A cargo bike user has been branded “selfish” after a Waitrose customer claimed that, while exiting the shop, he almost tripped over the bike’s front wheel, which he said was “blocking” the entrance and adjacent pedestrian walkway.
The customer’s account has been subsequently ridiculed by cyclists on social media, who pointed out that the cargo bike was stationed at a cycle rack, positioned “well back” from the shop’s entrance, and that there was ample space to access the building using the pavement.
However, the customer responded to the criticism by arguing that the bike’s position on the pavement – away from allocated cargo bike spacing nearby – was the equivalent of “a HGV parking in an allocated car space”.
Cargo bike locked & blocking the pedestrian walkway into Waitrose, Headington @BadlyParkedOx @HeadingtonNews
Not worried about the elderly, disabled or less mobile, they’ve blocked the entrance instead of using the cargo bike parking spaces provided on the London Rd. Nice ?? pic.twitter.com/9LSgcyhETA— Innkeeper55 (@Innkeeper55) December 8, 2023
The cargo bike was photographed on Friday by X (formerly Twitter) user Innkeeper55 outside the Waitrose on Old High Street in the Oxford suburb of Headington.
“Cargo bike locked and blocking the pedestrian walkway into Waitrose,” the Twitter user wrote. “Not worried about the elderly, disabled, or less mobile, they’ve blocked the entrance instead of using the cargo bike parking spaces provided on the London Road. Nice.”
The post, which has been viewed over 85,000 times, has divided opinion on the social media platform, as cyclists posted their own photos of the bike parking situation outside Waitrose to argue that the initial photograph was “dishonest” and that there is “plenty of room” for customers to access the shop:
Don’t really see what the problem is – plenty of room to access Waitrose from pavement pic.twitter.com/SIzChZBIYq
— nick gibb (@nickpgibb) December 8, 2023
“You could say the same about cars parked on pavements – yes, you could walk around but you shouldn’t have to,” Innkeeper55 responded.
“I came out of the shop and turned immediately left as I do daily and nearly tripped over the bloody front wheel. Any one less abled would not have been able to pass.”
“I do see your point,” the In Oxford account replied, “A couple of things though: Waitrose have said in the past that section isn’t intended as a ‘path’. The much wider pathway is, to the left of your pic, which you’ve deliberately cut out. Also, the cargo bike owner may not know dedicated parking spots exist for them.”
The customer replied: “It’s a heavily used walkway whatever Waitrose may have said. I’m not looking for an argument with anyone, but this is very selfish parking of a cargo bike which restricts pedestrians who use the walkway. Locals know there’s much more considerate places to park these bikes.”
Rory McCarron, a senior solicitor at Leigh Day who specialises in cycling-related issues, also noted that the cargo bike was “parked at the specific bike parking”.
He continued: “There’s a Boardman bike parked beyond it. Considering the layout here, the cargo bike is well set back from the entrance and not even the nearest rack to the entrance. Absolutely pathetic.”
“No it’s not,” Inkeeper55 said. “It’s like a HGV parking in an allocated car space.”
> Council slaps nuisance notice on family cargo bike parked on pavement
Of course, this isn’t the first time that the placement of a cargo bike has been the subject of controversy.
In September 2022, Hackney Council came in for criticism after an enforcement notice was placed on a family-owned cargo bike which was parked on a pavement, demanding its removal within seven days.
The bike belonged to Will Prochaska, who used it to transport his three children, one aged four and two two-year-old twins, to nursery and at the weekend. As the family did not have access to adequate private storage space, the bike was parked outside on the pavement, where it was issued with a seven-day notice from the local authority.
After Will posted on Twitter about the unexpected notice, the council responded by tweeting that the bike “is causing an obstruction on the pavement so it would need to be removed and parked somewhere safe. This can be on your own private property or somewhere designated for bicycles” – a rather blunt reply which caused something of a backlash on the social media platform.
“I think the case shows the desperate need for cargo bike parking solutions in Hackney,” Will told road.cc. “As it is, the way we park our bike never blocks the pavement, so the argument that it’s an obstruction is false.”
And in July, Bristol couple Anna and Mark Cordle made the headlines after they set up a parking space for their family cargo bike outside their home which, a year after it was installed, became the subject of threats by the council to remove it – because, the local authority said, it was taking up a car parking space.
When asking Anna and Mark – who made the switch to a cargo bike after giving up their car – to remove the heavy planters used to secure the bike, Bristol City Council claimed that placing them on the road is in breach of Section 149 of the Highways Act, and that they would be liable “if any person has an accident as a result of [your] planters being on the highway”.

100 thoughts on ““It’s like a HGV parking in a car space”: Row erupts over cargo bike “blocking” pedestrian entrance to Waitrose”
Whenever I see things like
Whenever I see things like this, there’s a little voice that rings in my ear…and it goes…
“five deaths a day”
40 deaths a year caused by
40 deaths a year caused by drivers on the pavement.
I mean, if you couldn’t get
I mean, if you couldn’t get eg. your wheelchair, pram or mobility vehicle through it would add … an extra 3 or 4 meters to your journey. Unlike pavement parking though you wouldn’t have to leave the security of the footway or cope with a kerb.
Surely the solution is either to move bike racks away from the shop by half a metre or so (plenty space there still) OR towards it (making it clear that you’re not expected to squeeze through)?
Looking at the distance
Looking at the distance between the bollards and the shop front, I’m not sure that is wide enough to get a wheelchair down there.
Wonder how many times the complainant has complained about cars/vans/ pickups overhanging narrow footpaths such as those found in supermarkets.
God forbid the poor patrons
God forbid the poor patrons of Waitrose suffer a fall…
Bigwheeler88, have you
Bigwheeler88, have you admitted to using Rendel’s image as your avatar yet? (As highlighted in this thread: https://road.cc/content/news/police-scold-cyclist-with-cat-not-wearing-helmet-travis-sigrid-305077?page=2)
If not, I can’t take any of your posts at face value and advise that others don’t either. I am especially dubious of the forum post you created regarding “Informal verbal warning from the police after submitting near miss” (https://road.cc/content/forum/informal-verbal-warning-police-after-submitting-near-miss-305557)
You can’t take his *face* at
You can’t take his *face* at face value, you mean? (Or rather its connection to that user name – although of course it could be a genuine likeness but what’s bogus is it’s actually Rendel pretending to be bigwheeler88; or perhaps *everyone* is Nigel and there is no spoon?)
.
.
‘I can’t take any of your posts at face value and advise that others don’t either’
.
You speak for yourself, mate!
.
Flintshire Boy wrote:
I believe Cycle Happy were speaking for themselves, but I agree with them.
?
?
C’mon Flintshire
?
It’s nearly Christmas
?
What about putting up some seasonally appropriate decorations?
❄️
That’s exactly what he did.
That’s exactly what he did.
This stalker stuff isn’t
This stalker stuff isn’t funny
Snobishness
Snobishness
Whataboutery
Just walk around, its not far
Bigger things to worry about
Come on folks, we just need someone to say ‘they were probably only there for a few minutes’ to complete the full hypocratic defence of cyclists doing the things you all complain about when drivers do it.
True – but if the pictures
True – but if the pictures/tweets are to be believed, the bike is parked exactly where it’s supposed to be and the only problem is that Inkeeper55 wants to walk through the bike parking area, but can’t because… there’s a bike exactly where it’s supposed to be. I think this is more a case of “can’t miss a chance to shit on cyclists” rather than cyclist hypocrisy.
I can see that, you can see
I can see that, you can see that, but just look at the responses this sort of stuff gets. The hate just comes out first, they cant help themselves.
STATO wrote:
I’ve looked through all the comments on here, no hate. Must be talking about Twitter I thought, looked there, no hate. Where are you seeing hate?
BalladOfStruth wrote:
Looking at the wider angle photo, I do wonder whether the reason they have got used to often creeping along between the shop windows and the bike parking is because there are often cars parked up onto that wider section of footway “just for five minutes while I get the paper and a pint of milk”…?
Whataboutery – well, it’s the
Whataboutery – well, it’s the same category (inconvenience – could be caused by anything in the way, car or bike). I thought classic whataboutery was criticising the speck in someone else’s eye when you had a plank in your own though? That seems to better fit one side in these arguments – in this case because motor vehicles are a lot bigger and there are currently a LOT more of them.
Maybe the best thing to avoid a tiff is to compare this image with the gold standard (NL currently). Is it convenient here for people walking, wheeling or cycling to this shop? Yes, there’s ample footway here and (official) cycle parking right outside.
Now all they need do is fix those roads so people aren’t troubled by fast motor vehicles. Or indeed finding them on the pavement – which can *actually* be a showstopper for those with mobility issues (because kerbs and having to get in the road). As as opposed to a momentary inconvenience for someone accustomed to taking a shortcut and not paying much attention to their surroundings.
(And yes – we need to take this human characteristic into account in designs, but not to the extent of “no change”…)
Actually – the correct result
Actually – the correct response to this is simply to repeat what the the guy in Twitter said – plenty of room to access Waitrose from the pavement?
Done.
So if a car parks on a wide
So if a car parks on a wide sidewalk that’s okay, as long as there is still room to walk around it?
This isn’t the USA
This isn’t the USA
If a car parks on a footway or a bike obstructs a footway, that is an issue. Here there argument is about the shop frontage and which parts are allocated to bikes, pedestrians or even cars. Possible to have parking on a shop frontage
https://maps.app.goo.gl/BZnGoRbffQmXDN5L6
I actually live in this ‘gold
I actually live in this ‘gold standard’, and I can tell you bikes in general, and cargo bikes very often, are parked very much in the way of pedestrians all the time.
Part of it is just people not really caring enough to do better, but an even bigger part is that – yes, even here – car parking is prioritised and in many places there just isn’t enough space left to put your bike somewhere where it is not in the way of others, especially in inner city streets with houing (instead of shops). In my street there are no front gardens and the sidewalks are only about 70cm wide, but all along it are car parking spots. People living here, like the sudents in the home next to us, have no other place to leave their bikes on the sidewalk.
Pedestrians complain about that, and rightly so, but the cause is that there just is no available, suiting place for these bikes.
The solution is simple though. Just turn a few of these car parking spots into cycling parking spots, and let cargo bike take a car parking spot (they are being used as car alternatives anyway).
I understand your query now.
I understand your query now. In NL you have “nice to have” problems of “what to do with all these bikes”. People are people, more or less careful or selfish.
Unfortunately in the UK we have very few people using bikes for transport so we have exactly the same problems but with cars instead – which means *much* more space taken up. Problems then go from “I have to walk round the bike” to “pedestrians have to jump into the road” (where lots of cars may be passing at over 48kmh – it’s the UK) or “there is a kerb so this is literally inaccessible if you have kids in a buggy / have disabilities”.
It’s more a difference in quality than degree.
This particular story is just one guy having a moan though because there was something that meant walking maybe 6 extra steps. (Probably there’s some personal story behind why this got his goat this time. )
To reiterate – I agree that where there is mass cycling people will park bikes inconsiderately (just like they do with cars) – and this is something that as you say is a challenge. But this is a very different thing from how cars full space and get in the way – in the same way as eg. thousands of buildings are not damaged every year by bikes smashing through their walls and windows.
I completely agree with your last point. If we could only learn from some of the mistakes that NL has made (or avoid some of the “growing pains”) it would save us years and hundreds of millions of pounds. Unfortunately it seems that mass cycling is something that “evolves” rather than a collection of engineering solutions we can import. I wish it were like that but it seems this is the way the world works…
They were not blocking the
They were not blocking the footway so not really sure where you are going with this.
Next door has a fence and seating along the same line.
The bollards are there to stop drivers crashing through the shop, not a demarcation of the bike parking space.
The bollards might also
The bollards, and the fact that other businesses along there have frontages, might also suggest that this is not public land and therefore up to Waitrose to decide if the cargo bike is allowed to park there.
IanMK wrote:
There are regular posts on twitter where people (often owners) park infront of their shops, on the businesses land, and responses make out like its the end of the world.
The cargo bike is obviously longer and has parked into/over a space that would never be blocked by a normal bike. The problem here is the cargo bike is longer and their isnt a dedicated spot here for it, so the owner has parked ‘only blocking a bit more space’ like many drivers do, rather than find a space for it.
Should wiatrose offer cargo bike parking, probably. Is that space suitable, probably. Is it currently a cargo bike space or a space that is predominately used for walking by customers, its used by people walking.
Honestly i dont get why cycle campaigners are so against just being honest with a situation. Yes its much less worse than a car parking there, but its still not appropraite. You cant constantly dismiss issues with cycling just because ‘its not as bad as it could be’.
Im sure if that space was blocked by some shop stock on promotion, there would be just as many people arguing the store had just removed a safe pedestrian space and force peds nearer to the road where a car might mount the pavement and hit them.
It’s not a footway and you
It’s not a footway and you have decided it should be a walkway, despite the railings in front of the shop where you could leave a dog or lock a bike.
Yup – in this case parking in
Yup – in this case parking in a designated area, literally blocking no-one, not restricting or endangering anyone by forcing them off the footway. Just one guy who simply tried to walk through a bike and is now angry because cyclists it seems.
Not sure why this has prompted “bloody cyclists, they think they’re always right!” but then I’m not in Twitter (as was).
Pllenty of room to access Waitrose from the pavement?
The bollards might also
.
Those are things cyclists say
Those are things cyclists say when cars are parked illegally, not when they’re parked in actual parking spaces.
In episode #6,896,355 of
In episode #6,896,355 of “People shitting on cyclists for doing something that nobody would bat an eyelid at if a driver did it”, we examine “parking”…
Nonsense. Lot’s of people bat
Nonsense. Lot’s of people bat an eyelid if a driver does it (and rightly so), namely us cyclists.
We should keep ourselves to the same standards that we want drivers to hold themselves to, otherwise we really are the snobist types drivers claim we are.
Sredlums wrote:
Yes, we should bring that up at the next Evil Cyclist Lobby meeting. After all, motorists are jointly responsible for any driver that speeds or crashes, so it’s only right that us cyclists can be blamed for any transgression by anyone on a bike.
Sredlums wrote:
I can’t see many people batting an eyelid at a driver parking a car in a car parking bay. It doesn’t matter if there’s usually a vintage Mini parked there and you’ve become accustomed to squeezing past, the guy who eventually parks a family estate fully in the confines of the bay isn’t doing anything wrong and such a situation wouldn’t have warranted the initial Tweet let alone resulting row.
For what it’s worth, I completely agree with this statement, which is why I’ve been at odds with the general consensus here a few times (such as the unreasonably fast group rides through residential areas, for example). But I don’t think this is one of those times – it’s just someone getting upset that they can’t walk through a bike parking area (that’s literally three feet from the widest pavement I’ve ever seen) because there’s a bike parked exactly where it’s supposed to be.
Christ, people really will
Christ, people really will moan about any old shit on Twitter, won’t they?
The customer replied: “. . .
The customer replied: “. . . . . I’m not looking for an argument with anyone, but this is very selfish parking of a cargo bike which restricts pedestrians who use the walkway. Locals know there’s much more considerate places to park these bikes.”
Argued the customer . . . . .
I know this is a bit of a
I know this is a bit of a radical suggestion… but did anybody on the twitter (sorry, “X”) thread suggest that innkeeper55 should maybe look where he’s going? That would reduce his risk of nearly tripping over things that are plainly visible…
(And I do hope he doesn’t drive a car – SMIDSY)
but you wouldnt say if a car
but you wouldnt say if a car was blocking a pavement parked like that, well people should just look where theyre going to avoid it, youd say dont block the ruddy pavement with you car wouldnt you ?
so why cant people park cargo bikes with just a bit of consideration for other people too ? just because theyve used a bike doesnt mean they get to play the smug self satisifed card if they behave like inconsiderate jerks with it.
and I dont care if its a proper designated bike park space, you still have an obligation not to block routes past your bike for other people where ever you leave it.
…only it’s not blocking the
…only it’s not blocking the pavement?
We don’t have to argue the rights and wrongs of something that hasn’t happened. That covers it I’d think – but if you need any more a) it’s not a car (illegal to drive in the pavement) and b) it’s parked in a space the store have apparently created for this purpose.
What am I not understanding here? Because it looks like “but but cyclists though!”?
Plenty of room to access Waitrose from the pavement?
stonojnr wrote:
Certainly would. But if a car wasn’t blocking the pavement but instead was parked in a designated parking space on private land and there was a legitimate public pavement route round to the door of the store that was not even any further, probably wouldn’t.
Since it’s not on he pavement
Since it’s not on he pavement, it isn’t blocking the pavement.
It’s blocking a valid access
It’s blocking a valid access “walkway” route for pedestrians is it not ?
If the shop puts an A board there or outside display, no would quibble if the council told them to move it.
Why is it different if a bicycle blocks the same space ?
stonojnr wrote:
Because it’s a space specifically set aside for parking bikes
“Can sometimes physically
“Can sometimes physically walk there” not equal to “is part of the highway” e.g. footway (I think footway counts as that legally).
One person found it slightly difficult to take a shortcut, one time. No-one was stopped from doing anything, endangered, or anything more than momentarily mildly inconvenienced really. No one was doing anything illegal nor I feel antisocial. This really, really isn’t anything like parking an HGV in a car space, or a car on a pavement.
They could have … I mean, they could have just stuck the bike right in the door, stopping everyone, or stacked a series of bikes across the footway. But … they didn’t.
I mean, living in Scotland I’m all for the right to roam, but that doesn’t mean I think it’s sensible to campaign for people to move the trees (bollards) or sheep (bicycles) out of the way if I walk across a field in a particular direction – especially if it’s still perfectly possible to get across the field by stepping round them.
So … there doesn’t seem to be a general principle here*. Why are we still discussing this?
Plenty of room to access Waitrose from the pavement?
* No principle apart from “bloody cyclists, think they’re better than everyone” maybe? Or could it be a case of “when you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression”? Or simply “change!”?
stonojnr wrote:
Looking at the commercial premises either side of the supermarket, one assumes that the land on which they have their alfresco dining facilities does not belong to the council and nor does the land which Waitrose has designated as a cycle park. It’s very common for shops that are set back a distance from the pavement to own the land directly in front of their doors. That being the case, the council have no say in the matter, it would be up to Waitrose as to whether they wish to preserve this “walkway”, something they could easily do by simply running a chain between the existing bollards. As they haven’t, one must assume that they are happy with the area being used as part of the bike park and for customers to have to walk the extra six feet round to gain access.
There’s a difference between
There’s a difference between a “pedestrian walkway” and “a space that a pedestrian can physically fit through”. This is the latter, and is intended for cycle parking, not pedestrian acces.
Like I said below, nobody in the world would think that someone who has become accustomed to walking through a car parking space because there’s usually a small car in it would have a legitimate grievance if they were to find a slightly larger car in it one day – especially if there was a massive pavement three feet away.
You have to compare apples to apples here. You’re talking about a bike blocking a pedestrian footpath being just as bad as a car blocking one (which is true), but that’s not what has happened here – this is a bike parked in a bike parking area being moaned about by someone who’s become accustomed to walking where they were never intended to be able to.
The council can only direct a
The council can only direct a removal on the public highway or if the board breaches any local or national planning rules on adverts.
No one has demonstrated this is a valid walkway and it’s not a footway.
As before, I could tie my dog to the rail – would people moan about that ?
Hirsute wrote:
What kind of dog?
hawkinspeter wrote:
It’s a Waitrose in the home counties dahling, only black labradors and golden retrievers permitted.
I would have thought a poodle
I would have thought a poodle or some other kind of yappy dog would be more appropriate for the Waitrose demographic.
What are you trying to say
What are you trying to say Rendel!
That beauty is surely just
That beauty is surely just made for Waitrose visiting!
Not starting from South
Not starting from South Australia! Drakes, maybe ?
CyclingInGawler wrote:
Ah, I ignorantly assumed Gawler was a place in Wales!
If I were allowed one, it
If I were allowed one, it would be a golden retriever or maybe even a weimaraner.
(What will rendel make of that and me being a Waitrose weekly shopper ?)
Hirsute wrote:
I think either of those would be good cause to stop and give some attention to. Small yappy dogs outside of shops are best ignored as they can get frightened of big tall humans.
One with small horns, udders
One with small horns, udders and a collar clearly labelled “dog”?
chrisonatrike wrote:
Sounds like it’s in cow-moo-flage
Interesting [sic] that on
Interesting [sic] that on both sides of the Waitrose in question there are cafes with cordoned/fenced off al fresco dining areas taking up the same space Waitrose is using as a bike park: presumably the Twitterer also objects to not being able to hug their frontages when entering/exiting their premises as well?
That’s whataboutism.
That’s whataboutism.
If you leave everything else out of it, it’s quite easy to see the catgo bike could have been parked better quite easily.
Yes, and they could also have
Yes, and they could also have put a door in the other side of the shop to make it easier for this guy, or there could be no bikes or cars at all, then there wouldn’t need to be bollards in front of the shop or any bikes parked a bit out of line.
Will address this in your other post but (and I now understand where you’re coming from) you’re making perfect very much the enemy of “slightly better than our current awful situation” here.
FACT: Any NORMAL PERSON would
FACT: Any NORMAL PERSON would just have walked past the cago bike without a second thought. Twitter X has always been an echo chamber for idiots with too much time on their hands who love turning their life non-stories and petty grievances into drama. Some of them even appear to be coming here.
Why not just be kind and
Why not just be kind and considerate. There’s no need to turn everything into a conflict. Cargo bike users appear to use their planet-saving credentials to do as they please in many cases. Lithium mining contributes massively to global warming so maybe less entitled behaviour is in order. Just be nice.
Cavey65 wrote:
A good principle.
Unpowered bikes for the maximum smugness (more than walking – it’s more efficient…) OTOH cargo bikes are still an order of magnitude better than e.g. a car – and that’s what most people in the UK go for.
Just be nice – park in parking spots; don’t park on the footway / in the cycle lane / path. So job done here.
I still don’t understand what people are getting triggered by here – can anyone explain?
WING MIRROR, HELMETS, DISC
WING MIRROR, HELMETS, DISC BRAKES, TEESIDE, 1x, SEGUE
Cavey65 wrote:
The only person who is turning everything into a conflict here is the Twitter poster who thought it was worth taking a picture and posting a complaint rather than walk three feet to the left and use the legitimate pavement, instead expecting to be able to walk through the bike parking area.
ETA By the way, I’ve just had a quick skim through the original twitter poster’s timeline, he is an absolutely virulent anti-cyclist and anti-LTN campaigner (along with the usual expected pro-Farage, anti-immigrant, climate change denial et cetera). Sample tweet below, this is not somebody who was just innocently out getting their shopping and found themselves blocked, it’s someone who hates cyclists and goes actively looking for “evidence” against them, it seems.
I can’t help but feel I could
I can’t help but feel I could have read that tweet on another platform…
Cavey65 wrote:
Lithium mining contributes approximately 1.9 million tonnes of Co2 to the atmosphere per year (in 2022 a record 130,000 tonnes of lithium were mined, a mined tonne of lithium contributes 15 tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere). Obviously that’s not wholly desirable, but in the context of the 32 billion tonnes pumped into the atmosphere each year by coal, gas and oil mining I’m not sure that 0.005% of the total carbon emissions caused by fossil fuels can justifiably be described as a massive contribution.
Additionally there is about 60g of lithium in a substantial (500wh) ebike battery, so you can make about 16,000 ebike batteries with a single tonne of lithium, meaning that mining cost of the lithium in an ebike battery is about 1 kg of Co2 – the equivalent of about five miles of driving in a standard petrol saloon.
Ignoring the fact that the
Ignoring the fact that the stats you’ve quoted are irrelevant and not a like-for-like comparison at all, and that your calcs fail to consider for any other materials in manufacture (including the fact that parts on an e-bike will be oil derived), lithium mining is unsustainable and unethical
https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/from-us/briefings/transition-minerals-sector-case-studies/human-rights-in-the-mineral-supply-chains-of-electric-vehicles/
It’s not making an argument
It’s not making an argument simply to say something is irrelevant and not a like-for-like comparison (like-for-like with what?) without providing any facts of your own, it’s simply being vexatious – no surprise there. Cavey65 specifically mentioned lithium mining and its contribution to global warming and so I have addressed the issue they mentioned. Indeed some lithium production is unethical and this must be addressed by national governments and international organisations, huge amounts of oil production is unethical and has involved the displacement and sometimes slaughter of indigenous peoples, presumably you don’t buy petrol?
One assumes in this new, totally believable and not at all just obsessed with trying to contradict a single person Loser-as-eco-warrior persona you will obviously be giving up your car (even petrol cars rely on lithium for their computer systems), your computer, your phone, even your electric toothbrush, all of which require lithium to operate?
Addressing your incorrect
Addressing your incorrect statements, (not facts) is another topic altogether
And I assume you, the ethical and green chap that you are, go around dressed in a coat of leaves? Most clothes, all rubber products and so on are oil derived, as are the devices you use to access road.cc
And for the record, no – i 100% will not be giving up on petrol or oil. It’s just as green, if not greener, to use it. Co2 is a naturally occurring gas, so it’s fine as a byproduct, and it’s derived from sustainable and naturally occurring sources.
Left_is_for_Losers wrote:
Of all the very stupid statements very stupid right-wing people come out with when they are being very stupid, “CO2 occurs naturally so it’s fine” is one of the most stupid. If you are incapable of understanding the difference between the natural carbon cycle and the artificial introduction into it of enormous amounts of additional carbon that was sequestered deep below the ground and would have stayed there for billions of years without humanity’s intervention then there’s very little hope for you. The argument is about as logical as saying that because a pint glass can hold a pint of water then obviously it must be able to hold two pints.
Do learn to read, I didn’t ask you if you were giving up on oil, I asked you whether as you have such an objection to lithium you will not be using products that contain it, including your automobile, computer, phone et cetera.
However if you genuinely believe that introducing additional CO2 into the atmosphere has no environmental consequences then you won’t be bothered about the CO2 produced during lithium mining and therefore you have proved that you are simply being vexatious in order to continue your rather pathetic and obsessive feud against me, so sit down.
Haha, sorry – I have some
Haha, sorry – I have some kalms here if you would like them
CO2 is naturally occurring, adding more is fine! And therefore it doesn’t matter if lithium produces it, but it is unethically sourced – using child labour etc.
Left_is_for_Losers wrote:
Thanks for the offer but it would take a lot more than your pathetic posturing to upset my equilibrium.
Child labour is actually not a big issue in lithium mining; over 50% of the world’s lithium is mined in Australia, for a start. You appear to be confusing it with cobalt production which definitely does have very serious issues with child labour.
You can’t really be this ignorant, can you? Because something is naturally occurring then adding more to the atmosphere is fine? Nitrogen, hydrogen, methane, radon and many other gases are naturally occurring and lethal to human beings in sufficient quantity, but it would be okay to add more to the atmosphere because they are naturally occurring? Enough of your silliness.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Of course it’s fine – do you have any idea of the volume of co2 emitted vs the volume of air? It would take millennia before there was any kind of co2 level that was harmful to humans.
You must either use google a lot, or perhaps have a photographic memory to remember all the data you do
Cobalt is also used in batteries, but that doesn’t stop you buying battery products. People don’t look at the overall sustainability picture. Electric cars simply transfer emissions to the source of the materials, rather than emitting them during use. Although some electricity will come from non-renewable sources
Can I interest you in
Can I interest you in investing in my 100% ethical and sustainable CO2 mine? I hear there’s a predicted market shortage, so stock will rise soon!
Left_is_for_Losers wrote:
Stating that adding more CO2 to this planet is fine is a bit like saying that more sugar is good for a Type 2 diabetic.
Left_is_for_Losers wrote:
Just brilliant, you accuse somebody else of making incorrect statements and then claim that all rubber products come from oil. I hate to break this to you, but rubber can actually be found in a natural form in the eponymous trees. Synthetic rubber is oil-derived but if you are going to say all rubber comes from oil then I think you’d better stop accusing other people of making incorrect statements until you’ve sorted your own confusion and ignorance out.
It’s a pity his Dad didn’t
It’s a pity his Dad didn’t wear a rubber
KDee wrote:
Latex.
Isn’t latex a bit leaky? That
Isn’t latex a bit leaky? That’s why it keeps going soft
Left_is_for_Losers wrote:
Umm…
the dinosaursdead diatoms subjected to millions of heat and pressure are not really that sustainable now, are they?That’s a pity – I loved the
That’s a pity – I loved the idea of our economy running on a kind of dino-based Lee and Perrins.
Technically fossil fuels are renewable of course, just … extremely slowly. And you need to stop using them while they’re building up again – which is the bit we’re not able to do.
Wait long enough though and we’d not be able to use renewables or non-renewables as the sun burns out of its own non-renewable resources (barring injections of hydrogen from outside the solar system) – but apparently we will never reach the point as we’ll get cooked first.
stomec wrote:
Yes very sustainable – oil is a naturally occurring resource. Use it, the reserves are unlimited!
Left_is_for_Losers wrote:
May Santa bring you the friends you deserve
How has this comment section
How has this comment section managed to go from “is this cargo bike parked okay?” (Yes) to the ballad of climate denier Nige?
I dunno, but it’s a kind of
I dunno, but it’s a kind of exciting wondering what piece of swivel eyed lunacy he’ll spout forth next!
KDee wrote:
No spoilers here.
He was on about marrying a
He was on about marrying a milk bottle last week.
Aha, Rendel has persuaded you
Aha, Rendel has persuaded you to pop your head above the parapet has he?
Left_is_for_Losers wrote:
Yes, we had an emergency lunchtime Zoom meeting of the “Dealing with Losers” committee. You do realise what an absolute tit that sort of comment (along with all the other “Rendel is a member of road.cc staff” ones) makes you look? Just checking.
Rendel Harris wrote:
You do realise what an absolute tit that sort of comment makes you look? Just checking.
Married life getting you down
Married life getting you down?
perce wrote:
It can go sour.
All good here.
All good here.
We haven’t heard from Clem for a while, perhaps you could have a word with “him” and ask for his opinion?
perce wrote:
Sadly it went off without them. As they say in France, “Tu lait!” (is this right?). Or even – hard cheese.
perce wrote:
Shows what reading Portnoy’s Complaint at an impressionable age can do to you…
These long threads which
These long threads which consist of back-and-forth attempts to either ridicule the obvious nutter or respond are unedifying. Nobody could actually be stupid enough to believe ‘CO2 is natural, so must be OK’ without being too stupid to type/ walk and breathe at the same time. Therefore, he’s suffering from some pathetic need to have people attack him all the time- I suppose it’s most simply described as attention-seeking. Presumably, he’s one of the retreads, so we have ample evidence that disputes with him are futile and are probably not even helping his disorder. I have little hope that any call to stop attending to him will have any effect, and people are free to respond how they like, but I am making the call anyway. If he wanted people to agree with him, he would be spending all this time on some Mail/ car-nutter site, so it’s the widespread disapproval he craves. Help Him by Ignoring Him. HHbIH!
You’d be surprised how many
You’d be surprised how many apparently sentient human beings do believe that rubbish. There’s always the call to just ignore them and they will go away, but in the case of some of them – Socraticyclist, Nigel and his trolls of many colours, Martin73, this one – they simply won’t leave until they are banned (of course this one has been banned already, quite why the mods allow him to continue is beyond me) so one is faced with the alternative of either challenging them or putting up with absolute rubbish and considerable personal abuse, including abuse of one’s wife et cetera, on pretty much a daily basis. It’s doubtless a failing on my part but if somebody hands out that sort of crap to me I’m afraid I don’t have the Zen-like serenity not to hit back.
Only in Broken Britain can
Only in Broken Britain can the vitriol towards anyone using a bicycle be so acceptable.
Meanwhile, thousands of drivers across the UK park where they want, whenever they want. This includes blocking the entire pavement or cycle lane.
Both approaches socially acceptable. Both a sign our culture is in the sewer.