Speeding motorcyclist smashes into cyclist in shocking footage

Wow, that's a really short fuse! One post and can tolerate the site no longer. We'll cope

Like a rare species of frog or a white dwarf going supernova, we first learned they existed at the moment they no longer did.

I didn't even have time to say that you can get rid of (most) of the adds by subscribing...

I clicked on the headline, "Speeding motorcyclist smashes into cyclist in shocking footage" and what I found was an article built around a video containing shocking footage of a speeding motorcyclist smashing into a cyclist. I feel so misled.

thrillhousecycling wrote:

What is actually getting done with this vertical of content? 

I'd love to tell you but I have literally no idea what this means. Anyway, welcome and cheerio and thanks for taking the trouble to inform everyone that you've arrived and left, super.

I mean what good is this content doing? Road.cc posts this kind of content all the time, but seems to literally do nothing to help mitigate/solve the problems its reporting on. 

thrillhousecycling wrote:

I mean what good is this content doing? Road.cc posts this kind of content all the time, but seems to literally do nothing to help mitigate/solve the problems its reporting on. 

Yeah, I know right?

I was reading about the weather on BBC and then thought "what are the BBC doing to fix the weather?". I mean what are we even paying them for?

Vertical of content? I quite like that. What does it mean?

It's like a quantum of sausage but more concrete.  And not as tasty.

Ah. it makes sense now. Thanks

Content verticals = internal language for different genres of content on a web property or site (re: the review vertical; the professional racing vertical; etc etc). Writers for the publication will know what it means. 

Oh.

thrillhousecycling wrote:

Content verticals = internal language for different genres of content on a web property or site (re: the review vertical; the professional racing vertical; etc etc). Writers for the publication will know what it means. 

I think I might have discontent horizontals.

Yep, I signed up specifically to call out this garbage, sensationalist content. 

Whatever dudes. Enjoy your weird and sensationalist "car hits cyclist" porn instead of actually getting involved and doing something at a grass roots or political level. 

You appear to have confused road.cc (a news / interest site, with a side helping of "asking the odd awkward question of police, politicians, not-very-pro- or anti-cycling folks") with one of these worthy organisations:

https://www.roadpeace.org/

https://www.cyclinguk.org/ (e.g. Cyclists defence fund etc.)

https://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/ (a bit dormant ATM I belive)

(insert your local cycling organisation here)

You also appear to have confused "people who post on the internet" with "people who only post on the internet".  Which is understandable.

Anyway I'm off to recycle myself as an odd-looking orca with dubious wands, must do one's bit.  It's been a blast!

I have no idea what you're talking about or trying to contribute. 

thrillhousecycling wrote:

Whatever dudes. Enjoy your weird and sensationalist "car hits cyclist" porn instead of actually getting involved and doing something at a grass roots or political level. 

Hold on a minute - this is porn? Boy have I been grabbing the wrong end of the stick

Wait - don't go!

So you've been triggered by "clickbait" on this site?  You've created an account specifically to apply some sweeping generalisations and have a dig at folks in the comments?

By your own definition you're exactly the person we need!

Alternatively - if seeing the bad thing here has triggered you to get off the internet and get (more?) involved in cycle campaigning (I assume?) I am delighted.  Good luck!  Also - good work inspiring activists, road.cc!

Videos of people getting hit by cars for clicks. I mean come on people, it's the TMZ of cycling. 

Be better! Or just be horrific leaches within the hellscape we all inhabit! Good riddance to this site. 

thrillhousecycling wrote:

. . . . within the hellscape we all inhabit! . . . . 

You must commute in Birmingham too, I feel your pain.

I think it was that slalom cycle path that did it.  Although it's "Leithers", not "leaches".

Car Delenda Est wrote:

Extremely lucky nobody went under the truck. Modal separation would have prevented this.

I'm not sure giving Motorcyclists their own infrstructure will stop some of them riding like complete dangerous bellends.

Of course not, but they won't be endangering anyone but themselves.

Afterall if everyone thought like that it would result in cyclists being denied basic infrastructure because some of us ride on the pavement and through red lights... Oh wait

Car Delenda Est wrote:

.. separation would have prevented this.

Err no. If the motorcyclist had followed the basic rules of the road it would have prevented this.

Well duh..

You can add that to the list of things that will only happen in a perfect world, in the mean time we need changes that have been proven to make a difference in the real world (see: Dutch infrastructure.)