exdulwicher

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/we-must-separate-art-from-artist-in-singing-of-nazi-gas-chamber-songs-says-farage-20251125262249 Surprisingly, one of the more reliable sources of news. Better than the Farage Channel GB News anyway! 😉

Can we just make this a standard automatic response?!

Oh please don't go down that "give others a bad name" nonsense. Cyclists are not some identikit tribe. There is no collective responsibility. What one cyclist does or does not do has no bearing on any other cyclist anywhere else. The only time I might accept that definition is on a group club ride although even then it's tenuous at best. What you're doing is a form of outgrouping leading to the over-generalisation of negative behaviours or attributes. Same way that one driver on a mobile phone doesn't give all other drivers a bad name. Same way that Harold Shipman didn't give all GPs a bad name.

I'm quite surprised at that since Cyclist is normally fairly reputable. It's largely bollocks. The Highway Code is not law - it references law in an easy-to-understand manner and it contains guidance ("you should / should not...") and simplified law ("you MUST / MUST NOT...") You're not breaching a RULE. You're "breaching" guidance and since you can't really breach guidance, any such challenge would be thrown out. Not that it matters as such, drivers have been successfully claiming not to have seen the cyclist that they ran over for years, quite often escaping with pathetically light or even zero sentence. This was a fairly recent one which I remember cos it was reported on various cycle sport pages: https://www.thetfordandbrandontimes.co.uk/news/25511711.norfolk-driver-spared-jail-cyclist-killed-a11/ Pleased guilty to causing death by careless driving (phone use). Cyclist taking part in an organised event (so there were signs and marshals), was wearing a bright coloured top and had a flashing rear light (and it was daylight). He drove straight into the back of her cos he was using his phone. Suspended sentence and a short driving ban. Strangely, you're outraged when this sort of technicality is used in a cyclist / pedestrian case (you keep quoting the Regent's Park incident for example) but in a cyclist / vehicle one, you're ever so keen to blame the cyclist. Tell me, has any cyclist anywhere ever behaved / dressed / acted in a manner that you deem appropriate? For someone who claims to cycle, you're forever on here arguing technicalities and telling multiple anecdotes of how you've seen a cyclist doing / not doing something which they shouldn't / should (delete as applicable). Edit: what that case shows very clearly it it rarely matters how visible a cyclist is (and I made this point in an earlier post). If the driver is using a phone, having an argument, not concentrating, tired etc it doesn't matter if the cyclist is wearing a fluoro unicorn costume or is dressed in all black.

Don't worry, he's only ever indirectly racially abused people and he's never done it in a hurtful or insulting way. It's very difficult to know isn't it? I mean, is the racist man known primarily for being a racist actually a racist if he says racism is funny? Gosh, tricky one... Bit like that joke where the footballer calls the ref a **** and gets booked for it. Footballer is annoyed at this and says "well, what if I think it?" Ref says "well I can't stop you thinking can I?" Footballer says "cool, in that case, I think you're a ****" 😉

Well I didn't see them so I have no idea. But more bluntly - if they felt it was safer to ride like that (maybe they were discussing something, maybe to ride single file would have encouraged dangerous "squeezing past", maybe the rearmost rider would have been unable to safely see hazards ahead) then they are allowed to do so and your feelings or opinions don't really come into it. I notice that you don't come on here when there's a traffic jam of a hundred drivers all in single occupancy vehicles, all doing 10mph along that road? Strange. It's not anti-car to point that out. It's highlighting your motornormative attitude. Cars - all normal, proper people drive cars, carry on. Bloody hell, someone is cycling along next to someone else! I shall get onto the ED Forum immediately!

And as I pointed out earlier, what would you have said if it was a horse (approximately the same width as 2 cyclists side by side). What about if it was someone riding a mobility scooter, perhaps desperately searching for the next section of dropped kerb to get up? What if it was someone pushing a broken down vehicle? If they feel it's safer to ride side by side they are perfectly allowed to. Somewhere on this thread (or was it one of the many many other threads where it's apparent that no cyclist anywhere has ever behaved in a manner that everyone feels is "appropriate"...?) I also pointed out that to overtake a cyclist, you have to give 1.5m: That means that to overtake someone along most sections of the South Circular in / around the Dulwich area, you need to be pulling mostly into the opposite lane. Therefore, there needs to be zero oncoming traffic in the time for you to complete your overtake. Therefore if you can put half a wheel into the opposite lane, you can put the whole car there. I don't really see why this is so difficult for you to understand. It's also possible that the cyclists have looked at the road ahead, at the traffic conditions, the road width, the junction / lights / obstacles ahead and deliberately taken the lane to prevent some idiot overtaking only to then slam the brakes on 20m in front of them. I quite often have to think for drivers because most just go "cyclist! I MUST overtake immediately! MUST. GET. IN. FRONT!!!" without actually considering that 20m up the road is a red light or the arse end of yet another traffic jam. Maybe for one to ride behind the other, his / her view of potholes, traffic etc would have been bscured therefore it's safer to ride side by side at least for a few seconds. Maybe you could have a go at all those single drivers who insist on driving along two-abreast as well. All the road space they take up! SO entitled...

I don't think anyone has said or even implied that. There are idiots in all walks of life - idiot pedestrians who'll step into the road, their gaze fixed on their phone. Idiot cyclists with no lights. Idiot drivers who speed or drive under the influence. No-one is denying or excusing any of that. The point being made is that it doesn't really matter if the driver in this instance is a serial criminal escaping the police with the proceeds of their crime or a nun driving a disabled orphan to the daycare centre, the OUTCOME is the same. A crashed car, a lot of mess and a dead or injured person (usually not the driver). Death doesn't really care about who was behind the wheel, it doesn't help to minimise it by going "oh well the guy was a robber, what do you expect?!"

I would report that to the police as attempted robbery. Sure, they won't catch who did it but enough reports of that nature do at least allow them to build a picture of crime hotspots. It doesn't sound like some cyclist not paying attention, it sounds exactly like someone has seen you using a phone and made an attempt at a snatch and go. Glad you're OK.

My God, wait until you hear about all those 2-abreast drivers! Even when they go out alone, they take an armchair and a sofa with them! How entitled of them! 😉

What do you think those same drivers would have done if it was a horse rider - perhaps someone coming from riding their horse around the park? Or even a police horse & rider? Takes up about the same amount of space as a cyclist or two. Willing to bet that the levels of consideration from said drivers to the obstruction in question would have been considerably higher... Just saying. It's genuinely fascinating how drivers will at towards different "obstructions" (for "obstruction" read: legitimate road user not doing the speed that the driver behind wants). Horse rider: driver passes slowly and carefully, literally climbing the kerb on the opposite side of the road. Mobility scooter: might grumble a bit but basically does the same, passing wide and carefully. Tractor: definitely going to grumble but they've got no choice. Cyclist: BEEEEEEPPPPP!!! GET OUT OF THE WAY YOU NON TAX PAYING LYCRA LOUT!!!! Edit: what's also fascinating is how this thread started as a complaint about cyclists dressed in all black, being invisible, coming out of nowhere etc. Seems that everyone on here is more than capable of identifying a cyclist at half a mile - not only identifying them but able to tell what jersey they're wearing, what type of bike they're on, what speed they're going (it's never "just about the right speed", it's always either far too fast and a danger to everyone or far too slow and holding everyone up - sometimes both speeds at the same time), what clothing they had on (especially whether or not they were wearing a helmet) and how they were riding. I'd suggest from all that, there's no issue at all with cyclist visibility!

That's not what I said at all. If you have a route that takes one hour, and you want a bus every 6 minutes, you need 20 buses to service that route (in both directions). If you extend that route right up into town and it now takes 2hrs, you need 40 buses to maintain a 6-min service in both directions. That's very inefficient because very few people will use the route the full way. The very few people who do want to go the full distance would be better served by changing buses or some other option like bus/train or bus/tube. You can run a much more efficient service by interchanging routes rather than trying to run every bus right to every possible destination. And as the service becomes more efficient and reliable, more people use it because those are the two main metrics that people use when route planning - they want to know that the bus going to turn up and that the journey is going to be xx minutes (give or take a small percentage). Arguably, being on-time to a scheduled timetable doesn't matter much when you're running a 6-min service since you never have to wait more than 5.9 minutes. That efficiency is bolstered considerably by bus priority measures such as preferential transit through a junction, 24/7 clear lanes in busy areas and so on.

The RLJ is a separate issue so I didn't mention it because as far as I can tell it's not related to the use (or otherwise) of the faded lines of paint masquerading as a cycle lane. In the past on other threads I've explained why some cyclists might jump lights some of the time but I've never condoned it.

You can't really have the first part without the last part. The reason that so many bus routes got shortened a few years ago was that longer routes are far more prone to delays. A 5 min delay at the start can be magnified into a 20 min delay by the end on a 2-3hr journey from the suburbs up into central London which also starts impacting driver working hours and forcing driver changeovers which further delays the service. You also end up with a huge crush of buses all trying to go to Strand, Oxford Circus, Piccadilly etc. It's far more efficient to run shorter services, you need fewer buses (since they're being turned around quicker) which means you free up buses to increase the frequency, either on that route or a connecting route. The Hopper fare means you're still paying the same flat rate, you're not being charged twice but you simply can't have bus routes from everywhere to everywhere else, chances are you're going to have to change somewhere. If you want faster, more reliable services, you need the 24/7 bus lanes and bus priority lights. If you want more pleasant services (less crowded / more comfortable etc) you need fewer people per bus so higher frequency (therefore shorter routes) and nice safe waiting shelters with good quality info, lighting, CCTV etc. That is invariably more important to more people than having a bus that goes door-to-door for every possible destination. If you just add more buses to the mix, you end up with more buses stuck in traffic.

And as I said, regardless of the existence (or otherwise) of the appalling pretend cycle lane along there, no traffic can overtake him anyway without pulling clear into the opposite lane in order to give the required 1.5m space. Rule 213 On narrow sections of road, on quiet roads or streets, at road junctions and in slower-moving traffic, cyclists may sometimes ride in the centre of the lane, rather than towards the side of the road. It can be safer for groups of cyclists to ride two abreast in these situations. Allow them to do so for their own safety, to ensure they can see and be seen. Cyclists are also advised to ride at least a door’s width or 1 metre from parked cars for their own safety. On narrow sections of road, horse riders may ride in the centre of the lane. Allow them to do so for their own safety to ensure they can see and be seen. Motorcyclists, cyclists, horse riders and horse drawn vehicles may suddenly need to avoid uneven road surfaces and obstacles such as drain covers or oily, wet or icy patches on the road. Give them plenty of room and pay particular attention to any sudden change of direction they may have to make. Just because you can't see any debris, potholes, drainage grids etc from your vantage point behind the wheel of a car doesn't mean it's not there.

24/7 bus lanes. Bus clearways and bus priority measures.

You mean along here? Google Streetview That not-remotely-compliant-with-modern-standards, barely-a line-of-paint, worse-than-useless "cycle lane"? The one that stops and starts at intermittent points and is barely wide enough for a set of handlebars...? That was put in years ago as a tickbox exercise way before there were any standards around these things. The weaving in and out will be because it'll be full of glass, grit and other debris that could cause a puncture (plus probably the odd parked car, vehicle trying to turn out, pulled-in bus etc). It's one of those no-win situations. If the cyclist had ridden just to the right of it, you'd have complained he wasn't using the lane. If he rides in it, he's too close to the kerb (cos the lane is stupidly narrow and rubbish) and he's in all the debris. Plus a couple of other factors: To overtake, according to the Highway Code (and I know how much everyone on here quotes that when it suits...), you need to give 1.5m of space so basically you need to be pulling into the opposite lane. The existence of the apparent "cycle lane" doesn't change that. Also, the speed limit along there is 30mph, the cyclist (from your description a club cyclist on a decent road bike) was probably doing near enough 20 so there's not a big speed differential. Actually to ride along there, the position I'd take is pretty much wheels ON the line of paint, that's as close to the kerb as the Highway Code advises (my bold in the quoted text below). Rule 72 Road positioning. When riding on the roads, there are two basic road positions you should adopt, depending on the situation. 1) Ride in the centre of your lane, to make yourself as clearly visible as possible, in the following situations on quiet roads or streets – if a faster vehicle comes up behind you, move to the left to enable them to overtake, if you can do so safely in slower-moving traffic - when the traffic around you starts to flow more freely, move over to the left if you can do so safely so that faster vehicles behind you can overtake at the approach to junctions or road narrowings where it would be unsafe for drivers to overtake you 2) When riding on busy roads, with vehicles moving faster than you, allow them to overtake where it is safe to do so whilst keeping at least 0.5 metres away, and further where it is safer, from the kerb edge. Remember that traffic on most dual carriageways moves quickly. Take extra care crossing slip roads. So what you witnessed along there in terms of riding position was a total failure of cycle infrastructure (and I use that word in it's loosest sense) rather than a failure of cycling.

Also applies to dropping food on the floor and picking it up again. Or is that 5 seconds?

They've been updated a few times, I'd have to look to see the latest incarnation. It's not that "lights are a legal requirement but no-one cares". I think even the dumbest chav knows that they *should* have lights. Whether they care or not is another matter and (in true stereotypical fashion), if said chav is using said bike to go out and mug someone for their phone, the lights aren't really the issue! It's that lights are a legal requirement (and frankly ANY light so long as it's white at the front, red at the rear would be a win) but that the actual legalities of lights in terms of what British Standard they're supposed to meet, quoted lumens or wattage or whatever is a complete minefield. Personally, I don't know or care if my lights fulfil some British Standard from 20 years ago, I always have them on even in daylight.

Amber pedal reflectors. A wildly outdated piece of legislation that fails to recognise that many pedals (especially the clipless ones but also most modern MTB pedals) simply don't have them and won't accept them (there's nowhere to mount them). Arguably they're worse than useless anyway because reflective ankle bands or shoe detailing is just as effective. I assume you mean sunset and sunrise...? The problem is that the lighting regulations have not kept up with lighting tech, there's a variety of British Standard regulations that lights are supposed to adhere to which are so out of date that pretty much nothing actually falls within it and the police neither know nor care about the details. There have been police operations over the years (often around this time of year when the clocks go back) where the police have handed out cheap light sets to cyclists without lights along with an instruction to get some better ones ASAP.

Presumably at the same point the person doesn't feel any sympathy for a female victim of assault cos well, that skirt she was wearing, she doesn't deserve any sympathy. Same with that kid who got mugged cos well what was he doing walking through there at that time of night, doesn't deserve any sympathy. You left a window open, of course you got burgled, you don't deserve any sympathy. Maybe everyone in Gaza being shelled to bits could just have upped and left, they probably don't deserve any sympathy either. It's a horrible phrase and frankly anyone using it - whether it's for a cyclist being knocked off or the more extreme examples I've cited above - really needs a long hard look in the mirror because victim blaming doesn't solve anything, in fact it often marginalises or makes excuses for criminal behaviour.

The existing guidance is advisory. It suggests that cyclists and pedestrians might like to consider wearing brighter clothes / reflective gear etc. Doesn't say you have to. Lights is a separate matter because they're a legal requirement but helmets, hi-vis etc is all guidance. The problem is that as soon as anyone isn't wearing it, it gets used as a weapon against them. Witness the number of times on this very forum that the first question asked when a cyclist injury is reported, someone going "were they wearing a helmet?!" in an almost accusatory tone. And the common tone of these sort of threads of "I saw a cyclist wearing all black..." Generally get on with life in a considerably more sensible and less victim-blaming manner. Things are also a lot clearer legally, most countries have Presumed Liability which usually means that the bigger more powerful vehicle is to blame unless proven otherwise. And contrary to popular belief, this does not result in pedestrians leaping under the wheels of a cyclist or cyclists hurling themselves in front of trucks in order to claim compensation. To be fair, this time of year is crap all round. Most drivers haven't regularly driven in the dark since about February / March (and haven't bothered to check minor things like their own lights, screenwash levels etc), it's a manic time in the shops (Halloween / Bonfire Night / Black Friday) so there's loads more people out and about (very few of them paying any attention to anything), the weather is rubbish, there are slippery leaves everywhere...

So... you saw them then? In spite of them having no lights (and presumably being dressed in all black / coming out of nowhere / insert any other standard anti-cyclist trope here). I've long thought that the best way of being visible as a cyclist is to wear all black, have no lights and to ride on the pavement (or jump red lights). Not only does literally *everyone* see you, they pop onto the local forum to complain about you! On the other hand if you dress in all yellow and get T-boned, the driver will still manage to say "sorry mate, I didn't see you". 😉

The northern end (Townley up to Goose Green) is actually not too badly served, average distance of about 180m between crossing points (they're closer further north, a bit further apart at the southern end up to Townley). After that though, there's no provision at all until you get to The Plough which is over 500m away. It's more residential at that end so more people coming out of a house and needing to cross to the adjacent bus stop for example. There's a day care centre, a church, then up towards The Plough is Sainsburys and various other busy shops. There's always people running out from behind parked cars and pulled-in buses along that stretch. And from the Library, there's nothing else until you get to Overhill Road, another 500+ metres of wide road, mostly residential so people wanting / needing to cross at regular intervals. Same again from there to the South Circ junction, that's 300+ metres of no provision. I'd argue that from Goose Green to Townley, it's not too bad but from there on heading south, it's a disaster and needs at least another 4 crossings.

From the first line in that article you linked to: A record-high of nearly 10 million fines were issued to London drivers last year in what experts claim to be a “money-making exercise”. What experts? Who are they? There's no indication there as to who these "experts" actually are, who they work for... Surely that fails the very first part of your transparency test? In other threads, you're arguing that much more should be done to fine cyclists for these same offences, but when it comes to drivers, you're outraged at this apparent cash cow. Tad hypocritical don't you think? 42,000 fines in 23/24, 48,000 fines in 24/25 - as you care so much about safety on the roads, surely you should be outraged that there's that number of people breaking the rules? Or more to the point, that number of people being caught, it'll be a tiny fraction of those that commit the same offences and aren't caught. It's not a pile-on, don't be so melodramatic. The thing is, there's actually some useful, constructive and positive debate to be had here but you insist on turning everything into a conspiracy. It's like trying to "debate" with a Flat Earther. Every time you debunk their nonsense, they go further down the line of "you're must be in on it, you're a paid NASA shill, you're ideologically obsessed with the globe model..." Same here, you've accused several people (including me I believe) of being paid council shills, we're ideologically obsessed with cycling, we're anti-car... And yet you never see that same aspect (from the other side of the coin) in yourself. Although actually on a revived thread a little while ago I did find this (see below) and I thought: Rockets and I agree on something! I was going to add that you must prefer it because it's right on the lovely Dulwich Square and then thought that your blood pressure might not take such accusations! 😉