Cyclists

[de mange]

Yes, it was, and yours was no limit

So you're admitting your parents recklessly endangered your life. Interesting.

Where did I post that Liam?

 

[How bad boy]

Yes, it was, and yours was no limit

So you're admitting your parents recklessly endangered your life. Interesting.

No, I'm not.

Central Macroom is not the same as the Bow Roundabout.

Nor is the A329 through Earley or the Gosbrook Rd in Caversham...

 

[Devils best friend]

Where did I post that Liam?

Well you haven't stated one, and objected to mine, so it leads to a logical conclusion that you don't have a limit.

 

[How bad boy]

Well you haven't stated one, and objected to mine, so it leads to a logical conclusion that you don't have a limit.

No, it doesn't.

Saying 45 is the wrong age for the age of consent does not make you an advocate of baby rape.

 

[de mange]

Well you haven't stated one, and objected to mine, so it leads to a logical conclusion that you don't have a limit.

this is outstanding logic :lol:


dont ever change, you're some craic all the same (or at least smoking it)

 

[de mange]

So you're admitting your parents recklessly endangered your life. Interesting.

BTW Liam


Would you think that your parents allowing you to drive a Lamborghini when you were 12 was recklessly endangering your life? Interesting.

 

[Devils best friend]

No, I'm not.

Central Macroom is not the same as the Bow Roundabout.

Nor is the A329 through Earley or the Gosbrook Rd in Caversham...

So at what age would you consider it safe for a child to navigate the more dangerous roads?

BTW Liam


Would you think that your parents allowing you to drive a Lamborghini when you were 12 was recklessly endangering your life? Interesting.

Still waiting for you to answer. I won't hold my breath

 

[How bad boy]

So at what age would you consider it safe for a child to navigate the more dangerous roads?

Still waiting for you to answer. I won't hold my breath

Define what you mean by dangerous.
If youre referring to, for example, the A4074, from Reading to Oxford, I would say there is probably no age at which the bit by St Peters Avenue is safe to cycle.

 

[Devils best friend]

Define what you mean by dangerous.
If youre referring to, for example, the A4074, from Reading to Oxford, I would say there is probably no age at which the bit by St Peters Avenue is safe to cycle.

So you accept that there are roads that shouldn't be cycled? That's a start.

So should there be a fine for cyclists who cycle on the road where a concurrent cycle route exists? Considering those lanes have been put their for a reason.

 

[How bad boy]

So you accept that there are roads that shouldn't be cycled? That's a start.

So should there be a fine for cyclists who cycle on the road where a concurrent cycle route exists? Considering those lanes have been put their for a reason.

Considering how badly planned the vast majority of cycle paths are in the UK, no, I don't think there should be a fine for deviation from cycle paths.

Some cycle paths are incredibly dangerous, far more dangerous to both cyclists and pedestrians. My favourite type of ridiculous cycle path is the one with "cyclists dismount" and no indicator of when one can remount.

The Caversham Road just by the rail bridge in Reading is one example of such I used to have use every day. Cycle path on the left hand side of the road compels you to get off and walk, but there is no sign to tell you when its safe to get back on.
So you basically have to walk the half a mile to the station if strictly complying with the law (possibly...)

It is not a cycle path. Its a non-cycle path. Cycling on the road is fine around there, so it makes far more sense.

The sign post smack bang in the middle of the cycle path over Caversham Bridge is another favourite. Oh and the cycle path that requires 3fast lane changes in quick traffic in central Farnborough, that's another nicely lethal design.

If roads were designed as badly, you would be screaming about that.