Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:13 am

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 91 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 4:15 pm 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
unkleGsif wrote:
Neil wrote:
Direct reference to Youtube once...
maybe, but have better things to do than trawl through 6pages right now ... but seems you have inferred it several times


So it was a load of nads, then - but rather than just accepting that, and being a man, you'd still rather argue the toss about it. Nice going.

Thing is, nobody made you make the damn fool point in the first place, so spare me the whole song and dance about trawling through several pages.

unkleGsif wrote:
Neil wrote:
ad hominem....
Neil, I have absolutely nothing against you, inspite of BOTH OUR pettyness in the past.. maybe you have an inferiority complex that makes you feel like everyone is getting at you?


I don't feel like everybody is getting at me. I don't feel that you're getting at me. You just seem to be determined to try, then make some bluff and bluster about how you are trying to be reasonable.

Words mean something - so how about this - if you have a problem about the point(s) I've made - feel free to argue them. Thing is, it seems as if you can't be bothered with that, and would rather chuck in snide comments about what you ineptly conclude about my pathos.

Stick to the point.

unkleGsif wrote:
Neil wrote:
Despite all your amateur dramatics you just seem to want to argue against me, rather than what was in the post(s) you were replying to.....
mmmmm... pretty sure I wasnt arguing against you, in fact stated that we are coming at this from the same perspective more or less...

Neil wrote:
Rant....
hardly

Neil wrote:
Tantrum...
come on now Neil :lol:


G


"Rant" "tantrum" - yeah, I'm still happy with my choice of words - seems you'd rather derail this to be all about me and you - this entire reply was bereft of anything I've actually said about the topic, and is just a further bicker about things you either can't leave behind, or still have some festering issue with.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 4:21 pm 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
daugs wrote:
daugs wrote:
We_are_Stevo wrote:
Can't you two just knock it on the head for a while, I have things I should be doing! :lol:


:D

but debate helps us to examine what we really think and hopefully reach better conclusions, because if we are simplifying trying to get everyone to think as we do then we may as well go and bash our heads against a brick wall (without the benefit of a helmet), or at least sell tickets.


guess I was being a little optimistic, suspect some good points being missed here, sadly,

and the narcissistic motorists (those significant few that are self obsessed rather than all motorists) are are safe for another day............


Well in fairness, I think your OP made a fair point - once again, money and profile to the debate - and no doubt some big names. But there never seems to be anything new under the sun.

Plenty of suggestions about what money can be spent on to address the "problem" but never any real solutions to what seems to be one of the biggest threats to cyclists on the roads, these days - attitudes of some drivers.

But as I mentioned some time back - it's all about will. The roads could be made safer, with sufficient impetus and policy with real teeth - but it's not as attention grabbing as spending a feckload of money on some new scheme or project that sounds very (self) important.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 4:39 pm 
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:35 pm
Posts: 2784
Neil wrote:
unkleGsif wrote:
Neil wrote:
Direct reference to Youtube once...
maybe, but have better things to do than trawl through 6pages right now ... but seems you have inferred it several times


So it was a load of nads, then - but rather than just accepting that, and being a man, you'd still rather argue the toss about it. Nice going.


Neil, do you understand, I am not arguing with you

Neil wrote:
Thing is, nobody made you make the damn fool point in the first place, so spare me the whole song and dance about trawling through several pages.


Ditto... feel free not to comment as well

unkleGsif wrote:
Neil wrote:
ad hominem....
Neil, I have absolutely nothing against you, inspite of BOTH OUR pettyness in the past.. maybe you have an inferiority complex that makes you feel like everyone is getting at you?


Neil wrote:
I don't feel like everybody is getting at me. I don't feel that you're getting at me. You just seem to be determined to try, then make some bluff and bluster about how you are trying to be reasonable..


Hardly... see the thinly disguised offering of an olive branch above (admittedly, I should apologies about the second part of that statement however... but you do seem to go into one about stuff

Neil wrote:
Words mean something - so how about this - if you have a problem about the point(s) I've made - feel free to argue them. Thing is, it seems as if you can't be bothered with that, and would rather chuck in snide comments about what you ineptly conclude about my pathos.

Stick to the point...

Neil, I am not arguing with you... we are mostly both in a greement about the particulars of this thread

unkleGsif wrote:
Neil wrote:
Despite all your amateur dramatics you just seem to want to argue against me, rather than what was in the post(s) you were replying to.....
mmmmm... pretty sure I wasnt arguing against you, in fact stated that we are coming at this from the same perspective more or less...

Neil wrote:
Rant....
hardly

Neil wrote:
Tantrum...
come on now Neil :lol:


G


"Rant" "tantrum" - yeah, I'm still happy with my choice of words - seems you'd rather derail this to be all about me and you - this entire reply was bereft of anything I've actually said about the topic, and is just a further bicker about things you either can't leave behind, or still have some festering issue with.[/quote]

Neil, there is nothing I am unable to leave behind, am not bickering with you, and am certainly derailing this topic to be about me and thee... I think we both have to admit that we need a bit of time alone together, man to man, to hug it out.... I am sure if we ever meet on a ride somewhen, there would actually be a crackling atmosphere of bro'mance :wink:
Over?

G


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 4:53 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:33 am
Posts: 2918
Location: daaan saaaf
Quote:
actually be a crackling atmosphere of bro'mance


Brokeback Mountain-bikers. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 5:34 pm 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
unkleGsif wrote:
Neil, there is nothing I am unable to leave behind, am not bickering with you, and am certainly derailing this topic to be about me and thee... I think we both have to admit that we need a bit of time alone together, man to man, to hug it out.... I am sure if we ever meet on a ride somewhen, there would actually be a crackling atmosphere of bro'mance :wink:
Over?

G


Easy, tiger... you haven't even bought me dinner.

And I'm not dressing up as Little Bo Peep for anybody.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 5:42 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:33 pm
Posts: 11105
Location: The Home Of Mountain Biking, And All Great Things.
Neil wrote:
1. Complete separation is never going to happen in our lifetimes.
2. The more instances where cyclists are marginalised - because there are facilities in other areas, will have them seen as the exception and not the rule.
3. Cyclists have had to co-exist with motorised traffic on 50+ roads for decades. But all the same - separation due to higher speed traffic, doesn't mean it should be done everywhere - nor that the argument applies everywhere. And realistically, will never be everywhere, in the foreseeable.
4. Look at pedestrianisation of town centres - that's done for the benefits of pedestrians, not saying I buy into it completely, but the rationale for that, being that where there are no clear distinctions, then motorists HAVE to give more duty of care to any pedestrians. Why should that logic be suddenly reversed for the cycling scenario?


1. Plenty progressive changes I regard as ideal won't happen in my lifetime. Mortality or longevity doesn't shape the argument, nor my thoughts.
2. Providing safe alternatives to riding on dangerous roads is not marginalising. Would you argue bridleways and pedestrian paths are marginalising those groups?
3. We are talking about an ideal, (most policy is idealistic); if separation works it should be the default. The fact complete separation will not happen in the foreseeable future is no argument against moving in that direction.
4. I am all for pedestrian priority zones, with vehicles restricted to access only. Logic is not being reversed to suggest separating cyclists where traffic is moving at higher speeds. Are we to allow cyclists onto motorways then? Is that the ideal, to have every road in the land shared with all traffic? Should we do away with pavements too? Perhaps you should study the resultant maelstrom we can observe in the city streets of some developing countries.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 6:23 pm 
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner
Gold Trader / PoTM Winner
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:35 pm
Posts: 2784
Neil wrote:
And I'm not dressing up as Little Bo Peep for anybody.

That's not what I've heard 8)
X


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 6:26 pm 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
highlandsflyer wrote:
Neil wrote:
1. Complete separation is never going to happen in our lifetimes.
2. The more instances where cyclists are marginalised - because there are facilities in other areas, will have them seen as the exception and not the rule.
3. Cyclists have had to co-exist with motorised traffic on 50+ roads for decades. But all the same - separation due to higher speed traffic, doesn't mean it should be done everywhere - nor that the argument applies everywhere. And realistically, will never be everywhere, in the foreseeable.
4. Look at pedestrianisation of town centres - that's done for the benefits of pedestrians, not saying I buy into it completely, but the rationale for that, being that where there are no clear distinctions, then motorists HAVE to give more duty of care to any pedestrians. Why should that logic be suddenly reversed for the cycling scenario?


1. Plenty progressive changes I regard as ideal won't happen in my lifetime. Mortality or longevity doesn't shape the argument, nor my thoughts.


Thing is - we don't have comprehensive separation for pedestrians - what hope and even more marginalised group, like cyclists.

highlandsflyer wrote:
2. Providing safe alternatives to riding on dangerous roads is not marginalising. Would you argue bridleways and pedestrian paths are marginalising those groups?


I'm saying that once drivers get out of the habit, and have a handy excuse for not giving consideration, they won't, and they don't. That's why I gave the open plan scenarios as an example.

highlandsflyer wrote:
3. We are talking about an ideal, (most policy is idealistic); if separation works it should be the default. The fact complete separation will not happen in the foreseeable future is no argument against moving in that direction.


It's never completely happened for pedestrians - so what chance cyclsits.

That said, I'm not arguing truly against them so much, I'm just not convinced what we have already, are so great - some are blighted by absolute **** of the highest order. Plus, given the context of this thread (specifically, driver attitude) it does nothing to help, and potentially has a negative impact on driver attitudes.

highlandsflyer wrote:
4. I am all for pedestrian priority zones, with vehicles restricted to access only. Logic is not being reversed to suggest separating cyclists where traffic is moving at higher speeds. Are we to allow cyclists onto motorways then? Is that the ideal, to have every road in the land shared with all traffic? Should we do away with pavements too? Perhaps you should study the resultant maelstrom we can observe in the city streets of some developing countries.


I'm not advocating complete anarchy on the roads, and I can see perfect sense in segregation on higher speed, more established main trunk roads - it tends to be easy to provision cycle facilities.

The problem I have is the extrapolation - it's always "'some' are good, 'more' are better". And specifically in relevance to the subject of this thread, I just don't believe that throwing more money at cycling "facilities" or some other "blue sky" ideas on how to waste money are the best way of tackling the burgeoning issue with driver attitudes towards cyclists. But the problem seems to be, that TPB believe that getting some funding, and spending some funding means "job done".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 6:27 pm 
Special Retro Guru
Special Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:34 am
Posts: 5663
Location: Don't mess with monkeys, man
unkleGsif wrote:
Neil wrote:
And I'm not dressing up as Little Bo Peep for anybody.

That's not what I've heard 8)
X


Right, let's clear that up right now - those pics were photoshopped.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2013 7:28 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:33 pm
Posts: 11105
Location: The Home Of Mountain Biking, And All Great Things.
http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/20 ... s-and.html
Interesting read.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 91 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cce, Yahoo [Bot] and 19 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group