW

Be that as it may, when I said "somewhere around the upper end of acceptable speed for a shared use path" I quite deliberately did not specify whether it was above or below said limit. :-) Depends on circumstance, though. A wide straight and empty shared-use path with good sightlines is very different from a narrow or twisty or well-trafficked one.

This is true - I belted down one close to 30 last week but I could see for miles in both directions, closer to town I'd be better off running sometimes lol