Cannot believe there are no replies!!

SideBurn wrote:Very

SideBurn wrote:

Very eloquently put sim1515 =D>

Thanks, I do my best!

If you don’t put your point
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.

freespirit1 wrote:I am not

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.

You are trolling now.
You are trolling now.