back to article NZ hotel bans cyclists' Lycra-clad loins

A New Zealand hotel has struck a blow for dining decorum by banning Lycra-clad cyclists, lest elderly customers and wide-eyed kiddies cop an unwelcome eyeful of their "unsightly" tackle. Visitors pedalling up to The Plough Hotel in Rangiora, on NZ's South Island, were greeted with a sign yesterday which read: "The bicycle is a …

  1. Dave 126 Silver badge

    That's a bit harsh. What about Tron Guy?

    http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web03/2012/5/5/15/enhanced-buzz-24959-1336247132-3.jpg

    (Don't worry, this isn't one of Mr Maynard's more revealing poses!)

    Anyway, my pragmatic approach would be for the hotel to keep aside some baggy cargo shorts for any Lycra-clad men who arrive.

    1. Fungus Bob Silver badge

      Tron Guy's a bit harsh too...

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      That's a big Tron.

      I recall a funny Bud Light ad concerning thongs on men.

  2. MT Field

    Never mind the offensive shorts, ban them for their anti-social behaviour, antagonism and littering habits.

    1. m0rt Silver badge

      You get idiots in any cross section of society.

      Commentards included...

    2. Commswonk Silver badge
      Pint

      "...ban them for their anti-social behaviour, antagonism and littering habits"

      Hear hear! The beer is for you.

      I cannot comment on their littering habits but from personal experience they are high on the list for anti - social behaviour and antagonism.

      I frequently walk our dog in the company of others along parkland paths that are designated as "shared space" between pedestrians and cyclists. Their conduct is appalling; riding at speed in complete disregard of the people and pets in the area; some of the people are small and smallish children and some of the pets are off their leads (as they are perfectly entitled to be) and yet these two - wheeled hooligans ride at speeds that are simply unsafe for the conditions. Those that actually have bells rarely ring them in sufficient time for pedestrians to see the precise location of the hazard approaching from behind, and of course the assumption seems to be that no pedestrian might have a hearing problem that would render the seldom rung bells unheard in the first place.

      Another sometimes used walk involves a local canal towpath, which almost by definition is quite narrow. Not that this width restriction bothers the cyclists of course; they simply barge* their way through regardless of the fact that there are clear signs showing that the section of towpath concerned is "no cycling". They do not take kindly to this fact being pointed out; perhaps they cannot read the "pictogram" sign, displayed along with "no quad bikes, horse riding or shooting". A friend of mine was knocked to the ground by a vicious head - butt from a cyclist on a different section of the same canal.

      I am perfectly prepared to accept that drivers' conduct towards cyclists on the highway is bad, but that does not excuse cyclists treating pedestrians even worse.

      I do not normally ally myself with the "hanging's too good for them" brigade but for cyclists I am prepared to make an exception.

      * Pun unavoidable. Sorry.

      1. a_yank_lurker Silver badge

        Bikes are vehicles not pedestrians so any pedestrian/bikeway is an idiocy waiting for the inevitable face-off. Since bikes are vehicles, technically (in the US) the pedestrians should be walking on the side facing traffic aka the bikes but they never do.

        1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          "the pedestrians should be walking on the side facing traffic"

          Common sense needed here.

          On a blind corner walk on the outside of the band irrespective of whether you're facing the traffic or not. Cyclists, of course, have their own technique in this situation. They just barrel round the corner in the middle of the road.

          1. Commswonk Silver badge

            "the pedestrians should be walking on the side facing traffic"

            That theory is all well and good*, but it breaks down completely in what might be described as "urban areas" where cyclists ride on the pavement (sidewalk if you're on the other side of the pond) despite it being illegal to do so.

            * Actually it isn't. On "shared space" there can be children playing as well as dogs both on and off leads so any spatial segregation is simply not going to work. What might well work is cyclists taking more care and cycling at a more genteel pace, but these are options they are either unwilling or incapable of taking.

            1. Allan George Dyer Silver badge

              I think you (partially) answered your own question...

              "...why do some of them ignore specially provided cycle lanes,..."

              'On "shared space" there can be children playing as well as dogs both on and off leads...'

              If they are not designated as shared, then they often have inadequate separation from the footpath, and wandering pedestrians encroach. So, a responsible cyclist takes the road instead.

              Other problems with cycle paths include uneven surface, insufficient width and frequent forced stops.

              "What might well work is cyclists taking more care and cycling at a more genteel pace, but these are options they are either unwilling or incapable of taking."

              Is that surprising, if you are using a bicycle as transport? How about bringing the 4mph limit and red flag for motor vehicles, and merging roads and footpaths?

              A shared space of pedestrians and casual recreational cyclists could be very nice, but town planners and the car lobby shouldn't pretend it's a route for people meeting their transport needs without burning oil.

            2. Adrian 4 Silver badge

              I have no sympathy for cyclists riding on the pavement unless they have a tiny pink bike with training wheels. But given the design of a number of cycle lanes, I have every sympathy for cyclists who reject them (and in any case, they're under no legal obligation to use them).

              For proof, see

              http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/

          2. a_yank_lurker Silver badge

            @Dr Syntax - Many years ago I was talking to GDOT (Georgia DOT) about these types of trails. They are detested because they do not account for the very different characteristics of bikes and pedestrians. To be blunt, they are dangerous to both because a bike can easily hit speeds of 15 mph or more compared to a person walking at 2 to 3 mph. Both sides have legitimate complaints but they should be directed at the bureaucrats who moronically think these trails are a good idea.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              > a bike can easily hit speeds of 15 mph or more

              More like 50.

              I only got flashed twice so far, once on a mountain bicycle and once on a car. I was clocked at 50 mph on the bike and 40 mph with the car (in a 50 km/h zone which I didn't notice had changed, unlike the run with the bicycle which was done with the express purpose of setting off the speed camera.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Commswonk

        Calm down, get back in your car/lorry, mow down a few cyclists to take the edge off things and remember to opt for trial by jury, you'll be fine:

        http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/08/drivers-who-kill-remove-right-to-trial-by-jury-death-cyclists-pedestrians-justice

        1. Commswonk Silver badge

          Re: @Commswonk

          Calm down, get back in your car/lorry, mow down a few cyclists to take the edge off things and remember to opt for trial by jury, you'll be fine:

          Odd as it may sound I don't actually want to injure cyclists (or pedestrians) when I am driving. All I want is for cyclists to offer the same courtesy to me when I am on foot walking the dog and conversing with other dog walkers.

          It is also worth remembering that London cyclists* have a fearsome reputation for scattering pedestrians by "furious cycling" on pavements, which is quite simply against the law in the first place. Oh and ignoring red lights...

          And why oh why oh why do some of them ignore specially provided cycle lanes, chosing to ride either on the main carriageway where drivers are forced to avoid them or on the footway where they generally fail to observe pedestrian rights.

          * Other places doubtless have comparable problems.

          1. kraut

            Re: @Commswonk

            You should try wearing a hi-viz tabbard saying "I'm nice to cyclists when I drive!". And clearly your dogs should wear hi-viz coats - and helmets. And, probably, some blinking lights. The more the better.

            That's what cyclists get told all the time - shouldn't it apply to pedestrians and dogs, too?

            All I want is for cyclists to offer the same courtesy to me when I am on foot walking the dog and conversing with other dog walkers.

            I'm willing to bet a pint that if you put your confirmation bias aside, you'd find that most do. Just as most drivers drive fairly well around cyclists.

            But the ones you remember are the ones that don't.

            Even in largely pleasant populations you get some arseholes. Like cyclists who don't share shared paths, or dog walkers who believe in the dog poo fairy.

            It is also worth remembering that London cyclists* have a fearsome reputation for scattering pedestrians by "furious cycling" on pavements, which is quite simply against the law in the first place....

            It's against the law, but supposed to be tolerated - according to numerous relevant ministers - unless done inconsiderately. Now, I've only been in London for 25 years, but I don't recall encountering a cyclist in central London on the pavement - the pavements are usually far too crowded. Out in the sticks^H^H^H^HBarnet you do see it, but then the pavements there are usually a) wide and b) empty.

            Nobody walks anywhere in the 'burbs. They have a 4x4 and they will drive it.

            Oh and ignoring red lights

            It's an absolute disgrace! Most drivers in London now seem to think orange means "put your foot down", and red means "I only have 5 seconds to go!". And don't get me started on the idiots blocking junctions and roundabouts and causing bloody mayhem for everyone else. They've spent all that money on cameras and it doesn't seem to have made a difference...

            Oh..

            You're talking about cyclists

            Not drivers of cars and HGVs that regularly kill pedestrians?

            Have pity. It's a sign of weakness, not a threat*. The ones that constantly RLJ are the ones that aren't fit

            enough for a proper interval workout.

            * on the whole. There are, rare, occasions when it makes sense to move ahead of the line to get out of the dangerous blind spot of the HGV that pulled up behind you.

            Other places doubtless have comparable problems.</quote>

            Lots of places have comparable problems to London with respect to air pollution and hit and run drivers; places with decent cycling infrastructure|high cyling mode share tend to have less.

            But yeah. Shared use paths are stupid and counterproductive except in very low usage situations. It should be "Pedestrianised; considerate cycling allowed" [ which, e.g. Regents Canal is. But without any enforcement, these kind of regulations tend not to be worth...]

          2. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

            Re: @Commswonk

            > It is also worth remembering that London cyclists* have a fearsome

            > reputation for scattering pedestrians by "furious cycling" on pavements,

            > which is quite simply against the law in the first place. Oh and ignoring red lights...

            Meh. I drive a car, ride a motorbike and ride a pushbike. Every day I see others doing one of these things who are acting like dicks, for some reason or another. But I don't wax on about "car drivers" as a group doing this or motorcyclists as a group doing that. Maybe the clue is in the numbers - 2% of journeys by cycle, it's just a small enough segment that cyclists can be classified as "them" by the rest of the population.

            In 20 years of riding in London I would say I see cyclists on pavements rarely. It's rare because it's inherently slower - if you are commuting from A to B then the pavement is the slowest place to be. Sure, it happens, but it's the exception rather than the rule, and as I said there are dicks on all forms of transport.

            As for jumping red lights - absoutely, if the situation calls for it and it can be done without endangering anyone. My primary goal whenever I get on two wheels is to get to where I'm going alive. If that means clearing the lights before everyone starts to accelerate around me, or when they pull 5m ahead then hard turn left, then damn right I'll do it. Note this is a "look, ensure it's clear then go", not a "plow wildly through a pedestrian crossing" type of light running. Yes, again, that happens, and I refer you to my above comment about dicks.

            1. x 7

              Re: @Commswonk

              "As for jumping red lights - absoutely, if the situation calls for it and it can be done without endangering anyone"

              you dickhead

              1. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

                @x 7

                > you dickhead

                Care to expand on exactly why you think this? Did you note that I ensure no-one else is put at risk before doing so? So what exactly is the nature of my dickheadary: that I am prioritising my safety over the law? Does flouting the law make me a dickhead regardless of circumstance? Would your opinion still apply if I was cycling in paris?

                1. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

                  Re: @Commswonk

                  And incidentally, there are some (not many) pavements in London which are dual use for cyclists and pedestrians. Here's one on Chelsea Embankment (zoom in on the blue sign). Again, this is not a license for cyclists to behave like dickheads, and nor is it a license for pedestrians to "swing a big stick" or push it in their spokes (that last one @x 7).

                  As always it comes down to the golden rule: don't be a dick. Play nicely with others, and don't assume they will play nicely with you.

                  1. Pompous Git Silver badge

                    Re: @Commswonk

                    Again, this is not a license for cyclists to behave like dickheads, and nor is it a license for pedestrians to "swing a big stick" or push it in their spokes (that last one @x 7).

                    If cyclists are free to use a potentially lethal weapon, why the fuck shouldn't pedestrians be allowed to hit back with arguably a more feeble weapon? Why should lycra-clad lunatics be free to terrorise with impunity?

                2. x 7

                  Re: @x 7

                  " Does flouting the law make me a dickhead regardless of circumstance? "

                  YES!!!!!!

                  Shooting red lights is a stupid dangerous thing to do. Just because YOU can't see the danger doesn't mean there isn't any. Theres that pedestrian you haven't seen, the motorbike you missed, the blue light ambulance thats overtaking stopped traffic. Red lights are there for a reason - riding through them just proves you're an arrogant self-obsessed pillock.

                  As for Paris? I haven't a clue, means nothing to me, lets the frogs be frogs. But you are clearly not in France

                  1. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

                    Re: @x 7

                    At risk of dragging this one out, you've missed an important half of the point I'm trying to make.

                    If sitting still on the bike at the lights and trundling forward in traffic it goes green was a zero-risk option, I would agree with you. But it is demonstrably not. Cyclists are at risk at lights, this is a statisticlly undeniable and self-evident truth for anyone that has ever ridden a bike once in heavy traffic. They're at risk because

                    * they're slower to accelerate than the vehicles around them

                    * they have less rubber in contact with the ground, making them more sensitive to surface conditions (manhole covers, drainage grills etc)

                    * because they wobble at low speeds due to, you know, the laws of physics

                    * because god didn't see fit to bless us with crumple zones

                    * because traffic lights are a great place for drivers to catch up on their texting or breakfast

                    * and because plenty of otherwise decent folk seem to think that cyclists are vermin and all should answer for the sins of the few. "lycra-clad lunatic", very good pompous git, thank you for underlining my point.

                    It's all about reducing risk. On a bike, rolling slowly through a red to turn left (to repeat, after a careful look, a feat which I have to tell you is not actually impossible), my carefully considered judgement is that it raises the risk to no-one and reduces the risk to me. If that makes me self-obsessed, I can live with that.

                    1. x 7

                      Re: @x 7

                      cyclists are at risk, period. But much of that risk comes from failure to adhere to the rules put there to protect them. Much of the remaining risk comes from cyclists own stupidity. Turn left on a red light? What happens to the pedestrian trying to cross? What happens to the traffic approaching from the right that you've missed, like that motorbike you didn't see? What happens if the car you've just undercut gets the green light and also turns left? Yes, that's you in the gutter, dead.

                      There is more as well. Why should I, as a law abiding road user feel any empathy toward you when I see you acting as a big headed self centred idiot with no adherence to safety laws? I'm more than to say "f*** you" and let you take the risk rather than try to avoid you......If you don't abide by the rules, why should other road users abide by them?

                      As for your "carefully considered judgement", all you've proved is that you have the judgement of an ass. That's why rules and laws exist: because most people like you have to be protected from their own judgement.

        2. Stu Mac

          Re: @Commswonk

          Don't forget children, always reverse back over them, just to make sure.

          This suggestion that cyclists should have any special treatment is particularly sickening. Particularly when undertaking, sit in the queue or take your chances, like everyone else. Reference: Motorcyclists

          1. Lobrau

            Re: @Stu Mac

            The primary cause of motorcycle accidents where it isn't the fault of the rider is being shunted from behind at stops and traffic lights. If you filter between stationary traffic then this obviously can't happen to you, hence the reason we do it.

            The same can be said for cyclists. Their cross-section from behind is considerably smaller than most motorbikes so they've got no chance if someone isn't paying full attention. At least bikers have their armour.

            I'd be lying if I said it's not also nice to get ahead of the traffic though.

            1. x 7

              Re: @Stu Mac

              "The primary cause of motorcycle accidents where it isn't the fault of the rider is being shunted from behind at stops and traffic lights"

              where does that statistic come from? I thought it was generally accepted the primary risk has always been idiot car drivers pulling out at T-junctions without looking.........

              1. Pompous Git Silver badge

                Re: @Stu Mac

                The failure of motorists to detect and recognize motorcycles in traffic is the predominating cause of motorcycle accidents. The driver of the other vehicle involved in collision with the motorcycle did not see the motorcycle before the collision, or did not see the motorcycle until too late to avoid the collision.

                From the Hurt Report, a motorcycle safety study conducted in the United States, initiated in 1976 and published in 1981. The report is named after its primary author, Professor Harry Hurt.

                http://www.webbikeworld.com/Motorcycle-Safety/Hurt-study-summary.htm

      3. WolfFan Silver badge

        The local cyclists used to misbehave on a certain pathway in a local park. Until, that is, enough of them learned (the hard way) that Mrs WolfFan has been known to be in that area, accompanied by Redrum the Attack Chiuhua and his BFF, Maragret Hilda the wolf. The Baroness really is a wolf. A very nice wolf, except when some idiot on a bike tries to run over another member of the pack, in this case Mrs. WolfFan or Redrum. Then she becomes quite irate. If the cyclist tried to run her over, Redrum would become quite irate, which would be worse. Redrum thinks that he's a wolf, too, and is a firm believer in not taking prisoners. Those who fail to take him seriously usually have second thoughts when the Baroness comes looking for her friend, unless they're one of the cats, the Baroness likes the cats, too, and lets them sleep on her. Redrum hates cats but can't do much about it as he's smaller than they are. This really annoys him. His being annoyed amuses the cats, but they in turn don't actually swat Redrum 'cause that would probably make the Baroness irate. The Baroness never actually bites anyone, she's a very nice wolf, much nicer than a greengrocer's daughter you may have heard of. She doesn't have to. A good look at her when she's irate tends to improve the behavior even of cyclists. Or cats.

        1. ChrisBedford

          Well that was an incredibly rambling comment

          "[...]enough of them learned (the hard way) that Mrs WolfFan has been known to be in that area, accompanied by Redrum the Attack Chiuhua and his BFF, Maragret Hilda the wolf[...]"

          (and so on). Sorry, dozed off. Umm, your point was...?

      4. Gray
        Devil

        Impediment?

        I've thought that most Brits carry umbrellas when out & about. A frightened gesture by a bumbershoot-packing pedestrian might find the collapsible device 'speared' through the bicyclist's wheel, thus precipitously impeding the velocipede's progress. A chastened peddler is apt to proceed more prudently?

      5. Warm Braw Silver badge

        Those that actually have bells rarely ring them in sufficient time

        I find that ringing a bell is usually counterproductive - if you have a group of pedestrians blithely blocking the path and paying no attention to the world around them, ringing a bell just causes them to to move in random directions leaving the path equally blocked but with everyone in a different position.

      6. jcitron

        I agree. As someone who used to cycle weekly, and sometimes daily in good weather, I will say that not all of riders are like that; just a lot of them do act that way and in particular mostly those that wear those skimpy shorts!

        We have a group of riders in my area that takes to the road on most good weekends through out the spring and summer. When they take to the roads, it should really be they take the road and all streets in their path. If there are any cars that ride a bit too close, and in many places here the roads are mere farm lanes so there's no way of getting out of the way, they will start throwing stuff and yelling loudly and if the cars pass them too fast they will sometimes throw stuff at the vehicles.

        I hate to say it, but it's the behavior like this that makes car drivers hostile towards the bikers.

        Let's face it, It's a two-way street, pun intended! :-)

  3. Ben Rose

    Trains next?

    Would be great to ban lycra shorts on there...the bikes too.

  4. adnim Silver badge
    Joke

    All because the lady...

    love's Milk Tray can't avert her gaze.

  5. Roo
    Windows

    Presumably they would prefer old school moth-eaten Merino shorts instead. :)

    1. Warm Braw Silver badge

      The notice actually seems simply to be encouraging the removal of the offending garment...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        The really offensive ones are nearly impossible to remove.

    2. Spoonguard
      Coat

      Shorts?

      They where trousers once

  6. Johnny Canuck

    Jeggings?

    What about jeggings - are they OK? Might be a bit sexist.

    1. x 7

      Re: Jeggings?

      WTF is a jegging?

  7. Marketing Hack Silver badge
    Happy

    OK, now I am reminded of...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBwly6Qa5oo

    Just say yes to Tap and no to Lycra bike shorts!

  8. fidodogbreath Silver badge
    Coffee/keyboard

    Hat tip to El Reg

    ...for its massive image library, bulging with pics of mundane objects that resemble man-tackle.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "[...] and that's not appropriate for children to see"

    Translated that means "Some parents don't want to answer their kids' questions about the human body".

    Do they also ban women with nipple bumps showing? Floppy smocks needed for women to hide their natural protuberances?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      women with nipple bumps showing

      Camel toe?

    2. P. Lee Silver badge

      There's a reason we don't eat in group nudity and the same reason applies to men wearing lycra.

      You can wear the lycra, just add something over the top.

      1. Pompous Git Silver badge

        There's a reason we don't eat in group nudity

        Presumably it's because where you live the cold makes your cock shrivel. Here in the Antipodes it's often as hot as the hinges of hell. We might not be completely nude while dining in 40C+, but we're often as close as... Just avert your eyes when looking at blokes and focus on the pretty young women. It's not hard. Unless you've inadvertently taken Viagra having mistaken it for your beta blocker ;-)

    3. Mark 65

      Translated that means "Some parents don't want to answer their kids' questions about the human body".

      Might also mean that when someone is out having a nice lunch they don't want to be faced with some fatty sweaty lycra-clad pillock's teensy cheesy rollback staring at them from within a pair of shorts that would probably fit a 10 year old rather than the middle-aged born-again tour-de-suburb speedster sporting them. Your mileage may vary but I consider such people on licensed premises to be inconsiderate arseholes.

  10. BurnT'offering

    Personally

    When I am sitting down to a tasty breakfast of a sausage and a couple of scotch eggs, I don't want to see anything that reminds me of male genitalia

    1. John H Woods

      Re: Personally

      "When I am sitting down to a tasty breakfast of a sausage and a couple of scotch eggs, I don't want to see anything that reminds me of male genitalia" --- BurnT'offering

      So you eat it blindfold? Or in the dark?

      1. BurnT'offering

        Re: Personally

        I'm not sure what you're implying but I need the daylight as I like to pick up the sausage with my lips and gobble it down hands-free while juggling a warm scotch egg in each hand. Doesn't everybody?

  11. Tikimon Silver badge
    Devil

    They're not necessary anyway

    If I'm not mistaken, the whole idea of tight lycra is to be aerodynamically slippery. Since most roadies who consider themselves competitive are also weight-obsessed, they probably also spurn the extra couple of ounces for padded pants. Fine, go padless in sprayed on color for a RACE, but for daily biking cover that shite up. Their training time will not suffer appreciably.

    I'm a little biased, since I'm a mountain biker. We mostly like loose shorts over a padded liner so no package terror here.

    1. David Roberts Silver badge
      Trollface

      Re: They're not necessary anyway

      With you on the padded liner front. I cycle in Lycra for the general ease and comfort, not to be aerodynamic. My cycle shorts are also padded - and the ratio of padding to meat&veg means that I am unlikely to frighten the unwary.

      The message I am getting is that in certain areas there are too many pedestrians/cyclists/dogs/children in too little space and so there is conflict. This does not mean that all cyclists everywhere are automatically bad people. Any more than all dog owners let their dogs crap everywhere.

      Enough cycle hate for the comments in the Daily Wail! Get a grip, commentards.

    2. Mark 65

      Re: They're not necessary anyway

      Always makes me laugh when I see someone clad in lycra on a carbon composite road bike who also happens to be about 20 kilos overweight - dude, you've totally missed the point.

  12. ecofeco Silver badge

    Decorum

    A little decorum and discretion never hurt anyone.

    Self absorbed gits, on the other hand, are almost always the source of most problems.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's just tackle! What's so offensive?

    I'm sure I'll get thumbed down for this but; Prudes get over yourselves!

    If you're male, you've a tackle bulge if you're female you've got a bust. They're the most natural things in the world and nothing to be offended by!

    What's next? Banning tight tops on women in case anyone gets over excited / offended !?

    The issue here is the people who have nothing better to do than secretly stare at some guy's crotch and then take offence at someone's bulgy bits!

    If you don't like male crotches, don't keep staring at them. If you do like them, not a problem either!

  14. ckdizz

    Have you seen the guy who's instituted this ban?

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/1/b/0/0/x/b/image.related.StuffLandscapeSixteenByNine.620x349.1b0089.png/1460670110078.jpg

    Ageing hippy with hipster beard and dreadlocked ponytail telling other people how they should look and dress. Seems to think he's running a Michelin starred restaurant instead of some roadside cafe in bumfuck nowhere. To be frank, I don't want his greasy locks or moulting hair anywhere near my soup.

    1. ian 22

      This is the New Zealand I know and love

      It is my belief that Queen Vicky never died, she just moved to New Zealand...

  15. Andrew Taylor 1

    Note to editor

    Stop mentioning cycling, it's bad for the heart rate of the stupid and the petrol heads who are unable to work out that a dick is a dick whether on foot, a bike or in a motor vehicle and that most other cyclists have absolutely no knowledge of the person they are aggrieved with.

    BTW to those that think cyclists should have group responsibility, can I have your apologies for the HGV lorry that overtook me on Monday using a punishment pass and then left hooked me. Not forthcoming, I thought not you hypocrites.

  16. x 7

    are women in lycra banned from this cafe? How about tight lycra tops - they can be very revealing

    As to the hazards of cyclists - when walking in the country, always carry a strong walking stick. Helps to defend against dogs. Also works wonders against speeding cyclists when swung at head height, or pushed into the spokes.

  17. Driver's Door

    Attire from yore...

    Perhaps the reintroduction of the codpiece is needed.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Attire from yore...

      Only if in the definitive style of his superlative awesomeness, Larry Blackmon.

  18. Pompous Git Silver badge

    Cyclists who treat pedestrians as a slalom course are idiots

    Pedestrian footpaths are expensive infrastructure built for pedestrian use. As someone who has paid his taxes for 50 years, I might expect to be able to use pedestrian footpaths in safety. Not so. Cyclists who pay no registration, display no licence plates, trample mores and break laws with impunity know they will almost never be punished. Except when they actually kill a pedestrian.

    When they do kill a pedestrian, the excuse is motor vehicles kill ~200 people nationally every year. What kind of an arrogant excuse is that? As a pedestrian, I'm supposed to "get out of the fucking way you stupid old cunt". Not only do I not have eyes in the back of my head, the drugs I'm taking to keep me alive have the lamentable side-effect of generating spurious flashes in my peripheral vision area.

    For those of you making the excuse that it's "only a minority of cyclists" you've got to be fucking joking! In 1957 I was actually run over by a car and narrowly missed on two subsequent occasions. I am narrowly missed by cyclists on Hobart city's footpaths at least a dozen times per year. Worse, it's legal for them to do so.

    I suspect that x7's excellent suggestion regarding a walking cane and wheel-spokes will get me in trouble, but it might well be worth it.

    1. m0rt Silver badge

      Re: Cyclists who treat pedestrians as a slalom course are idiots

      Soooo, legal in the footpaths and they get ostracised, ride on the road and they get ostracised. It is more an issue with common courtesy than a increasingly bigoted attitude to 'us vs them'.

      I drive, motorcycle and cycle. On motorways in the UK I see more dangerous driving than anywhere else. That awareness transfers to urban areas where a slight lack of concentration can cause serious injury. Anyone out has a duty of care when out and about. We are all trying to get to our destination so what is the problem with helping each other achieve it?

      If you can't, then you are always going to find fault. Not just with the particular focus of this little 'debate'.

      As for comments saying things like putting an umbrella or stick into spokes? How dare you. You think it would be OK to smack someone around the head if they accidentally walked into you? If you take to heart some ignorant prick shouting offensively at you and you can't just pity the fool regardless whether said idiot walks, cycles or drives, then how much better are you than him?

      Edit: realise that I got a bit angry and was more commenting on the entire thread than just yourself...

      1. Pompous Git Silver badge

        Re: Cyclists who treat pedestrians as a slalom course are idiots

        I'm not in the least upset at the idea of sharing the footpath with cyclists. If they feel unsafe in traffic, then they can walk on the footpath as I do. That after all is what a footpath is for: walking on.

        The verbal abuse is not unique to cyclists. I have been told to watch where the fuck I'm walking (at a speed only marginally faster than a snail) by fellow pedestrians, usually female, young, and staring at a mobile phone.

        What upsets me is the possibility that I might be seriously injured, or killed by a cyclist. There have been two deaths that I know of so far; one in Launceston and one in Melbourne. There are generally far more "accidents" occasioning physical injury rather than death, but we are not privileged by those who know with the relevant data.

        Putting a stick into the spokes of a bicycle might very well be a salutary lesson and save lives! The bicycle rider might well claim to have accidentally killed or seriously injured a pedestrian, but it seems a bit far fetched to claim bicycle riding as accidental when it's clearly a deliberate act.

        Please also note that Hobart has several thoroughfares with dedicated bicycle lanes. I have never seen a bicycle rider using them. Nor have the people I have asked. They merely act to restrict the available amount of roadway for the use of cars and buses.

        You might want to ask yourself what your attitude would be to a vocal section of the public demanding rather expensive infrastructure changes and then ostentatiously refusing to use them when provided.

        As for ostracism on the road, that too was earned by the cyclists. South of Hobart is the Taroona Highway, a long, winding stretch of road with double white lines to discourage overtaking. It is common for cyclists to ride two abreast to prevent vehicular traffic from behind overtaking in the left hand lane. Overtaking in the right hand lane is insanely dangerous and the cyclists, knowing this, put their own and everyone else's lives at risk by cycling ever so slowly. That they are doing so deliberately is apparent from their smirking faces as they look over their shoulders at the traffic banked up behind them.

        No, not all cyclists indulge in this behaviour. But what relevance is that? Ever so many do and no action is taken by either police, or fellow cyclists.

        1. Andrew Taylor 1

          Re: Cyclists who treat pedestrians as a slalom course are idiots

          Why should "fellow cyclists" be responsible for other cyclists they don't know. I don't see you stating "fellow motorists" should deal with other misbehaving motorist or "fellow pedestrians" should be responsible for the actions of other pedestrians. This is all about cyclists being designated an outgroup by motorists and everyone else jumping on the bandwagon.

          Oh! and links please to the 2 deaths caused by cyclists as these are news to me. I would certainly like to see the facts rather than your misinformed opinions.

          1. Pompous Git Silver badge

            Re: Cyclists who treat pedestrians as a slalom course are idiots

            Links:

            http://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-08-08/hell-ride-cyclist-fined-400-over-mans-death/2525134

            http://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/216390/muarc285.pdf (see Sect 1.1.3)

            And it occurs in UKLand:

            http://metro.co.uk/2016/03/09/pedestrian-died-following-collision-with-cyclist-on-old-street-5742315/

            I suspect that many will believe as do I that $AU400 fine for killing a pedestrian is anything but designating cyclists as an outgroup.

            Cyclists claim that the speed and mass differential between a car and a cyclist are substantially greater than that between a cyclist and a pedestrian. This is bullshit.

            The kinetic energy of a 1500 kg an ordinary sedan in a 50 km/hr zone compared to a cyclist’s kinetic energy of a riding at 30 km/hr in the same direction is a ratio of around 44 to 1 in favour of the car. On the other hand, the kinetic energy ratio between the same cyclist still travelling at 30 km/hr and a pedestrian walking at normal speed of say 5 km/hr is around 48 to 1 in favour of the cyclist. That is the car-cyclist kinetic energy differential is similar to that of the cyclist-pedestrian ratio. This is high school physics, not my "misinformed opinions".

            Councils and road authorities have moved the responsibility from the car driver over to the cyclists by moving the cyclist onto the pedestrian footpath in order to reduce cyclist fatalities and injuries. The belief is that cyclists are supposedly travelling at a slower speed on the shared footpath in contrast to a car travelling on a road. In other words, it is assumed cyclists are in a better position to avoid harmful impacts with pedestrians and any impact therefore is necessarily of a lower severity.

            The potential for conflict on shared paths is exacerbated by the differences in type, abilities and movements of users. Shared use pathways are frequented by pedestrians, cyclists, joggers, in-line skaters, skate-boarders, dogs, babies in prams, riders of powered recreational devices and many others. Particularly vulnerable users are the disabled (the visual, hearing and cognitively impaired), the elderly and children. Users have differing degrees of ability and experience, health and fitness, reaction and perception time, age and purpose. Generally, walkers will travel at significantly less speed than cyclists who can travel at over 50 km/hr or ten times the speed of the average pedestrian.

            German research indicates that although fatal collisions are rare, cyclists are more likely to cause collisions but pedestrians usually suffer more severe injuries. They found younger bike riders were often at fault and the victims were often frail elderly people.

            Graw,M., König, H.G., 2002. Fatal pedestrian–bicycle collisions. Forensic Sci. Int. 126, 241–247.

            While you claim I am "uninformed" I am elderly and the literature, sparse as it is, supports my belief that cyclists on pedestrian footpaths are an existential threat to pedestrians. Despite finding several pedestrian deaths, I have been unable to find record of any cyclist dying from impact with a pedestrian. Sounds like weapons are definitely called for!

      2. x 7

        Re: Cyclists who treat pedestrians as a slalom course are idiots

        "As for comments saying things like putting an umbrella or stick into spokes? How dare you. You think it would be OK to smack someone around the head if they accidentally walked into you?"

        If some dickhead is so self-obsessed that he runs or rides into me, then yes he is going to get a smack in the head. You don't get "accidentally" walked in to on footpaths. And if someone is on a collision course with me, I'll take whatever preemptive or retaliatory action I feel is required and deserved. One technique is to stand still and let them walk into you - a disguised head butt then works wonders

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Cyclists who treat pedestrians as a slalom course are idiots

      The important thing to understand about cyclists is that some of them travel at a speed very similar to the speed of a pedestrian (my children on a bike get overtaken by joggers), while some of them travel at a speed very similar to the speed of a car (some cyclists are capable of tripping speed cameras). So putting all the cyclists in one place isn't going to work. In fact, in makes far more sense to mix the slow cyclists with the pedestrians, and the fast cyclists with the cars. In other words, let the cyclists choose: they are well motivated to make the right choice.

      There will always be a few annoying nutters but it's not worth make life inconvenient for everyone else just to accommodate the nutters, and I'm not sure that strategy would work, anyway. For example, if you ban all cycling from a footpath and can't afford a police patrol to enforce the ban then it's dangerous and inconsiderate cyclists who ignore the ban, so you haven't actually improved the situation. You've just inconvenienced the cyclists who weren't causing any trouble, and perhaps also some car drivers who will be affected by the consequent increased traffic on the road.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    A gap in the market...... lycra-clads can buy "endpoint protection" for interacting with normal people.

    Comes in several shapes and sizes.

  20. Mr Booth
    Pint

    Back in the days

    As an ex resident of Rangoon - Rangiora, I remember this pub fondly. As it was the closest drinking establishment to my house, I remember being tasked to wander down to said pub to refill dad's flagons as a 16 year old. (I think the legal age was 20 back then) A quick wave to the publican who would note the "purchase" on Dad's account and off I'd go again. Good days. Didn't have to worry about lycra then, or rules, regulations and overzealous constables.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019