The Indo strikes back against cyclists!

BostonB

...Writing and Reporting without "due care and attention".

Captain Havoc

A numpty is a numpty, whether on a bike, in a car or writting for the indo.

concussion

CramCycle wrote: »

In trying to find out though, I did find out though in England you can be done for "furious cycling", thought that was hilarious.

As a useless aside, 'furious driving' is an offence under the Defence Act in Ireland.

manwithaplan

xz wrote: »

I get the distinct feeling, that she got the shock of her life some morning, whilst driving to work, late, in slow moving traffic, applying her lipstick. Trying to keep one eye on the car in front, and the other on the pouting in the mirror, that she ended up smearing her lipstick up her face because a "lawless" cyclist banged on her roof, because she had drifted into his path, because she was not driving with "due care and attention"

That must have happened alright, what with her being a woman and all.

CramCycle

manwithaplan wrote: »

That must have happened alright, what with her being a woman and all.

Thats unfair, I often veer into traffic when applying my lipstick on the bike :eek: just so I look good when the hunky firemen come to rescue me

BostonB

CramCycle wrote: »

....when applying my lipstick on the bike....

Why would you put lipstick on your bike? Does it have issues?

CramCycle

BostonB wrote: »

Why would you put lipstick on your bike? Does it have issues?

Touche, I want the hunky firemen to give her priority over me.

rp

BostonB wrote: »

Why would you put lipstick on your bike? Does it have issues?

Canis Lupus

I'm an environmentalist? But I don't even recycle!

EDIT: Heh, that kinda works on two levels....

This is the same "journalist" that had a go at the special olympics and wrote horrible things about Cherie Blair's miscarriage. Contemptable.The only reason she's in a job is for the shock value and subsequent attention her ill informed and atrociously written articles generate.


I didn't read the article because I fear her stupidity may be contagious.

funkyjebus

ah, i should have never read that, now im angry, do we have picture of her so every cyclist can take note. if i ever see her shes getting a squirt of my water to the crotch. f**king muppet, that paper needs a comments section like the guardian so we call all tell her of her muppetry

nomdeboardie

I don’t condone any behaviour by cyclists that is actually dangerous or that interferes with use of roads or paths by pedestrians or motorists, and agree that there is some bad behaviour out there, but a few points for the “author”:

The cyclist, having vented his or her spleen, will then career across said pedestrian crossing, giving the pensioner legally in possession of a right of way

When this happens it is indeed inexcusable. However, in my experience, the reverse happens much more often – pedestrians walk in front of cyclists with right of way all the time.

Motorists are accustomed to cyclists who think that not even other cyclists have any rights, pulling out of the cycle lanes because those in front of them aren't going fast enough to satisfy their own belligerent desires, and ploughing into mainstream traffic in a manner that ensures motorists will have to brake so fast they will leave several kilos of rubber on the road surface. If a motorist infringed the cycle lane in such a manner, there'd be bloody mayhem and foul-mouthed abuse.

The nature of cycling is that there is a huge range of speeds at people travel so there has to be a lot of passing, and most of it is carried out safely. Is the author suggesting that cyclists are not, or should not be, allowed to infringe on the main part of the road to pass each other at all? I have seen people go so slowly that they seem to defy the laws of physics in staying upright, and, conversely, there are many who can travel as fast as cars in the 50kph zones. Is it reasonable to expect the latter to crawl behind the former until one or other reach their destination? How does passing another cyclist at a safe distance interfere with their rights or disrespect them? Motorised vehicles, in contrast, pretty much travel at the same speed in a given area, and even then have the option of passing each other where there are multiple lanes or broken central lines. Even the “mandatory”-use cycle paths are expected be made non-mandatory by upcoming legislation (thank God).

…cyclists are not contributing a penny in taxes to the upkeep of the roads

Apart from contributing to general taxation (income tax etc), which provides most of the funds for roads, many, if not most, cyclists also own cars and pay motor tax. Therefore, by making much lighter use of the roads when they are travelling by bike, the average car-owning cyclist is effectively contributing more to road upkeep than the average non-cycling motorist.

the 30kph speed limit
…majority of motorists don't keep to it…
…motorists driving with care at the old limit of 50kph were every bit as safe as at 30kph…

Aah, so its not just cyclists who choose which rules to break? And, since these motorists are breaking the speed limit, cyclists should beware!

Lawr

"...the majority of cyclists believing...". The writer presumes to know what the majority of cyclists believe. Substitute for "cyclists": blacks, men, the French, the poor,...need I say more? O'Kelly is a bigot, and the paper who printed this stuff advocate bigotry. They're pigs. Who'd ever read this tripe?