snowychap Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 15 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: I'll admit it wasn't my best effort but my John Lennon reference appears to have gone higher than a Heskey shot from 6 yards but from the yawn maybe it was tiredness that made you miss it ? I'll genuinely admit that I didn't see it. Perhaps if we're looking for actual humour rather than contrary flippancy then we'd not miss these times when you're being yourself? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 6 hours ago, Davkaus said: I don't know much about this guy or if he's doing a good job, but this particular 'story' is pathetic spin, the worst kind of media sound bite bullshit, taking him out of context. He distinguished between cyclists and road users in areas with protected cycling lanes in London. In these specific areas, cyclists aren't road users. He wasn't saying they weren't in a general sense. It comes to something when I find myself defending a **** Tory minister, but I hate these disingenuous little media games. Grayling's excuse for what he meant sounds contorted and contrived. It seems far more likely that he shares the frame of mind of those you can see in the comments below any story about cycling, that cyclists "don't pay road tax" (no-one does) and by extension have less right to be on the road. If he had meant something about specific situations where cyclists weren't using a stretch of road because they had all chosen to use a cycle path, it would have been easy to frame it in that way in the first place. There's an obvious inference to what he said, and there's his unlikely and implausible explanation. I'll go for the obvious. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 6 hours ago, tonyh29 said: Been done previosuly and can't be arsed to go through the thread and old news stories but in summary wasn't it that a) she didn't say that and b ) she stole the idea from Ed Miliband ? Yes it's been done previously, we all agreed (some of us grudgingly) that she had her writers and aids brief all the press that was what the speech meant and during the speech made a special effort to name and thank the very advisers that were briefing the press on what was meant. When it turned to shit within 5 minutes, the line was then 'ah well she never actually said that'. We could re prove disgraced Liam Fox is still disgraced next if you like? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 7 hours ago, snowychap said: Are they not? Are they banned from using the road? Edit: What he says is: Other than a reference to the Evening Standard, I can't see that there is anything in the exchange that has any reference to London. Obviously there may be more than I've seen. Apologies if that means I've made a mistake. The original quote he's being criticised for is is below. I honestly can't see what the fuss is about. Quote “I don’t think all the cycle lanes in London have been designed as well as they should have been,” he said. “There are places where they perhaps cause too much of a problem for road users and they could have been designed in a smarter way.” http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/chris-grayling-i-use-a-phone-to-buy-lunch-so-why-do-we-still-queue-for-rail-tickets-a3413296.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 8 hours ago, Davkaus said: I don't know much about this guy or if he's doing a good job, but this particular 'story' is pathetic spin, the worst kind of media sound bite bullshit, taking him out of context. He distinguished between cyclists and road users in areas with protected cycling lanes in London. In these specific areas, cyclists aren't road users. He wasn't saying they weren't in a general sense. It comes to something when I find myself defending a **** Tory minister, but I hate these disingenuous little media games. I really apologise for using this particular nugget. If you were a cyclist you'd understand. Argh, it hurts me to say it. But unfortunately it's the case with this. I drive a car the vast majority of the time. I'm on a bike very occasionally in comparison. There's a nasty undercurrent of ill feeling towards anyone on a bike from anyone in a car. It starts with 'they don't pay road tax', 'they all run red lights', 'they don't think the rules apply to them', etc and ends with punish passes and people getting punched by car passengers because it's funny to target the person in lycra as they're dehumanised by pretty much everyone who isn't on the other end of this treatment. So when the guy who is the transport secretary who should have an understanding of this uses language that only reinforces that division and shows he doesn't realise that people on bikes have the exact same rights as people sat in cars when on the road but one is sat in a ever-increasingly safe metal cocoon, edging ever closer to the other who is fully exposed, it's not very helpful. Compare that to West Midlands Police with their highly regarded close pass initiative. http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/west-midlands-police-close-pass-scheme-protect-cyclists-hailed-huge-success-307169 (directly from WM police) “What is apparent from Op Close Pass is how little attention drivers actually pay to what is going on around them. This is because of a number of factors but primarily because drivers have little to fear when it comes to their own personal safety on the road. “The modern motor vehicle is a fine feat of engineering, it can be driven into a brick wall at 50mph and the occupants can walk away relatively injury free. This ‘security’ has however endangered vulnerable road users where it protects the driver. Drivers with their subliminal feeling of safety relax, pay less attention, start practicing poor driving, they speed, don’t pay attention, all to the detriment of vulnerable road users. “This modern day wholesale rapid decline in driving standards combined with ever increasing traffic volume has inevitably seen vulnerable road users bear the unfortunate brunt of this driving trend.” 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 46 minutes ago, darrenm said: So when the guy who is the transport secretary who should have an understanding of this uses language that only reinforces that division and shows he doesn't realise that people on bikes have the exact same rights as people sat in cars when on the road but one is sat in a ever-increasingly safe metal cocoon, edging ever closer to the other who is fully exposed, it's not very helpful but that's not what he said ... not even remotely close Cue Chris saying its going to shit because although he didn't say it an aid thought it as they were eating their toast one morning so it must be true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 1 hour ago, tonyh29 said: but that's not what he said ... not even remotely close Cue Chris saying its going to shit because although he didn't say it an aid thought it as they were eating their toast one morning so it must be true Of course it is. His original interview was actually absolutely fine. He said "There are places where they perhaps cause too much of a problem for road users and they could have been designed in a smarter way" when referring to cycle lanes. He's grouping motorists and cyclists together as road users. Absolutely fine. So I'm not sure where Daniel Zeichner is coming from when questioning him on it. But it worked because it caused him to really put his foot in it: "What I would say to him, of course, is where you have cycle lanes, cyclists are the users of cycle lanes, And there’s a road alongside – motorists are the road users, the users of the roads. It’s fairly straightforward, to be honest." He specifically says "motorists are the road users". That instantly drives a huge wedge between motorists and cyclists and validates any incorrect opinion that cyclists don't belong on the roads or have less right to be there. Just in case you don't know, cycle lanes are there as an option for cyclists and there's no obligation to use them. Cyclists still have every right to use the road and are still road users where cycle lanes or paths are available. Cycle lanes are generally poorly maintained, have cars parked in them and are more dangerous than cycling in the road. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 58 minutes ago, darrenm said: He specifically says "motorists are the road users". yes if you ignore all the words he used before those is where you have cycle lanes, cyclists are the users of cycle lanes, And there’s a road alongside – motorists are the road users 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post darrenm Posted January 13, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted January 13, 2017 6 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: yes if you ignore all the words he used before those is where you have cycle lanes, cyclists are the users of cycle lanes, And there’s a road alongside – motorists are the road users No even if you don't ignore those words. Because it's incorrect. The actual correct statement should be 'Where you have cycle lanes, cyclists are the users of cycle lanes, and there's a road alongside - motorists, cyclists, horses, and in fact anything else legal to be on the road are the road users' 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 I don't think it's a big issue ('what Chris Grayling said', not 'the safety of cyclists') but I think Darren and Chris are correct, at the end of the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 12 minutes ago, darrenm said: No even if you don't ignore those words. Because it's incorrect. The actual correct statement should be 'Where you have cycle lanes, cyclists are the users of cycle lanes, and there's a road alongside - motorists, cyclists, horses, and in fact anything else legal to be on the road are the road users' you know exactly what he was saying as does every other cyclist whose put down their go-pro to take to twitter ... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 13 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: you know exactly what he was saying as does every other cyclist whose put down their go-pro to take to twitter ... Yeah I do. It's not the point though. The point is the transport secretary shouldn't be using language that causes more of a divide between road users. I don't think it's disgusting or despicable, just wrong. I wouldn't go quite as far as some other people such as Chris Boardman, whose mother was just killed by a motorist while riding a bike The transport secretary’s comments demonstrate an astonishing lack of knowledge about how 7 million people regularly use the roads in this country,” he said. “I feel embarrassed for him. If he truly thinks the roads are not for cyclists then what am I paying my taxes for? Perhaps Grayling is still smarting a bit (but probably nowhere near as much as the cyclist) from looking silly because he didn't check there was nothing coming before opening his car door, then breaking the law by leaving the scene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, Davkaus said: The original quote he's being criticised for is is below. I honestly can't see what the fuss is about. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/chris-grayling-i-use-a-phone-to-buy-lunch-so-why-do-we-still-queue-for-rail-tickets-a3413296.html The Standard piece was what was referenced in parliament but the response is what made the news as per the article I quoted. Quote Chris Grayling’s response to question in House of Commons draws fire from cycling groups and accusation of ‘astonishing lack of knowledge’ of his brief The original piece may have been something specific about London but the question and answer in parliament were not specific to London. I repeat my question, though, even where there are cycle lanes, are cyclists banned from using the road? Edited January 13, 2017 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said: I don't think it's a big issue ('what Chris Grayling said', not 'the safety of cyclists') but I think Darren and Chris are correct, at the end of the day. The big issue is that a stupid clearing in the woods like Grayling keeps on getting jobs in government when he's obviously utterly incompetent. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 13, 2017 Author Moderator Share Posted January 13, 2017 4 hours ago, snowychap said: The big issue is that a stupid clearing in the woods like Grayling keeps on getting jobs in government when he's obviously utterly incompetent. Indeed. He's monumentally dim. IDS dim. I suspect that in the cyclists thing, he said something wrong in Parliament, was challenged to explain it by the Labour bloke, and then used the words that are quoted above as a kind of weasel words thing to avoid just saying "sorry, yeah, I got that first statement slightly wrong, what I should have made clear was, of course cyclists are road users, too. I don't think he really gives a stuff about cyclists, or the number of injuries and deaths caused to cyclists by careless drivers and poor road layouts and all the rest. He won't be interested in making things better or safer for people, after all he's got a job as a minister for important things, again. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 7 hours ago, snowychap said: I repeat my question, though, even where there are cycle lanes, are cyclists banned from using the road? Cyclists are allowed to use roads which have cycle lanes within them or beside them. They are not allowed to use roads where a specific law prevents them, eg motorways, probably underpasses and flyovers. Many cyclists, especially rhe more active and experienced ones, choose not to use cycle lanes for the reasons Darren gave. They are perfectly within their rights to do do. Again as Darren pointed out, the right of cyclists to use roads predates the right of motorists to do so. If seems that many drivers see cycle lanes as arrangements for their convenience, to remove slower-moving road users from their path so they can carry on without paying too much attention. It seems that we have a Transport Secretary who shares that world view. That would be a disqualifying factor, and he should be removed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Just from today's paper, only there because the arse involved had his 15 minutes of vame decades ago, the kind of thing that happens regularly. A ssnse of entitlement, arrogance, and anger that someone else could possibly be in the way, leads some people to behave like this. Quote Harvey Spencer Stephens, 46, lashed out at two riders and damaged one of their cycling helmets after getting out of his car after a dispute, a court heard. He pleaded guilty to two counts of ABH (actual bodily harm) and one of causing criminal damage following the attack on Toys Hill, Westerham, Kent, on 21 August last year. Maidstone crown court heard that father-of-two Stephens was “red-faced and angry” when he confronted the cyclists, knocking one of them unconscious after driving up behind them. Prosecutor Kieran Brand said Stephens repeatedly used his horn when riders Mark Richardson and Alex Manley, who were out cycling separately, were side-by-side on the road as one overtook the other. Richardson responded by flicking his middle finger at Stephens, who then accelerated heavily before overtaking the pair and pulling over. Brand said Stephens punched Richardson, knocking him unconscious, which prompted Manley to intervene. Stephens responded by asking Manley: “You want some do you?” before punching him twice in the face, causing him to fall on his back with his bicycle still between his legs Stephens starred as devil-child Damien Thorn in the Oscar-winning 1976 cult horror film The Omen, alongside Gregory Peck and Lee Remick. Photograph: Ronald Grant Archive Stephens held Manley down and punched him six or seven times, inflicting dental injuries and damaging his helmet, Brand said. Brand added: “He described the defendant as being in a complete rage and being out of all proportion to what had happened beforehand.” Richardson was taken to hospital with swelling to his lip and a broken tooth root, the court was told. In mitigation, defence counsel Ben Irwin said Stephens, who had no previous convictions, pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and accepted he “behaved poorly”. Behaved poorly. Right. If you did that to an MP in their surgery, you'd be up on terrorism charges. And the cause was that the road conditions caused the driver to adjust his speed, and the cyclist refused to be intimidated into cowering into the gutter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 37 minutes ago, peterms said: They are perfectly within their rights to do do. I've a lot of time for cyclists but this is simply unacceptable behaviour in public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 5 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: I've a lot of time for cyclists but this is simply unacceptable behaviour in public. I can only apologise. I was channelling Paula Radcliffe. Sorry. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 (edited) 14 hours ago, peterms said: Just from today's paper, only there because the arse involved had his 15 minutes of vame decades ago, the kind of thing that happens regularly. A ssnse of entitlement, arrogance, and anger that someone else could possibly be in the way, leads some people to behave like this. Behaved poorly. Right. If you did that to an MP in their surgery, you'd be up on terrorism charges. And the cause was that the road conditions caused the driver to adjust his speed, and the cyclist refused to be intimidated into cowering into the gutter. I suspect the anger may also have had a little to do with being given the finger ? ... I seem to recall cycling 2 abreast is permitted however cycling in an inconsiderate manner isn't , hard to say without being there which one they were doing but sounds like they were racing each other rather than out for a casual ride ? So the driver is frustrated perhaps getting annoyed and then flipped the bird and tipped over the edge ...not excusing him , im just speculating on an alternative view to your speculation that he acted out of a sense of arrogance and entitlement ... This may not be an isolated incidence but this view that cyclists are innocent victims being bullied by drivers isn't strictly accurate is is ... James Bromet assaulted a motorist cause he dared to beep him after the cyclist cut him up ( interesting the cyclist gave the car driver the finger as per above story , is this taught as part the cycling proficiency test ? ) Both sides are guilty of inconsideration of course the difference is when a cyclist mets a car at 40 mph their can only be one winner , we could build some cycle lanes to protect cyclists but they won't use them cause of their legal right that they are road users as well ... but other than Graylings one man war on cyclists with car doors we are going well off topic here Edited January 14, 2017 by tonyh29 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts