If you didnt have people with different views who were unafraid to put them forward you'd have no forum. The severe lack of discussion in Bobbin's absence is alarming so i thought i'd start some threads to get some conversations going. If everyone on here all thought the same thing you'd get two responses to each thread at most as there'd be nothing new to say.

Avant, i find it utterly insulting that you b**** at me when the likes of Collos25 only contribution to any thread is to have a go at me, irrespective of subject, ive not seen him write anything which isnt anti-Jamie and yet im the one who gets grief from you? Disgraceful. Perhaps people with guts to say what they think is too much for HJ's Back Room.

They're both the same thing in essence. And again, you focus on the odd comment i make, but people like Collos25's whose ONLY contribution is a snide remark at me still goes unpunished. At least i have more to say than just posting in a 'non issue' of a thread just to call someone childish.

If Collos finds my threads so non-important then why waste his time clicking on them to write one line about how im an idiot? Why not just get a life instead? If it wasnt for people who try to provoke discussion he'd have nothing to dismiss. I hate those people. If anybody on here adds nothing but personal insults its him, so i'd like to see Avant leave me alone for a change.

But i'll make a small amendment to my anti-cycling post earlier, i actually prefer it when cyclists skip across a red light as we're all stopped waiting for pedestrians to cross, means by the time traffic resumes cyclists are long clear of the area, we can move quicker, more people can pass through before the lights go red, less congestion and a more pleasant journey. My point was that our personal opinions ultimatley mean squat, as the law says they shouldnt do that. I actually agree with cyclists that skipping reds and using the pavement from time to time is safer for them and better for us.

Edited by jamie745 on 03/08/2011 at 17:04

Yes a busy junction i use regularly on my way to work last year redesigned itself, where from one direction it was two lanes for cars, its now one lane and a mini cycle lane, but because they've gotten rid of traffic islands (which means pedestrians now have to cross all in one go, very smart) and the road was two lane in that direction for so many years, most locals ignore the new road layout, treat it as two lanes as it always was and block off the cycle lane, meaning cyclists go up on the pavement and skip across when the lights are red. Good old locals will not be tyronnised by some paint on the ground! LOL!

And its things like that, needlessly bunching traffic into cattle class-esque lanes when more are available is a major cause of congestion. Think of all the bus lanes (which force us all to travel in one lane when we could use two), speed bumps, closed lanes, needless traffic lights (theres around 25% more now than 15 years ago) crossings 30 yards after the other etc all of these things hinder progress and slow traffic down, then the authorities tell us its our fault for daring to drive cars to get from one place to another, and pledge to price us off the road to fix the problem, not admitting they caused it in the first place.

Btw, im sure we can find Runcorn on Google Earth!

I do feel a bit of British pride when i see sensible people ignoring tyrant-like ill judged road markings and continue to use the road in the way which was previously perfectly fine for many decades. Its that tiny bit of rebellion which makes us go 'go on son!"

Cycling in the gutter is dangerous - it's much harder for other road users to see you and it can encourage people to overtake you when there isn't enough room. Cycling too close to parked cars is particularly risky.

Much better to use a "vehicular cycling" aproach.

I know that if i genuinley felt as unsafe as so many of these cyclists claim to do so, and that i really feared for my life, i just wouldnt cycle.

Fair enough. I only feel unsafe when a motorist doesn't leave enough room, so I will 'own the road' if necessary.

And when I say necessary, where there is not room for a car to pass a bike safely, such as where you have a pedestrian crossing with a refuge on a normal width road.

Taking up the entire road when its not neccessary will only encourage over enthusiastic overtaking at the slightest opportunity though.

Not entirely sure what you mean by "enthusiastic overtaking", but if it is overtaking the cyclist as fast and close as possible, and you are condoning this, then my opinion of you has fallen to... well I will stop there before this post is pulled.

>>Funny how you've developed an opinion of me based on something i didnt say.

I think you'll find most of us here have developed an opinion of you based on what you do say!

By enthusiastic i mean chancing it on the first gap the motorist gets and flying past

Ah you mean the motorist is driving like a c***, who deserves to lose their licence.

Funny how you've developed an opinion of me based on something i didnt say.

Funny I wouldn't have called such driving"enthusiastic" but utterly irresponsible, however provided that you don't think that such driving is acceptable and we both agree that such motorists are irresponsible, that is fine.

I took a wander into town the other day, it was a nice day, i was only going to the bank, i thought why not. And i managed to walk on the pavement and successfully negotiate my route from my house to the bank without the requirement of endless crossings or shared space schemes to give me 'right of way' My mother told me to keep on the pavement, stop, look both ways and cross when theres nothing there. Perhaps its too simple for a modern age determined to over complicate matters. Obviously there are some spots where crossings are required, busy junctions etc, as anyone who cannot sprint across four lanes of traffic has no chance, but alot of them in slower roads are unrequired.

And, if you really look into it you'll find crossings are the cause...for crossings! No no no bare with me. All these measures solely made to slow traffic down which in turns leads to congestion and cars on a bit of road for longer than otherwise required, means that to get pedestrians to safely cross they need a crossing to stop the congested traffic moving, which then in turns holds traffic up further which means for pedestrians further up to cross they require a crossing to stop the traffic which wouldve already been long clear of the area but for the first crossing and are you starting to see a pattern forming?

There are plenty of threads where we don't agree. At all.

Not the same person!

Perhaps it's not that obvious if you just drive cars, but quite often the cyclist has to be rather upfront & 'obvious' to other road users. I don't particualrly like being held up by cyclists, of course, but I do understand them 'standing their ground' as it were & using a complete lane sometimes, rather than tempt close shaves by being inconspicuous & 'considerate'.

I wince sometimes when I see car drivers overtake/pass a cyclist - quite often they're only a wobble or pothole away from death it seems!

The argument that cyclists somehow don't 'pay' for their right to ride of the roads is fatuous. They can only use the road provided, I'm sure they'd like to use a separate cycle lane if they could. It could also be argued that only motorised vehicles require such large/wide roads, so it's quite right vehicle owners pay for that. Cyclists could make do with something much smaller & less costly to maintain.

Imagine if we applied that pushing & bullying approach that some car/vehicle drivers seem have to pavements & other public spaces - would it be ok to rush/push past old folks/kids/women with pushchairs etc? No, I think you be deemed pretty anti-social or worse.

I am a regular driver, cyclist and pedestrian. I seem to fail to come into conflict with other road users most of the time. Maybe it's because I choose to respect the basic principle of roads being shared space.

Alot of people using the road in motorised vehicles are there for requirement, not to p*** people off.

Fair enough, I will only use my bike on the road when I need to use it as a "requirement" to get from A to B (which is every time I use it to get to and from work), and every motorist who just drives for fun is banned from using theur car, as there is no "requirement" to use it.

Do you think that we should extend this ban for motorists with no "requirement" to use their cars to shortish distances that they could easily walk, say up to a mile?

Although it can be said cycling is more of a 'hobby' than driving.

Utter twaddle. The vast majority of cyclists are using their bikes as a "requirement" to actually get from A to B.

And everyone should be free to use the roads at whatever time they wish for whatever purpose to travel whatever distance.

Glad to see that you have changed your mind and now believe that cyclists are now free to use the road as they see fit.

I havent changed my mind from anything.

Make up your mind, one minute you are saying -

everyone should be free to use the roads at whatever time they wish for whatever purpose to travel whatever distance

and the next you are saying -

its the 'cycle family' who insist on cluttering up the main roads on a saturday with their three sprogs

Are the cycle family not people who "should be free to use the roads at whatever time they wish for whatever purpose to travel whatever distance"

Either you can't make up your mind, you don't have a sensible argument, or you are just a Troll.

Edited by AF on 05/08/2011 at 10:24

Point out where in this thread i claimed that. You're responding to an argument which wasnt there. Do you argue in an empty house.

Im not even going to dignify that with a response of how pathetically applies/oranges that is.

etc etc.

Why on earth do you think I'm somehow directing this at you? To be honest, I tend not to read your posts (& only noticed this last one because you quoted me), and so I'm not even aware of what you may or may not have said. I'm simply stating my opinion - is that ok?

In future, I'd be quite happy if you didn't even attempt to 'dignify' anything I might post with a response, thank-you.

there is a useful article in this months London Cyclist about this proposal,

Thanks for reminding me why i dont go to London

what is interesting is that this principle of liability already exists in France ( and many other European countries ). French law strongly favours vulnerable road users and at no time during my regular visits to France have any cyclists or pedestrians thrown themselves in front of my car in an attempt to enrich themselves at my insurance company's expense.

You have clearly never been to Britain. Any suggestion that such a law will not be exploited by militants and general b******s purely on money grabbing grounds is stupid. The only country in the developed democratic world where a burglar can sue you for damages if you harm him during a break in. I dont believe in law instantly favouring anybody or instantly putting anybody in the firing line. I believe in innocent until proven guilty on both sides and any law which undermines that is a very bad idea.

The main reason i disapprove is because its yet more legislation, more laws which we dont need. We've had 13 years of a constant law making Government which saw fit to put unneccessary legislation into all parts of our lives in the name of making us 'safer' when there is no evidence to suggest that was achieved. The constant sweep of the communistical European Union (or the reinvention of the Soviet Union by the back door as i like to call them) to control every part of our lives has to stop somewhere.

Whats needed is better road building, better road schemes and better education. All road users should be taught how to use the road effectively and everybody, thats everybody, motorists, pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists etc should all take individual responsibility. Not all encouraged to do what they like knowing the motorist will foot the bill at the end of it. Although it must be pointed out Britain already has some of the safest roads in the World and the safest in Europe despite also being the most underfunded, overtaxed, out of date, congested and not up to the standard required as our European neighbours. More people die from infections in our hospitals than what die on our roads, yet simple facts like that are ones the anti-car, anti-speed and militant green lobby would like to keep quiet from the public as it makes a mockery of their claims that Britains roads are in lethal carnage. And dillutes their arguments for even more extortionate motoring taxes.

And why is it, whenever a politician goes abroad and observes transport policy, the only ideas they bring back and claim we should use here are the only ones aimed at making motorists lives more difficult? What about the fact those fantastic Dutch, who's approach to cycling we're all told to mimic, have four times more motorway per square mile of land than we do, and some Dutch people are claiming even thats not enough. The Germans have around double making road transport easier but all we're told is how their bus timetables are precise. What about the fact on every scale measuring transport inferstructure across Europe, whichever way you cut it or dice the figures the UK comes out pretty close to the bottom and inferior to everybody in terms of road transport, yet we hardly hear about that and we're told its our fault for driving as the issues are swept under the carpet.

Bottom line, with what road users in Britain are forced to work with, substandard roads not fit for the 21st century, all of our road users, our motorists, cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians, hauliers etc all do a pretty fantastic job to bring us some of Europe's finest safety levels despite the most dense of conditions.

Edited by jamie745 on 06/08/2011 at 03:58