The Edinburgh Cyclist

[Romeo]

What's that you say? A cyclist acting like a c**t?

No way.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

5 minutes ago, AsimButtHitsASix said:

You seem very angry about this. Calm yersel.

I just retold something as I remembered it and you had a mad rant about someone you've never met. Maybe try cycling more. It's a very relaxing hobby.

Not angry at all. I just don't like the suggestion that I'm wrong when I am clearly not. I may not have met your legal eagle, but anyone who is described, or describes themselves, as a "hardcore cyclist"* is, I  am fairly sure, a bit of a cúnt. His erroneous claims about the law of the land kind of reinforce that.

*And is not named Wiggins, Froome, Hoy or the like.

[Empty It]

There is a video of him cycling on the road through Holyrood Park despite there being a cycle path which you can actually see other people using during the video, why can these p***ks not be fined for not using cycle lanes when available?

[AsimButtHitsASix]

3 minutes ago, WhiteRoseKillie said:

Not angry at all. I just don't like the suggestion that I'm wrong when I am clearly not. I may not have met your legal eagle, but anyone who is described, or describes themselves, as a "hardcore cyclist"* is, I  am fairly sure, a bit of a cúnt. His erroneous claims about the law of the land kind of reinforce that.

*And is not named Wiggins, Froome, Hoy or the like.

I never suggested you were wrong. It was me who suggested he is a hardcore cyclist and as he is someone who has made a living working for professional cycling teams, owned his own cycle shop and competed internationally as a cyclist I think "hardcore cyclist" sums him up quite well and you felt the weird need to call him a c**t.

Also this is me remembering a conversation from a few years ago I could easily be misremembering or confusing it with a specific. His claims may not be erroneous as they specific to cycling in London and will take into account various definitions of footpaths including park cycling, towpaths and mixed use paths and referring to areas of London where roads are particularly narrow and provisions are made for cyclists to use pathways as opposed to roads.

But yeah, you're still hammering home the idea that someone who has a deep rooted interest in cycling must automatically be a c**t, so yer clearly not bothered. Ya weirdo

[The Moonster]

8 minutes ago, Silverton End said:

The A82 cycle path has been murder for weeks now, used to walk our dog from Highmains up to Dunglass/Bowling and back but it's too busy with minters.

Fair enough, but under normal circumstances the cycle path is fleetingly used by cyclists. Perhaps it should just be repurposed as a path for pedestrians if cyclists don't want to use it though. 

[bennett]

2 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

Potholes is a weak argument, you'll need to avoid them on any road. "Usually poorly thought out" in what way?

Second paragraph seems very specific to this point in time in regards lockdown, but normally these paths aren't filled with joggers or folk out walking. Traffic on cycle paths is distinctly less than on normal roads. In any case, it's a bit of a stretch saying it's safer driving on a busy dual carriageway than a cycle path because someones dog might run across your path. I'd rather I flipped over my handlebars by running into someones dog than have a p***k in a BMW run me over.

You should have told the old couple to f**k off, you were far too nice.

Potholes and sunken drains are quite dangerous for cyclists,  if you hit one that you don't see (if it's been raining) then you are off the bike.

Poorly thought out as they can be quite sporadic in starting and suddenly stopping a short while later, then starting again and so on.

Right now is special circumstances. I've never cycled on a dual carriageway and I don't intend to start, others who are more competent and fitter might though.

Sometimes being a sarcastic tit works better than telling someone to F off.

 

 

[dorlomin]

 

[The Moonster]

Just now, bennett said:

Potholes and sunken drains are quite dangerous for cyclists,  if you hit one that you don't see (if it's been raining) then you are off the bike.

Poorly thought out as they can be quite sporadic in starting and suddenly stopping a short while later, then starting again and so on.

Right now is special circumstances. I've never cycled on a dual carriageway and I don't intend to start, others who are more competent and fitter might though.

Sometimes being a sarcastic tit works better than telling someone to F off.

 

 

Potholes and drains are on roads though. They aren't a reason for not using cycle paths. They're reasons for not cycling at all if anything.

Point taken on the "Stop/start" nature of them - I do agree that's something we could address to improve the situation. One thing that annoys me about our roads is that you get to traffic lights and there's a wee 6 foot section marked out for bikes with a wee lane leading up to it - why don't we just extend that lane to the rest of the road? Why is it only that 6 foot section that we get reminded that cyclists are entitled to be on the road too? Just give them a lane.

[Dons_1988]

Threads on cyclists are always good for a laugh.

[thistledo]

2 hours ago, D.A.F.C said:

 

 

For all the cyclist fans on here.

This guy goes around Edinburgh trying to find issues with anyone and films it all as.if hes batman or something.

[Ginaro]

53 minutes ago, supermik said:

The second video is Cycling Mikey. He sometimes just cycles back and forth along traffic jams just so he can get drivers on their phones. He also hangs around a junction and steps out in front of cars that try to cut around a traffic island there for a shortcut.

Doing a very fine public service.

 

24 minutes ago, Empty It said:

There is a video of him cycling on the road through Holyrood Park despite there being a cycle path which you can actually see other people using during the video, why can these p***ks not be fined for not using cycle lanes when available?

When drivers start getting fined for breaking the speed limit in Holyrood Park then we can start fining cyclists. Though this is what the "cycle path" looked like recently.

12 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

Potholes and drains are on roads though. They aren't a reason for not using cycle paths. They're reasons for not cycling at all if anything.

Point taken on the "Stop/start" nature of them - I do agree that's something we could address to improve the situation. One thing that annoys me about our roads is that you get to traffic lights and there's a wee 6 foot section marked out for bikes with a wee lane leading up to it - why don't we just extend that lane to the rest of the road? Why is it only that 6 foot section that we get reminded that cyclists are entitled to be on the road too? Just give them a lane.

I don't think there's dedicated cycle path alongside the A82 though? (there's very few in the country) It looks ok if you aren't trying to go a decent speed but you are sharing it with joggers and dog walkers, there's probably no lighting, there's maybe barriers and gates to slow you down. If you're on commuting a road bike you're quite rightly not wanting to be slowed down.

In Bowling you need to cross the A814 twice - though they are working on the railway viaduct so that it can take people across the road to the canal.

The lanes leading up to advance stop lines aren't wide enough to be extended along the road. You need to give 1.5m when overtaking a cyclist, so the lane will need to be about 2.5m wide. Narrow painted cycle lanes are pointless and should either be turned into physically protected lanes or the pavement widened.

[Romeo]

Cyclists should have insurance to pay for all the accidents they cause.

They should also pay some kind of tax for the upkeep of roads and expensive cycle paths.

[welshbairn]

3 minutes ago, Ginaro said:

Though this is what the "cycle path" looked like recently.

What's wrong with that? Cyclists correctly using it and pedestrians making way, what more do you want?

[The Moonster]

3 minutes ago, Ginaro said:

Doing a very fine public service.

 

When drivers start getting fined for breaking the speed limit in Holyrood Park then we can start fining cyclists. Though this is what the "cycle path" looked like recently.

I don't think there's dedicated cycle path alongside the A82 though? (there's very few in the country) It looks ok if you aren't trying to go a decent speed but you are sharing it with joggers and dog walkers, there's probably no lighting, there's maybe barriers and gates to slow you down. If you're on commuting a road bike you're quite rightly not wanting to be slowed down.

In Bowling you need to cross the A814 twice - though they are working on the railway viaduct so that it can take people across the road to the canal.

The lanes leading up to advance stop lines aren't wide enough to be extended along the road. You need to give 1.5m when overtaking a cyclist, so the lane will need to be about 2.5m wide. Narrow painted cycle lanes are pointless and should either be turned into physically protected lanes or the pavement widened.

It's part of the cycle network I'm sure.

I'm sorry but "I want to go a bit faster" doesn't seem like a good reason for not using cycle paths. You are of course entitled to use the road, but as far as I can see we have a situation where cyclists quite rightly don't want killed on the road but at the same time are refusing to use paths which will massively reduce your chances of being killed. The barriers and gates are probably there for your safety if they slow you down at points where you should be slowing down.

Obviously sometimes you'll need to cross roads if the path cuts through it, again though, I don't see that as an issue against using cycle paths.

Point taken on width, probably isn't feasible to extend it on the road.

[Dons_1988]

29 minutes ago, Romeo said:

Cyclists should have insurance to pay for all the accidents they cause.

They should also pay some kind of tax for the upkeep of roads and expensive cycle paths.

They should also pay for my car horn replacement the amount they cause me to use it.

And the new bumper.

[Romeo]

They should also pay for my car horn replacement the amount they cause me to use it.
And the new bumper.

Then you need to jet wash the front of the car.

[Hank Scorpio]

BMW driver shat it. If you’re getting out the car you better the backing it up.

[tamthebam]

3 hours ago, MixuFixit said:

Is it actually illegal for a cyclist to ride on the pavement?

Haven't ridden a bike in 10+ years no dog in the fight, just thought it was one of these things that irritates people without actually being against a law.

It would count as careless cycling at the very least, if not dangerous. 

Road Traffic Act 1988 Section 29. 

A cnut on a bike actually flew round the corner just missing me and my mate when we were out at lunchtime. I called him a p***k and he wanted a square go. I hope the next time he takes a short cut like that there's a 10 tonne lorry waiting. 

[WhiteRoseKillie]

I never suggested you were wrong. It was me who suggested he is a hardcore cyclist and as he is someone who has made a living working for professional cycling teams, owned his own cycle shop and competed internationally as a cyclist I think "hardcore cyclist" sums him up quite well and you felt the weird need to call him a c**t.

Also this is me remembering a conversation from a few years ago I could easily be misremembering or confusing it with a specific. His claims may not be erroneous as they specific to cycling in London and will take into account various definitions of footpaths including park cycling, towpaths and mixed use paths and referring to areas of London where roads are particularly narrow and provisions are made for cyclists to use pathways as opposed to roads.

But yeah, you're still hammering home the idea that someone who has a deep rooted interest in cycling must automatically be a c**t, so yer clearly not bothered. Ya weirdo

So now it's footpaths rather than pavements?

And yes, someone who decides that his interpretation of where he can ride his bike trumps that of the law is, pretty much, a cúnt.
I quoted the highway code, which refers you to the relevant legislation.

[AsimButtHitsASix]

Just now, WhiteRoseKillie said:

 

 

 

So now it's footpaths rather than pavements?

And yes, someone who decides that his interpretation of where he can ride his bike trumps that of the law is, pretty much, a cúnt.
 

 

It was both. I think. Was a conversation from a long time ago.

No one, anywhere in this conversation, decided that their interpretation of where they can ride trumps that of the law. Perhaps you misunderstood. Nae bother. Now go have a wee lie down and come back in a better mood.