Why were you cycling on a pavement in the first place? Did you think you were above the law then?
Did you adopt the same attitude when it came to trucks!
Pick n choose what laws you confirm to!
Although scorn at those who do different?
Carryfast:
No we’re talking the difference between the risks of swimming in a swimming pool without a lifejacket as opposed to doing the same thing mid Channel or mid Atlantic.IE a bit like the difference between riding my bicycle to school on the pavement
So you admit falling foul of the Highway Code yourself?
chester:
Why were you cycling on a pavement in the first place? Did you think you were above the law then?Did you adopt the same attitude when it came to trucks!
Pick n choose what laws you confirm to!
Although scorn at those who do different?
In the case of conforming with the law in the case of riding bicycles on the road when there’s a much safer alternative off road it’s just the law which was the problem.While that same law is still obviously costing lives.It’s obvious that there are no such similar examples of such dangerous ‘laws’ applied to motor vehicles.
Carryfast:
chester:
Why were you cycling on a pavement in the first place? Did you think you were above the law then?Did you adopt the same attitude when it came to trucks!
Pick n choose what laws you confirm to!
Although scorn at those who do different?In the case of conforming with the law in the case of riding bicycles on the road when there’s a much safer alternative off road it’s just the law which was the problem.While that same law is still obviously costing lives.It’s obvious that there are no such similar examples of such dangerous ‘laws’ applied to motor vehicles.
Do you ever read what you post? Just because you think it’s right doesn’t meant it’s right!
I have to ride my mountain bike 2 miles on Tarmac road to get into a national park.
If I look to my left they is an abundance of green fields, much safer than the Tarmac road Iam on.
I just can’t decide to ride them fields as that would be trespass, just cause it’s safer don’t mean it’s legal, does it?
You Carryfast seem just as bad as the cyclists your against,picking and choosing your rules you abide by? You seem to been a frequent poster obviously in the old and bold forums! I trust I won’t find any flouting of logbooks in your days gone by will I etc tomorrow?
chester:
Carryfast:
chester:
Why were you cycling on a pavement in the first place? Did you think you were above the law then?Did you adopt the same attitude when it came to trucks!
Pick n choose what laws you confirm to!
Although scorn at those who do different?In the case of conforming with the law in the case of riding bicycles on the road when there’s a much safer alternative off road it’s just the law which was the problem.While that same law is still obviously costing lives.It’s obvious that there are no such similar examples of such dangerous ‘laws’ applied to motor vehicles.
Do you ever read what you post? Just because you think it’s right doesn’t meant it’s right!
I have to ride my mountain bike 2 miles on Tarmac road to get into a national park.
If I look to my left they is an abundance of green fields, much safer than the Tarmac road Iam on.I just can’t decide to ride them fields as that would be trespass, just cause it’s safer don’t mean it’s legal, does it?
You Carryfast seem just as bad as the cyclists your against,picking and choosing your rules you abide by? You seem to been a frequent poster obviously in the old and bold forums! I trust I won’t find any flouting of logbooks in your days gone by will I etc tomorrow?
In the case of cyclists using pavements it’s not using private property it’s just one of an ‘offence’ that’s very similar to that of overstaying a parking meter.Although the use the roads at all costs tossers obviously won’t see it that way.
As for my log book offences as a council driver they were actually a case of me being parked up having a break while the log book showed driving and duty.Which the guvnor was suspicious to the point of actually saying if only the council was using tachographs. 
So your the type who would park in a disabled bay outside a supermarket, but spit venom at the window screen if a young hoodlum was to cycle through a red light.
Double standards are appearing before I even delve?
chester:
So your the type who would park in a disabled bay outside a supermarket, but spit venom at the window screen if a young hoodlum was to cycle through a red light.Double standards are appearing before I even delve?
Where’s the connection between overstaying a parking meter and parking in a disabled bay.
You seem to have some very mixed up ideas regarding the differences in severity and risks between different types of offences.Not surprising considering that you don’t seem to understand the idea of the benefits in safety of cyclists using pavement space wherever possible outweighing the level of law breaking involved in doing so.As for cyclists choosing to use the road instead of the pavement and then riding through red lights I certainly wouldn’t give a zb because it’s more than likely to be only themselves that they injure.Unless it’s a pedestrian crossing. 
I know exactly what’s right and wrong!
I adhere by said rules.
Your the one who’s admitted to flounting log book offences without me even delving into the old and bold forums.
The law is the law!!!
If you don’t like it lobby it, don’t just break it just because you think your better!!
CF, stop banging on about the safety of cyclists. You quite obviously don’t give a ■■■■ about that, as long as they’re not in your way. The other people you clearly don’t give a ■■■■ about are the more vulnerable people who currently use the pavement: you know, the elderly, children and people like that.
Most of those arguing against your risible and impractical idea (singular) have been trying to make our points politely, using - for the most part - reasoned and well thought out arguments. You’ve consistently failed to address any points raised, preferring instead to simply repeat the same idea but in a louder voice with more insults. Now you’ve resorted to calling me and others like me “tossers”, you’ve lost any moral high ground you may have occupied. I for one won’t be responding to any more of your posts.
Rhythm Thief:
CF, stop banging on about the safety of cyclists. You quite obviously don’t give a [zb] about that, as long as they’re not in your way. The other people you clearly don’t give a [zb] about are the more vulnerable people who currently use the pavement: you know, the elderly, children and people like that.
Most of those arguing against your risible and impractical idea (singular) have been trying to make our points politely, using - for the most part - reasoned and well thought out arguments. You’ve consistently failed to address any points raised, preferring instead to simply repeat the same idea but in a louder voice with more insults. Now you’ve resorted to calling me and others like me “tossers”, you’ve lost any moral high ground you may have occupied. I for one won’t be responding to any more of your posts.
It’s people like this moronic zb who I’ve called tossers.Can’t use the pavement there because of vulnerable people on the pavement.Yeah right.More like stay on the road at all costs because by moving onto the pavement means setting a precedent which could,in the raving re claim the streets cyclist cause view,end the idea that cyclists must have the right to use the road as and when they wish while calling for other road users to be removed from those roads for the cyclists so called ‘safety’.
youtube.com/watch?v=kmILhmqpGqQ
As for yourself if the cap fits wear it.
chester:
The law is the law!!!If you don’t like it lobby it, don’t just break it just because you think your better!!
youtube.com/watch?v=dOmIhFYUcxU
It doesn’t matter to me now because I don’t use a bicycle other than offroad which doesn’t include roads or pavements.If cyclists want to keep geetting run over by trucks because they refuse to use pavement space that’s their problem not mine because luckily for me I don’t drive trucks now either.
scotstrucker:
just ban trucks over 18t from entering london at all times, have warehouses on the outskirts where the large trucks empty and the little ones load, double bonus, 1 they keep the heavies out and create employment in one swoop
Then how do we deliver bulk limestone/cement etc into all the massive building projects in London.
Its not the trucks that are the problem its the suicidal cyclists that insist on undertaking trucks at junctions. Trucks have indicators for a reason, perhaps the cyclists could be educated as to what a flashing orange light means!
dowahdiddyman:
scotstrucker:
just ban trucks over 18t from entering london at all times, have warehouses on the outskirts where the large trucks empty and the little ones load, double bonus, 1 they keep the heavies out and create employment in one swoopThen how do we deliver bulk limestone/cement etc into all the massive building projects in London.
Its not the trucks that are the problem its the suicidal cyclists that insist on undertaking trucks at junctions. Trucks have indicators for a reason, perhaps the cyclists could be educated as to what a flashing orange light means!
There’s not much difference in the overall size of a 4 wheeler rigid as opposed to a 6 or 8 wheeler one anyway and bearing in mind that buses are also involved in the issue.
Carryfast:
chester:
The law is the law!!!If you don’t like it lobby it, don’t just break it just because you think your better!!
youtube.com/watch?v=dOmIhFYUcxU
It doesn’t matter to me now because I don’t use a bicycle other than offroad which doesn’t include roads or pavements.If cyclists want to keep geetting run over by trucks because they refuse to use pavement space that’s their problem not mine because luckily for me I don’t drive trucks now either.
You really do waste an obscene amount of valuable time ranting about topics that don’t affect you. Nor even seemingly care about. You just like playing devils advocate for the sake of it. If I posted my lorry is black you’d spend 5 pages arguing why it isn’t. Why do you insist on ruining threads and putting off people commenting on topics that do affect and interest them?
Right !we’ve all been there sat at a set of lights on red when “whoosh” some Lycra clad urban warrior slips up the inside or down the centre of the traffic straight across the junction narrowly missing the traffic , then they flick the vee’s and gesture that everyone else is at fault . who else has had the experience of turning left checking mirrors prior to the turn , no cyclist , slight turn to the right prior to the left hand lock, and hey presto there they are ,head down earphones in ,weaving in and out of traffic . I’m not saying every cyclist is like this but I haven’t seen many that aren’t . in the seventys a lot of kids were getting knocked down by cars those amongst us old enough to remember can recall the safety films on TV " green cross code" the tuffty club ,Dave prowse (Darth Vader) to name but a few , my point! Nobody thought of banning cars did they , no they educated the kids and parents of kids , apparently there’s more traffic on the roads now and thankfully I hear less kids get knocked down than thirty years ago , just saying!
gickniff:
Right !we’ve all been there sat at a set of lights on red when “whoosh” some Lycra clad urban warrior slips up the inside or down the centre of the traffic straight across the junction narrowly missing the traffic , then they flick the vee’s and gesture that everyone else is at fault . who else has had the experience of turning left checking mirrors prior to the turn , no cyclist , slight turn to the right prior to the left hand lock, and hey presto there they are ,head down earphones in ,weaving in and out of traffic . I’m not saying every cyclist is like this but I haven’t seen many that aren’t . in the seventys a lot of kids were getting knocked down by cars those amongst us old enough to remember can recall the safety films on TV " green cross code" the tuffty club ,Dave prowse (Darth Vader) to name but a few , my point! Nobody thought of banning cars did they , no they educated the kids and parents of kids , apparently there’s more traffic on the roads now and thankfully I hear less kids get knocked down than thirty years ago , just saying!
^ This.The priorities during the 1970’s were the total opposite in putting the responsibility on the most vulnerable road users to look after their own safety.Which made things much better for all concerned.That was before the political eco warriors got involved in trying to reverse all that.Which in reality just means ever increasing amounts of cyclists and pedestrians doing ever increasingly stupid things on the roads around motor traffic.The logical conclusion of which is the effective unviability of motorised transport,at least in urban areas,because of the safety implications of using such transport at anything like viable speeds and/or it’s use at all.
switchlogic:
Carryfast:
chester:
The law is the law!!!If you don’t like it lobby it, don’t just break it just because you think your better!!
youtube.com/watch?v=dOmIhFYUcxU
It doesn’t matter to me now because I don’t use a bicycle other than offroad which doesn’t include roads or pavements.If cyclists want to keep geetting run over by trucks because they refuse to use pavement space that’s their problem not mine because luckily for me I don’t drive trucks now either.
You really do waste an obscene amount of valuable time ranting about topics that don’t affect you. Nor even seemingly care about. You just like playing devils advocate for the sake of it. If I posted my lorry is black you’d spend 5 pages arguing why it isn’t. Why do you insist on ruining threads and putting off people commenting on topics that do affect and interest them?
I didn’t say it doesn’t affect me being that I still drive a motor vehicle regardless of it’s size which isn’t totally immune from the stupidity of cyclists and sometimes even pedestrians.That stupidity having reached the point where even driving at 20 mph can be an unviable safety issue.There are no rules on the site which forbid ex truck drivers from putting forward a view.Especially in the case of using the experience gained over more years of driving trucks than you’ve so far done,to help identify the problems and hazards in doing the job.
Yep, all that relevant recent truck driving experience coming to the fore. Bet you were itching to say you’ve done more miles in reverse weren’t you…if you didn’t ruin every thread you contribute to it wouldn’t be a problem. But you do. Anyone can contribute, even non drivers.But when one person repeatedly ruins thread after thread it gets annoying. All you do is repeat the same thing for page after page after page after page. Yes, we get the message, let the debate move on.