Cannot believe there are no replies!!

freespirit1 wrote:

Not very eco-friendly though is it?

Riding a motorbike?

freespirit1 wrote:

being forced to go 20 miles further. Could be worse I could be using the car!!

Bikes are not generally that economical, so cars could be more eco-friendly!
But pulling the eco-friendly card on cyclists? Really?
Don't make me work out how eco-friendly leaving my Land Rover V8 at home whilst I ride to work is

freespirit1 wrote:

Not pulling any cards. Just find it ironic that I am being advised to go 20 extra miles by people who are not backwards about coming forwards over how eco-friendly they are.

Never mind principles eh, who'd have 'em?

Who is advising you of this? The Road.cc forum users? From what I've read, people have advised you to walk, cycle, stay somewhere else or take a holiday, no one has said I think you should ride your motorbike an extra 20 miles, it's something you have decided is the best of a bad bunch of options.

I'm not too sure what you're doing with this thread, you come onto a cycling forum to tell cyclists that you're inconvenienced, what do you expect us to do? Did we organise this event? Did we decide to close the roads for that length of time? Did we stop you from crossing the route on foot? I can't speak for the others here but I certainly didn't.

If you started this to get a simple, ahh poor you, I think you came to the wrong place but it seems your post on a story and subsequent post highlighting the lack of comments on that post suggest you are just out for confrontation. If so, please confront those responsible for your inconvenience, either the organisers or your local council, but I don't see what you have to gain from trying to antagonise a group of people on a cycle website forum.

freespirit1 wrote:

I am not trying to antagonized anyone. However my initial post was only put on here in reaction to the OTT language in the petition from Mr Huggins.

However I was hoping that some people may want to be reasonable about the problems that residents of Surrey have.

There has to be a common ground on this where we can all get together and SHARE the facilities.

However I fear that with some of the reactions from your community and the name calling, allbeit far more polite that what I have had when using the highway even when I have given cyclists loads of room (I amd talking here about being 4 to 5 feet away)riding a motorbike I do know what it is like to have someone pass too close.

Yes there are inconsderate car drivers and motorcyclists, but until you accept that not all cyclsits are angels and you have your share of pillocks too the hostility will remain. What we should all be doing is educating those that do not have a clue for the greater good ofg us all. By that I mean ALL road users.

Kind regards

freespirit1

Your initial post here makes 5 points.

The first of which you acknowledge isn't the fault of cyclists, or in fact the organisers as they made it clear carers where to be let through, it seems it was the fault of individual stewards who were either not informed of the full facts or simply failed to follow instructions, however I'm not sure what response you want apart from to say that carers should have been let through (already said in a post above).

Your second point states you were not consulted, I believe it has been pointed out that you do not have to be consulted about road closures, councils did take it upon themselves to inform people but it is not mandatory. I believe the event organisers also informed some people too, which again is not mandatory. Again, I'm not sure what response you want on this either, there are no rules which state residents have to be consulted or informed, I guess it may seem unfair (which is why you posted) but as others have said, it seems that the inconvenience of a small number is outweighed by the benefit of the 15,000 cyclists riding on closed roads plus the people who came out to watch that and the professional event, spending money in local shops and businesses.

Your third point states that some places ARE completely isolated, it seems that this isn't strictly true, you were able to get out of Byfleet albeit via a long detour and a resident of Westcott posted that you could leave a car somewhere the night before to use it that day.

Your forth point is a link to the Highway Code, I think most of the cyclists on this forum will be well versed on this, but you do not pick out a particular point. If it's the cycling two abreast on busy roads (A25?), what is the significance of this in the context of a closed road event? If it's a different rule, which one?

Your last point is very well put, we should all be able to use the roads if everyone follows the rules but that simply isn't the case - Drivers, cyclists and pedestrians all break the rules. I'm not sure what reaction you wanted to this either, I think everyone here would love for this to happen but in context to the event, do you think that 15,000 cyclists could share the road with cars and that there shouldn't be closed roads? I would suggest not which is why the road closures are there. If they did try it, I'd guess there'd be even more of an uproar just as the residents of the New Forest complain when a couple of thousand turn up.

I think people on here have been reasonable, I guess you are upset about being called a NIMBY, unfortunately you have written a few things which would lead people to that conclusion, like you are not complaining about the London Marathon as it doesn't affect you but you are about this as it does. Would it have been better for them to point out that this seems like you're fine for events like this to happen, just not as long as it affects you? It's the same kind of point that you made about "us" advising you to take your motorbike further even though we're all eco-friendly.

And you jibe at being called names by cyclists, I'd guess that most cyclists here will have been called far worse that you have, been beeped, some past within inches, some even almost knocked off, a few maybe have been knocked off so you may not find much sympathy here if someone's shouted at you. As an aside, my cycling club was nearly run into by a motorcylist, I think they took exception to the group riding two abreast on a dual carriageway, the guy swerved in and out towards the group while the lady on the back filmed it on her camera. This doesn't mean however that I dislike all motorcyclists, just that one.

And your last point, as said above, I don't think many people here think we're angels, we definitely have our fair share of idiots, but we're not responsible for them, just as you aren't responsible for all motorcylists or drivers. I don't jump red lights or ride on the pavement, I wear lights at night and follow the highway code, should I receive hostility from motorists? I also agree that we should educate all road users, the only thing I would point out is that if a cyclist breaks the rules, they are only usually putting themselves in danger and if they're putting someone else in danger, it's rarely potentially fatal, when a driver breaks the rules, they are also putting other people in danger and they cause a lot (understatement) more fatalities so if you wish to make the road a safer place, everyone should be educated but you may want to start with those that cause the most danger.

pwmedcraft wrote:

It is hard to work out what points you are trying to make, other than you don't want to be inconvenienced by this event every year. You say you only posted here in reaction to the OTT language in Mr Huggins's petition. So are you saying you don't agree with his anti-cycling vitriol but signed the petition anyway?

Most respondents have been reasonable about the problems residents have - see the very first reply here for example.

Your fourth sentence is incomplete. I was expecting another comma and then a conclusion instead of a full stop. What do you fear with the fairly polite reactions and name-calling?

You should read some more forum threads if you reckon we think that all cyclists are angels. I agree that education for all is the way forward. An idiot on a bike will also be an idiot in a car.

Also agree with all of this!

freespirit1 wrote:

I was not aware that this was an exercise in English comprehension!!

Not surprising when you choose to try and educate us all on the rules of the road, as though 'we cyclists' all require this.

freespirit1 wrote:

Mainly because of the number of cyclists who persist in riding 2, 3 and 4 abreast along there.

It is incredibly frustrating when a bit of consideration would go a long way. You never know some people may not take stupid chances overtaking.

I'm still not quite sure of your point, I understand you are drawing attention to the experience you've had with cyclists riding 2 or more abreast but what would you like us to do or say on here? Would you like us to send out a broadcast on the special message board that all of us cyclists use so it doesn't happen again? Or is this just for information purposes, so that we know what to expect when travelling along that road?

The context of your post was about the closed road event, what has this got to do with the Ride100? Surely your experiences with groups along this road must lead you to conclude that 15,000 cyclists riding along there could not mix with motorists so closed roads seems a sensible idea?

Cyclists are allowed to cycle 2 abreast along normal roads, if the road is narrow or busy, they should single out (according to the Highway Code). I've not been on the A25 but I assume from your comment that you think it's too busy to cycle two abreast. If so, cyclists should be riding single file, but sometimes cyclists don't follow the rules to the letter just like motorists. It's unfortunate but I don't think it's fair to judge a whole community from the actions of a few which you seem to see on this road and point it out to us like we (the forum users) have done something wrong. Motorists speed, jump lights, overtake dangerously and all kinds of other offences but "we" try not to judge everyone for the actions of a minority. Also, we don't insist that every motorist act according to the Highway Code before they are listened to, as no one group would ever be listened to.

You asked for a reasonable response to your original post (and started this thread off as no one had replied), I and others on here have done this, I went through point by point but your only response to me was on my agreement with someone else pointing out that it was difficult to understand exactly what you're saying.

SideBurn wrote:

Very eloquently put sim1515

Thanks, I do my best!

pwmedcraft wrote:

I live just off the A25 and ride & drive along it daily and I don't see many people riding 2 abreast let alone 3 or 4. Whereabouts and when do you see that?

Riding 2 abreast can sometimes make it easier for cars to overtake since the line of riders is shorter, and it can also discourage stupid overtaking, rather like riding in primary can.

True, if it is that busy, I find it hard to believe people are riding 4 abreast, that would take up the entire lane if not go a little onto the other side, and the group would have to be very big to cause that.

There is a difference between riding 2,3 and 4 abreast and cyclists overtaking each other. If a cyclist overtakes another one, that's not riding two abreast although it may seem for a very short period of time that they are. It's just like cars aren't allowed to drive two abreast but they can overtake each other. Sometimes 2 lines of cyclists will overtake a single cyclist, they're not 3 abreast, just overtaking, but some drivers get annoyed as they can't see the distinction.

Some also cannot see how riding 2 abreast will actually aid cars overtaking but that's another story...

freespirit1 wrote:

2200 signed petition now.

The Tour of Britain closures could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

I doubt that those signatures will stop the road closures next year, it may prompt them to vary the route into other counties the years following though.

Just a quick note though, you asked for reasoned comments on your points, I spent quite a while addressing each of your original issues plus others you raised and you have so far declined to comment at all on them. I find this very rude, no comment, rebuttal, agreement, thanks, not even an acknowledgment. Next time you want to put your point across, don't beg for feedback and then totally ignore it.

If you don't put your point across clearly it is difficult for people to answer it clearly. I'm still not sure why you linked the A25 with your highway code excerpt.