This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Interesting article on the hate crimes being committed against cyclists
Http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/jul/01/sabotage-and-hatred-wha...
"It’s exactly those things that used to be done about minority ethnic groups and so on – the overgeneralisation of negative traits, under-representation of negative behaviours by one’s own group, that kind of thing. It’s just textbook prejudiced behaviour"
Http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/jul/01/sabotage-and-hatred-wha...
"It’s exactly those things that used to be done about minority ethnic groups and so on – the overgeneralisation of negative traits, under-representation of negative behaviours by one’s own group, that kind of thing. It’s just textbook prejudiced behaviour"
In reply to Chris the Tall:
One thing about cyclists is that often their actions really annoy people and they do not help themselves. With the large numbers now cycling this winds people up
there are cyclist riding two a breast chatting away , oblivious to the cars trying to get passed
There are large groups who all go out at once
Cyclists who skip red lights
Bike races on a Sunday morning where you are trying to overtake 150 people on bikes on country lanes
Mountain bikers on footpaths - loads of this round where I live
Bike races that close off roads and impact on locals
And so on
By doing the above some nutter is going to be wound up. We live on a small island and there are a lot of cyclist and it would seem a large proportion unwittingly or deliberately wind everyone else up
One thing about cyclists is that often their actions really annoy people and they do not help themselves. With the large numbers now cycling this winds people up
there are cyclist riding two a breast chatting away , oblivious to the cars trying to get passed
There are large groups who all go out at once
Cyclists who skip red lights
Bike races on a Sunday morning where you are trying to overtake 150 people on bikes on country lanes
Mountain bikers on footpaths - loads of this round where I live
Bike races that close off roads and impact on locals
And so on
By doing the above some nutter is going to be wound up. We live on a small island and there are a lot of cyclist and it would seem a large proportion unwittingly or deliberately wind everyone else up
7
28
In reply to notaclue:
One thing about drivers is that often their actions really annoy people and they do not help themselves. With the large numbers now clogging our roads this winds people up.
There are drivers pootling along chatting away , oblivious to the cars trying to get past
There are large groups who all go out at once in slow queues.
Drivers who skip red lights.
Car rallies on a Sunday morning where you are trying to overtake 150 vintage cars on country lanes.
Cars parked on footpaths - loads of this round where I live.
Car races that close off roads when they impact and kill locals.
And so on.
By doing the above some nutter is going to be wound up. We live on a small island and there are a lot of cars and it would seem a large proportion unwittingly or deliberately wind everyone else up
One thing about drivers is that often their actions really annoy people and they do not help themselves. With the large numbers now clogging our roads this winds people up.
There are drivers pootling along chatting away , oblivious to the cars trying to get past
There are large groups who all go out at once in slow queues.
Drivers who skip red lights.
Car rallies on a Sunday morning where you are trying to overtake 150 vintage cars on country lanes.
Cars parked on footpaths - loads of this round where I live.
Car races that close off roads when they impact and kill locals.
And so on.
By doing the above some nutter is going to be wound up. We live on a small island and there are a lot of cars and it would seem a large proportion unwittingly or deliberately wind everyone else up
Post edited at 07:39
56
In reply to Chris the Tall:
What gets me about the anti-cyclist rhetoric, is what means of transport do these people think the cyclists would resort to if not on their bikes? I, for one, would be driving if I wasn't cycling, so clogging up 'their' roads more, congesting the town more than it already is, and occupying more parking spaces. I reckon my bike slows the traffic less than my car does. I also reckon most cyclists are also drivers.
What gets me about the anti-cyclist rhetoric, is what means of transport do these people think the cyclists would resort to if not on their bikes? I, for one, would be driving if I wasn't cycling, so clogging up 'their' roads more, congesting the town more than it already is, and occupying more parking spaces. I reckon my bike slows the traffic less than my car does. I also reckon most cyclists are also drivers.
8
2
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Since the vast majority of drivers are (I believe), if not pro cyclist then at least accepting of them it is important not to alienate them by tarring them with the same brush as the odd nut job out there.
Sweeping generalisations about people who ride cars are just as irritating as people who ride bikes. Doubly so if you drive a car AND ride a bike.
Since the vast majority of drivers are (I believe), if not pro cyclist then at least accepting of them it is important not to alienate them by tarring them with the same brush as the odd nut job out there.
Sweeping generalisations about people who ride cars are just as irritating as people who ride bikes. Doubly so if you drive a car AND ride a bike.
4
1
In reply to GrahamD:
Making sweeping generalisations about motorists - they all speed, they all use their mobile phones, they all think they own the road - is a good way of demonstrating the absurdity of the sweeping generalisations against cyclists, which get trotted out by the media ad nauseum.
Making sweeping generalisations about motorists - they all speed, they all use their mobile phones, they all think they own the road - is a good way of demonstrating the absurdity of the sweeping generalisations against cyclists, which get trotted out by the media ad nauseum.
9
1
In reply to Chris the Tall:
demonstrating to whom ?
> Making sweeping generalisations about motorists - they all speed, they all use their mobile phones, they all think they own the road - is a good way of demonstrating the absurdity of the sweeping generalisations against cyclists, which get trotted out by the media ad nauseum.
demonstrating to whom ?
In reply to Chris the Tall:
The solution to unite all the cyclists and car drivers in this thread and everywhere, is simple.
I drive.......a horsebox!!
Give me a minute to curl up in a ball and you can all proceed to kick me in the ribs and head at will. Keep away from my teeth tho, they are getting too expensive to replace
The solution to unite all the cyclists and car drivers in this thread and everywhere, is simple.
I drive.......a horsebox!!
Give me a minute to curl up in a ball and you can all proceed to kick me in the ribs and head at will. Keep away from my teeth tho, they are getting too expensive to replace
4
In reply to aultguish:
Is it one those ones with wheels that stick out beyond the width of the car?
You are in real trouble if so.
Is it one those ones with wheels that stick out beyond the width of the car?
You are in real trouble if so.
Post edited at 09:00
1
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Isn't the a
Surely the article highlighted in your OP is just a list of sweeping generalisations that could be targeted at either group?
Isn't the a
> Making sweeping generalisations about motorists - they all speed, they all use their mobile phones, they all think they own the road - is a good way of demonstrating the absurdity of the sweeping generalisations against cyclists, which get trotted out by the media ad nauseum.
Surely the article highlighted in your OP is just a list of sweeping generalisations that could be targeted at either group?
9
2
1
In reply to MG:
A 7.5t lorry.......a slooow lorry, or is it? I may just be going slow to upset everyone...apparently
A 7.5t lorry.......a slooow lorry, or is it? I may just be going slow to upset everyone...apparently
In reply to timjones:
What "sweeping generalisations" does that article make ?
> Isn't the a
> Surely the article highlighted in your OP is just a list of sweeping generalisations that could be targeted at either group?
What "sweeping generalisations" does that article make ?
1
In reply to notaclue:
Is there a prize for "most appropriate user name?"
> One thing about cyclists is that often their actions really annoy people and they do not help themselves. With the large numbers now cycling this winds people up
> there are cyclist riding two a breast chatting away , oblivious to the cars trying to get passed
> There are large groups who all go out at once
> Cyclists who skip red lights
> Bike races on a Sunday morning where you are trying to overtake 150 people on bikes on country lanes
> Mountain bikers on footpaths - loads of this round where I live
> Bike races that close off roads and impact on locals
> And so on
> By doing the above some nutter is going to be wound up. We live on a small island and there are a lot of cyclist and it would seem a large proportion unwittingly or deliberately wind everyone else up
Is there a prize for "most appropriate user name?"
6
In reply to notaclue:
In this sort of discussion I think we should avoid saying anything that starts with "Cyclists do this...." Cyclists are just people who happen to be riding a bike at that particular time. There will be a few militant cyclists who never use a car as driver or passenger, but they will be a tiny minority. There are certainly far more drivers who are never on a bike. I often think I'd like a tee shirt for when I'm being a cyclist which has "Cyclists are people too" written on the back in large letters.
In this sort of discussion I think we should avoid saying anything that starts with "Cyclists do this...." Cyclists are just people who happen to be riding a bike at that particular time. There will be a few militant cyclists who never use a car as driver or passenger, but they will be a tiny minority. There are certainly far more drivers who are never on a bike. I often think I'd like a tee shirt for when I'm being a cyclist which has "Cyclists are people too" written on the back in large letters.
In reply to notaclue:
Did you read the article linked to above?
You've just listed every one of the excuses they state people use for driving dangerously.
Would any of these excuses make you feel any better if you kill a cyclist?
And would you be happy to explain this to their relatives afterwards?
Do you think this would go down well with them?
Did you read the article linked to above?
You've just listed every one of the excuses they state people use for driving dangerously.
Would any of these excuses make you feel any better if you kill a cyclist?
And would you be happy to explain this to their relatives afterwards?
Do you think this would go down well with them?
1
In reply to Chris the Tall:
All the problems would be solved if lorry drivers were forced to wear full Eddie Stobart team lycra kit (or whoever they're hauling for).
And if you're thinking that Norbert Dentressangle would be tricky to print legibly down the leg panel, let alone the bum (but wouldn't it look fabulous there?), it's OK as the name's now XPO Logistics, which would fit well in either location, as well as on the UCI World Tour -- albeit provoking a few double takes in the current climate.
All the problems would be solved if lorry drivers were forced to wear full Eddie Stobart team lycra kit (or whoever they're hauling for).
And if you're thinking that Norbert Dentressangle would be tricky to print legibly down the leg panel, let alone the bum (but wouldn't it look fabulous there?), it's OK as the name's now XPO Logistics, which would fit well in either location, as well as on the UCI World Tour -- albeit provoking a few double takes in the current climate.
1
In reply to Chris the Tall:
The whole clumsy attempt to classify what are most likely local issues as "hate crime". by using the sweeping generalisation quoted in your OP.
> What "sweeping generalisations" does that article make ?
The whole clumsy attempt to classify what are most likely local issues as "hate crime". by using the sweeping generalisation quoted in your OP.
1
In reply to felt:
Don't they already have to wear a full Morning Suit or something?
> All the problems would be solved if lorry drivers were forced to wear full Eddie Stobart team lycra kit
Don't they already have to wear a full Morning Suit or something?
In reply to Chris the Tall:
The problem with the media is that they're hell bent on producing edgy, controversial pieces to generate traffic to their sites.
144% increase in cycling in 10years. Yet no 144% increase in cycling deaths. Cycling is not as dangerous as the 'hard men in lycra' would like you to believe.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census-analysis/cycling-to-work/s...
The problem with the media is that they're hell bent on producing edgy, controversial pieces to generate traffic to their sites.
144% increase in cycling in 10years. Yet no 144% increase in cycling deaths. Cycling is not as dangerous as the 'hard men in lycra' would like you to believe.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census-analysis/cycling-to-work/s...
Post edited at 11:25
1
1
In reply to Chris the Tall:
I found the psychologist (Ian Walker) report linked to on the guardian article an interesting read too. I now need to go and look up a few terms like societal outgroups.
I found the psychologist (Ian Walker) report linked to on the guardian article an interesting read too. I now need to go and look up a few terms like societal outgroups.
In reply to The New NickB:
Yes. All of it.
It's a bit rambling. Covers practically everything but doesn't really address anything.
Starts off badly by using three individual isolated nutters as a basis for an article on how cyclists are hated.
Yes. All of it.
It's a bit rambling. Covers practically everything but doesn't really address anything.
Starts off badly by using three individual isolated nutters as a basis for an article on how cyclists are hated.
1
In reply to DancingOnRock:
So it is too broad!
No, it is too narrow!
Interesting evaluation. I thought it was an interesting article that used a number of examples to illustrate one main point, but what do I know?
Where do your "Lycra clad hard men" come in to this?
> Yes. All of it.
> It's a bit rambling. Covers practically everything but doesn't really address anything.
So it is too broad!
> Starts off badly by using three individual isolated nutters as a basis for an article on how cyclists are hated.
No, it is too narrow!
Interesting evaluation. I thought it was an interesting article that used a number of examples to illustrate one main point, but what do I know?
Where do your "Lycra clad hard men" come in to this?
Post edited at 12:48
1
In reply to The New NickB:
Yes. Too broad and too narrow as you say.
Initially he's used three examples badly to get your attention then just waffles on about the same old points. There's nothing new in that article that hasn't been written a hundred times before.
I'm still convinced there is a very small element of cyclists who want to portray the roads as a dangerous war zone for whatever reason. As the article says; cycling is actually a lot safer than people are lead to believe.
Everytime someone writes an article about danger to cyclists - you run the risk of putting off more people cycling.
Yes. Too broad and too narrow as you say.
Initially he's used three examples badly to get your attention then just waffles on about the same old points. There's nothing new in that article that hasn't been written a hundred times before.
I'm still convinced there is a very small element of cyclists who want to portray the roads as a dangerous war zone for whatever reason. As the article says; cycling is actually a lot safer than people are lead to believe.
Everytime someone writes an article about danger to cyclists - you run the risk of putting off more people cycling.
Post edited at 13:09
1
2
In reply to DancingOnRock:
What do you think the article is about?
> Everytime someone writes an article about danger to cyclists - you run the risk of putting off more people cycling.
What do you think the article is about?
2
1
1
In reply to DancingOnRock:
It isn't really though, is it!
> Hatred and a poisonous backlash.
> Apparently.
It isn't really though, is it!
2
1
1
2
In reply to Chris the Tall:
As some what of an expert on the issue the real answer is that some cyclists are Wa*kers and some motorists are also Wa*kers.
As some what of an expert on the issue the real answer is that some cyclists are Wa*kers and some motorists are also Wa*kers.
Post edited at 20:15
1
1
In reply to David Staples:
Just wondering what evidence there is that the wires and tacks were placed by motorists.
I suspect the wires were placed by either:
Kids, dog walkers, muggers. I can't find any reports where the perpetrators were caught.
I think there are a lot of people who seem to like playing the hard done by victim and are looking for any excuse.
> As some what of an expert on the issue the real answer is that some cyclists are Wa*kers and some motorists are also Wa*kers.
Just wondering what evidence there is that the wires and tacks were placed by motorists.
I suspect the wires were placed by either:
Kids, dog walkers, muggers. I can't find any reports where the perpetrators were caught.
I think there are a lot of people who seem to like playing the hard done by victim and are looking for any excuse.
1
1
In reply to DancingOnRock:
The Velothon (and the Etape Caledonia which suffere the same in 2009) were both subject to a lot of ire from certain factions within the local community grumbling about the closed roads for half a day. It's a fair assumption they placed them.
I really don't get all this "we are in lock down....these cyclist stop us from getting to our kidney dialysis machines etc". Try living west of Weston Park on the V Festival weekend. We're effectivley sealed in for 4 days. You just get on with it, because it's a case of live and let live.
The tacks. whether they were motorists is a moot point, it was an act aimed squarely at cyclists.
The wires, I suspect, are the actions of the cockpellets. The same cockpellets who drop bricks form motorway bridges. Generally, it's logs and branches dragged onto a trail that's the preferred method of the grumblers and ranters.
I think what the article is trying to say is that it seems to be increasingly acceptable to treat cyclists as an out group.The media and the anti bridgade (and element of the cycling lobby do this re drivers - Critical Mass bollox mainly) treat cyclists as if they are some sort of commune dwelling homogeous collective, and not just people, on a bike. more to the point, drivers, on a bike.
The Rod Liddles and other festering canker sores on the arse tube of humanity legitimise the hatred to this new out group. They are not seen as recognised and acceptable road users. To some this means they can be treated with impunity. Like the stupid bitch who over took me while I was indicating and turning right the other day, or ther CRV driver mesnebreath who thought it was ok to pull out on me when I was 20m from her junction.
Case in point: I was noodling ver ver slowly up the Wrekin on my cross bike the other week. Later in the evening when it is quieter. I kept to one side of the path but a chap with a dog made it his duty to cross from his side to mine to face me down and force me to stop. He then berated me about cyclists on the hill and the damage we cause. All the while an offering to the dog shit fairy hung from a branch just behind his shoulder. I pointed out that when cyclists start shitting in bags and leaving at everywhere (the Wrekin is a shitfest), or park on the road at the bottom like self entiled cnuts then he might have a point......and that he had a fat dog.
I digress
and I don't like celery. f*cking hate the stuff.
7/10 would rant again.
The Velothon (and the Etape Caledonia which suffere the same in 2009) were both subject to a lot of ire from certain factions within the local community grumbling about the closed roads for half a day. It's a fair assumption they placed them.
I really don't get all this "we are in lock down....these cyclist stop us from getting to our kidney dialysis machines etc". Try living west of Weston Park on the V Festival weekend. We're effectivley sealed in for 4 days. You just get on with it, because it's a case of live and let live.
The tacks. whether they were motorists is a moot point, it was an act aimed squarely at cyclists.
The wires, I suspect, are the actions of the cockpellets. The same cockpellets who drop bricks form motorway bridges. Generally, it's logs and branches dragged onto a trail that's the preferred method of the grumblers and ranters.
I think what the article is trying to say is that it seems to be increasingly acceptable to treat cyclists as an out group.The media and the anti bridgade (and element of the cycling lobby do this re drivers - Critical Mass bollox mainly) treat cyclists as if they are some sort of commune dwelling homogeous collective, and not just people, on a bike. more to the point, drivers, on a bike.
The Rod Liddles and other festering canker sores on the arse tube of humanity legitimise the hatred to this new out group. They are not seen as recognised and acceptable road users. To some this means they can be treated with impunity. Like the stupid bitch who over took me while I was indicating and turning right the other day, or ther CRV driver mesnebreath who thought it was ok to pull out on me when I was 20m from her junction.
Case in point: I was noodling ver ver slowly up the Wrekin on my cross bike the other week. Later in the evening when it is quieter. I kept to one side of the path but a chap with a dog made it his duty to cross from his side to mine to face me down and force me to stop. He then berated me about cyclists on the hill and the damage we cause. All the while an offering to the dog shit fairy hung from a branch just behind his shoulder. I pointed out that when cyclists start shitting in bags and leaving at everywhere (the Wrekin is a shitfest), or park on the road at the bottom like self entiled cnuts then he might have a point......and that he had a fat dog.
I digress
and I don't like celery. f*cking hate the stuff.
7/10 would rant again.
10
In reply to DancingOnRock:
The Velothon (and the Etape Caledonia which suffere the same in 2009) were both subject to a lot of ire from certain factions within the local community grumbling about the closed roads for half a day. It's a fair assumption they placed them.
I really don't get all this "we are in lock down....these cyclist stop us from getting to our kidney dialysis machines etc". Try living west of Weston Park on the V Festival weekend. We're effectivley sealed in for 4 days. You just get on with it, because it's a case of live and let live.
The tacks. whether they were motorists is a moot point, it was an act aimed squarely at cyclists.
The wires, I suspect, are the actions of the cockpellets. The same cockpellets who drop bricks form motorway bridges. Generally, it's logs and branches dragged onto a trail that's the preferred method of the grumblers and ranters.
I think what the article is trying to say is that it seems to be increasingly acceptable to treat cyclists as an out group.The media and the anti bridgade (and element of the cycling lobby do this re drivers - Critical Mass bollox mainly) treat cyclists as if they are some sort of commune dwelling homogeous collective, and not just people, on a bike. more to the point, drivers, on a bike.
The Rod Liddles and other festering canker sores on the arse tube of humanity legitimise the hatred to this new out group. They are not seen as recognised and acceptable road users. To some this means they can be treated with impunity. Like the stupid bitch who over took me while I was indicating and turning right the other day, or ther CRV driver mesnebreath who thought it was ok to pull out on me when I was 20m from her junction.
Case in point: I was noodling ver ver slowly up the Wrekin on my cross bike the other week, (later in the evening when it is quieter). I kept to one side of the path but a chap with a dog made it his duty to cross from his side to mine to face me down and force me to stop. He then berated me about cyclists on the hill and the damage we cause. All the while an offering to the dog shit fairy hung from a branch just behind his shoulder. I pointed out that when cyclists start shitting in bags and leaving at everywhere (the Wrekin is a shitfest), or park on the road at the bottom like self entiled cnuts then he might have a point......and that he had a fat dog.
I digress
and I don't like celery. f*cking hate the stuff.
7/10 would rant again.
The Velothon (and the Etape Caledonia which suffere the same in 2009) were both subject to a lot of ire from certain factions within the local community grumbling about the closed roads for half a day. It's a fair assumption they placed them.
I really don't get all this "we are in lock down....these cyclist stop us from getting to our kidney dialysis machines etc". Try living west of Weston Park on the V Festival weekend. We're effectivley sealed in for 4 days. You just get on with it, because it's a case of live and let live.
The tacks. whether they were motorists is a moot point, it was an act aimed squarely at cyclists.
The wires, I suspect, are the actions of the cockpellets. The same cockpellets who drop bricks form motorway bridges. Generally, it's logs and branches dragged onto a trail that's the preferred method of the grumblers and ranters.
I think what the article is trying to say is that it seems to be increasingly acceptable to treat cyclists as an out group.The media and the anti bridgade (and element of the cycling lobby do this re drivers - Critical Mass bollox mainly) treat cyclists as if they are some sort of commune dwelling homogeous collective, and not just people, on a bike. more to the point, drivers, on a bike.
The Rod Liddles and other festering canker sores on the arse tube of humanity legitimise the hatred to this new out group. They are not seen as recognised and acceptable road users. To some this means they can be treated with impunity. Like the stupid bitch who over took me while I was indicating and turning right the other day, or ther CRV driver mesnebreath who thought it was ok to pull out on me when I was 20m from her junction.
Case in point: I was noodling ver ver slowly up the Wrekin on my cross bike the other week, (later in the evening when it is quieter). I kept to one side of the path but a chap with a dog made it his duty to cross from his side to mine to face me down and force me to stop. He then berated me about cyclists on the hill and the damage we cause. All the while an offering to the dog shit fairy hung from a branch just behind his shoulder. I pointed out that when cyclists start shitting in bags and leaving at everywhere (the Wrekin is a shitfest), or park on the road at the bottom like self entiled cnuts then he might have a point......and that he had a fat dog.
I digress
and I don't like celery. f*cking hate the stuff.
7/10 would rant again.
3
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
Unfortunately the Wrekin is a very poor example, as there have been a lot of cases of inconsiderate and dangerous riding there (and on the Ercall) over the last few years. Locals (and I'm almost in that category through family connections) are helpless to do anything about this other than direct confrontation as the police don't have the resources to deal with it, and neither do the land owners. My (at the time) 8 year old niece was knocked over on the Ercall by mtbs some years ago, and even though they were massively apologetic, when I encounter bikes up there it still raises my hackles.
On the other hand, I know that there have been tacks spread on the towpath by the Trent, which has caused real problems for the site managers. Again it's almost impossible to police the culprit.
Unfortunately the Wrekin is a very poor example, as there have been a lot of cases of inconsiderate and dangerous riding there (and on the Ercall) over the last few years. Locals (and I'm almost in that category through family connections) are helpless to do anything about this other than direct confrontation as the police don't have the resources to deal with it, and neither do the land owners. My (at the time) 8 year old niece was knocked over on the Ercall by mtbs some years ago, and even though they were massively apologetic, when I encounter bikes up there it still raises my hackles.
On the other hand, I know that there have been tacks spread on the towpath by the Trent, which has caused real problems for the site managers. Again it's almost impossible to police the culprit.
In reply to toad:
Fair point - It's a hill that's a victim of it's own popularity, but I can see why and to be honest, the Raby Estate and Trust do a good job of maintaining access.
It's getting better - there's been quite a bit of sensible engagement from the various users and locals. A lot of the grommets now play in the Raby woods on cheeky trails, and we only see a few herberts rattling down the main paths. I've asked a few to slow down myself and they generally do.
What irked me was the bloke was determined to seek out a fight. A middle aged bloke in an Ilkley CC top astride a cross bike is not really threat - he just saw cyclists and vented his spleen. Apparently I should " piss off and ride where I live". I pointed out I actually live on the Wrekin (not in the hallway house, that's Lee. He's a Leeds Utd supporter but we still speak to him) and spend too much time picking up all the pop bottles, Mcdonalds wrappers and other detritus that people leave behind, but I don't stand at the bottom shouting at randoms.
Fair point - It's a hill that's a victim of it's own popularity, but I can see why and to be honest, the Raby Estate and Trust do a good job of maintaining access.
It's getting better - there's been quite a bit of sensible engagement from the various users and locals. A lot of the grommets now play in the Raby woods on cheeky trails, and we only see a few herberts rattling down the main paths. I've asked a few to slow down myself and they generally do.
What irked me was the bloke was determined to seek out a fight. A middle aged bloke in an Ilkley CC top astride a cross bike is not really threat - he just saw cyclists and vented his spleen. Apparently I should " piss off and ride where I live". I pointed out I actually live on the Wrekin (not in the hallway house, that's Lee. He's a Leeds Utd supporter but we still speak to him) and spend too much time picking up all the pop bottles, Mcdonalds wrappers and other detritus that people leave behind, but I don't stand at the bottom shouting at randoms.
Post edited at 09:23
2
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
But these are not motorists are they?
I ran in a race last week where a pair of dog walkers were letting their dog run across the path freely. It was only a small dog and very likely to either trip someone up or get kicked into touch. When told politely that maybe they should put their dog on a short lead for a couple of minutes while the 3-400 runners went past all hell broke loose as they had 'just as much right to use the path as the runners did".
This isn't a 'cyclist', 'runner', 'motorist', 'horse rider' or 'dog walker' issue it's all about people sharing use of limited facilities.
If cyclists want to pretend they're the only ones suffering this then fine, but they're not. As soon as you take part in an activity, whatever that be, you become a part of that mass (4x4 drivers anyone?). That will never change regardless of how much you protest that you're an individual human being. You're not, you're a cyclist.
But these are not motorists are they?
I ran in a race last week where a pair of dog walkers were letting their dog run across the path freely. It was only a small dog and very likely to either trip someone up or get kicked into touch. When told politely that maybe they should put their dog on a short lead for a couple of minutes while the 3-400 runners went past all hell broke loose as they had 'just as much right to use the path as the runners did".
This isn't a 'cyclist', 'runner', 'motorist', 'horse rider' or 'dog walker' issue it's all about people sharing use of limited facilities.
If cyclists want to pretend they're the only ones suffering this then fine, but they're not. As soon as you take part in an activity, whatever that be, you become a part of that mass (4x4 drivers anyone?). That will never change regardless of how much you protest that you're an individual human being. You're not, you're a cyclist.
2
2
In reply to DancingOnRock:
That's my point - lumping motorists together just creates a group which whilst seemingly singluar is made up of no end of differant individuals, most of whom would use numerous other categories of self identification, other than motorist.
What I am saying is that there is no equal polarisation in the media than that applied to cyclists. To the media, and a great number of people, is that cyclists are some sort of homegenous sub or out group, with no thought that they might be individuals (apart from Darren Jackson).
It's not a case of the only ones suffering, but there is an attitude towards another group of road users that seems to be condoned if not encouraged by certain commentators and elements of the media, and the end result is that people are injured or die.
Put simply - too many people think "it's only a f*cking cyclist, I'll overtake / pull out / left hook the bastard".
That's my point - lumping motorists together just creates a group which whilst seemingly singluar is made up of no end of differant individuals, most of whom would use numerous other categories of self identification, other than motorist.
What I am saying is that there is no equal polarisation in the media than that applied to cyclists. To the media, and a great number of people, is that cyclists are some sort of homegenous sub or out group, with no thought that they might be individuals (apart from Darren Jackson).
It's not a case of the only ones suffering, but there is an attitude towards another group of road users that seems to be condoned if not encouraged by certain commentators and elements of the media, and the end result is that people are injured or die.
Put simply - too many people think "it's only a f*cking cyclist, I'll overtake / pull out / left hook the bastard".
Post edited at 09:36
7
1
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
No they don't. That's just your perception. People are not interested in injuring other people on purpose.
What about 4x4s then? They don't get a bad press? Conservative politicians? Benefit scroungers? Bankers?
It's time for cyclists to realise they're not the object of persecution and maybe then when they ride they'll be a little bit calmer and more forgiving of the drivers who make genuine mistakes.
Seriously the only reason these lazy articles get trotted out is because they generate site traffic from inbound links like the OP. This cascades and quickly goes viral. The writers are laughing all the way to the bank while having no interest in how cyclists are doing.
No they don't. That's just your perception. People are not interested in injuring other people on purpose.
What about 4x4s then? They don't get a bad press? Conservative politicians? Benefit scroungers? Bankers?
It's time for cyclists to realise they're not the object of persecution and maybe then when they ride they'll be a little bit calmer and more forgiving of the drivers who make genuine mistakes.
Seriously the only reason these lazy articles get trotted out is because they generate site traffic from inbound links like the OP. This cascades and quickly goes viral. The writers are laughing all the way to the bank while having no interest in how cyclists are doing.
Post edited at 10:02
2
2
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Generally the only "trouble" I get whilst out riding are from those who have no respect or time for anyone else regardless of mode of transport. I.e. they are <insert your favourite term of opprobrium here>. No doubt we can all recount "tales of the road" of a member of some group of road users who did something stupid. It doesn't mean that all members of that group are like that.
Generally the only "trouble" I get whilst out riding are from those who have no respect or time for anyone else regardless of mode of transport. I.e. they are <insert your favourite term of opprobrium here>. No doubt we can all recount "tales of the road" of a member of some group of road users who did something stupid. It doesn't mean that all members of that group are like that.
1
In reply to DancingOnRock:
To be fair, in this day and age I think the only writers who are doing that are the likes of Rowling, Smith, Collins, Martin, James, &c.
> The writers are laughing all the way to the bank
To be fair, in this day and age I think the only writers who are doing that are the likes of Rowling, Smith, Collins, Martin, James, &c.
1
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Plenty of drivers are capable and patient. Those that hang back until there is a suitable gap will always get an wave of acknowledgement from me.
There is a worrying number of people in cars who see cyclists as lesser road users with sometimes tragic consequences. It's hard to equate this situation with the views held about 4x4 drivers (of which I am one) etc etc because nobody dies.
It's a bit tricky to go all Terry Waite when you're bouncing down the side of a Honda because somebody either thinks you're scum or just lacks the basic driving skills. We all make mistakes on the road, a simple hand up "sorry" is fine, but the SMIDSY attitude does not always wash....
Plenty of drivers are capable and patient. Those that hang back until there is a suitable gap will always get an wave of acknowledgement from me.
There is a worrying number of people in cars who see cyclists as lesser road users with sometimes tragic consequences. It's hard to equate this situation with the views held about 4x4 drivers (of which I am one) etc etc because nobody dies.
It's a bit tricky to go all Terry Waite when you're bouncing down the side of a Honda because somebody either thinks you're scum or just lacks the basic driving skills. We all make mistakes on the road, a simple hand up "sorry" is fine, but the SMIDSY attitude does not always wash....
2
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Except those that are and the underlying acceptance and out group prejudice agenda.
You might have a point with benefit recipients and bankers, but it doesn't make it right and whiffs somewhat of whataboutery!
The evidence is very clearly against you on that point.
Are you talking about this article or the media in general. With regard to this article, your assessment seems very wide of the mark.
> No they don't. That's just your perception. People are not interested in injuring other people on purpose.
Except those that are and the underlying acceptance and out group prejudice agenda.
> What about 4x4s then? They don't get a bad press? Conservative politicians? Benefit scroungers? Bankers?
You might have a point with benefit recipients and bankers, but it doesn't make it right and whiffs somewhat of whataboutery!
> It's time for cyclists to realise they're not the object of persecution and maybe then when they ride they'll be a little bit calmer and more forgiving of the drivers who make genuine mistakes.
The evidence is very clearly against you on that point.
> Seriously the only reason these lazy articles get trotted out is because they generate site traffic from inbound links like the OP. This cascades and quickly goes viral. The writers are laughing all the way to the bank while having no interest in how cyclists are doing.
Are you talking about this article or the media in general. With regard to this article, your assessment seems very wide of the mark.
1
1
In reply to The New NickB:
You have evidence that motorists as a group are deliberately targeting and injuring cyclists as a group.
Wow. I've missed something somewhere.
You have evidence that motorists as a group are deliberately targeting and injuring cyclists as a group.
Wow. I've missed something somewhere.
2
In reply to DancingOnRock and anyone else interested:
Now might be an appropriate time to look at the follow-up to the article cited in the OP:
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/bike-blog/2015/jul/03/road-tax-red-...
Now might be an appropriate time to look at the follow-up to the article cited in the OP:
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/bike-blog/2015/jul/03/road-tax-red-...
2
In reply to tony:
Hmmm.
It just seems to me that they're doing it on purpose.
It's tongue-in-cheek. To what ends? A bit of fun on a Friday? Is he hoping to educate someone?
I just think there is a better way to do it than deliberately continually trying to create an 'us and them' divide.
Hmmm.
It just seems to me that they're doing it on purpose.
It's tongue-in-cheek. To what ends? A bit of fun on a Friday? Is he hoping to educate someone?
I just think there is a better way to do it than deliberately continually trying to create an 'us and them' divide.
2
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Less of the strawmen.
More than likely.
> You have evidence that motorists as a group are deliberately targeting and injuring cyclists as a group.
Less of the strawmen.
> Wow. I've missed something somewhere.
More than likely.
1
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Where is anyone seriously talking about "motorists as a group"?
The point is that there's a attitude, perpetuated by various media blowhards, that demonizes and dehumanizes cyclists and treats cycling as a strange perversion rather than a useful mode of transport and an effective form of exercise. That attitude doesn't permeate "motorists as a group" or anyone else as a group, but it does affect some individuals behaviour, whether by causing them to care less about driving badly around cyclists, to actively try to sabotage cyclists, or just to oppose any attempt to make the roads safer for cycling by any means other than reintroducing corporal punishment for red light jumping.
The article in the OP isn't the best or most nuanced take on this that I've seen, but complaining about "sweeping generalizations about motorists" is a total red herring.
> You have evidence that motorists as a group are deliberately targeting and injuring cyclists as a group.
Where is anyone seriously talking about "motorists as a group"?
The point is that there's a attitude, perpetuated by various media blowhards, that demonizes and dehumanizes cyclists and treats cycling as a strange perversion rather than a useful mode of transport and an effective form of exercise. That attitude doesn't permeate "motorists as a group" or anyone else as a group, but it does affect some individuals behaviour, whether by causing them to care less about driving badly around cyclists, to actively try to sabotage cyclists, or just to oppose any attempt to make the roads safer for cycling by any means other than reintroducing corporal punishment for red light jumping.
The article in the OP isn't the best or most nuanced take on this that I've seen, but complaining about "sweeping generalizations about motorists" is a total red herring.
Post edited at 11:21
3
In reply to tony:
I got 10/10 and beat 100% of the other people who took the test. Wow.
The interesting thing is that in most of the questions 88% of the people taking that test knew the correct response.
No sure what to conclude. Are only cyclists taking it?
I got 10/10 and beat 100% of the other people who took the test. Wow.
The interesting thing is that in most of the questions 88% of the people taking that test knew the correct response.
No sure what to conclude. Are only cyclists taking it?
3
In reply to DancingOnRock:
I would suggest that most people realise that they are trying to do the exact opposite of that.
> I just think there is a better way to do it than deliberately continually trying to create an 'us and them' divide.
I would suggest that most people realise that they are trying to do the exact opposite of that.
1
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Exactly my thoughts.
NickB seems to disagree but concentrates instead with picking holes in things I'm writing.
Exactly my thoughts.
NickB seems to disagree but concentrates instead with picking holes in things I'm writing.
3
In reply to The New NickB:
By writing articles that claim there is a growing hatred and persecution of cyclists?
> I would suggest that most people realise that they are trying to do the exact opposite of that.
By writing articles that claim there is a growing hatred and persecution of cyclists?
3
In reply to DancingOnRock:
??? These are not the views you have expressed.
I'm not picking holes, I'm judging your views by what you write.
> Exactly my thoughts.
??? These are not the views you have expressed.
> NickB seems to disagree but concentrates instead with picking holes in things I'm writing.
I'm not picking holes, I'm judging your views by what you write.
2
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Smacks head against wall!!!
> By writing articles that claim there is a growing hatred and persecution of cyclists?
Smacks head against wall!!!
2
In reply to DancingOnRock:
I'm not sure, but it's not impossible you're taking it a little bit too seriously.
> I got 10/10 and beat 100% of the other people who took the test. Wow.
> The interesting thing is that in most of the questions 88% of the people taking that test knew the correct response.
> No sure what to conclude. Are only cyclists taking it?
I'm not sure, but it's not impossible you're taking it a little bit too seriously.
3
In reply to DancingOnRock:
How is that creating an "us and them" divide? Who is the "us" and "them" in this situation?
If we're talking about (for instance) the people who knock cyclists off while driving and then brag about it on twitter or the people who scatter pins on the road before cycling events then the "us and them" was already there before the article. Do you also worry about creating an "us and them" divide between muggers and their victims?
> By writing articles that claim there is a growing hatred and persecution of cyclists?
How is that creating an "us and them" divide? Who is the "us" and "them" in this situation?
If we're talking about (for instance) the people who knock cyclists off while driving and then brag about it on twitter or the people who scatter pins on the road before cycling events then the "us and them" was already there before the article. Do you also worry about creating an "us and them" divide between muggers and their victims?
Post edited at 11:32
2
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
You are completely right. The risks some motorists deem acceptable to take with my life are simply breathtaking, and all to save themselves a couple of seconds, or even nothing in most cases.
You are completely right. The risks some motorists deem acceptable to take with my life are simply breathtaking, and all to save themselves a couple of seconds, or even nothing in most cases.
4
In reply to DancingOnRock:
I'm sure they're not, but they don't give much of a shit about increasing the risk of it happening thousandfold by being so f*cking impatient.
> No they don't. That's just your perception. People are not interested in injuring other people on purpose.
I'm sure they're not, but they don't give much of a shit about increasing the risk of it happening thousandfold by being so f*cking impatient.
3
In reply to notaclue:
Did you are anyone actually read and comprehend the article Chris linked to?
> One thing about cyclists is that often their actions really annoy people and they do not help themselves.
Did you are anyone actually read and comprehend the article Chris linked to?
3
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Not really. There is a pretty clear and real 'us and them' situation there.
There is no 'us and them' situation with motorists and cyclists.
Write an article headline that suggests that those actions show a growing hatred of cyclists while inferring that motorists are a subset of those doing the hating doesn't address the situation.
> How is that creating an "us and them" divide? Who is the "us" and "them" in this situation?
> If we're talking about (for instance) the people who knock cyclists off while driving and then brag about it on twitter or the people who scatter pins on the road before cycling events then the "us and them" was already there before the article. Do you also worry about creating an "us and them" divide between muggers and their victims?
Not really. There is a pretty clear and real 'us and them' situation there.
There is no 'us and them' situation with motorists and cyclists.
Write an article headline that suggests that those actions show a growing hatred of cyclists while inferring that motorists are a subset of those doing the hating doesn't address the situation.
3
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
Who are 'they'. You see, more 'us and them'.
It works both way. Cyclists as a group shouldn't expect to be treated as individuals any more than motorists should.
> I'm sure they're not, but they don't give much of a shit about increasing the risk of it happening thousandfold by being so f*cking impatient.
Who are 'they'. You see, more 'us and them'.
It works both way. Cyclists as a group shouldn't expect to be treated as individuals any more than motorists should.
1
3
1
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Is it better to acknowledge real issues, try and understand the reasons for them and look at how they can be mitigated or reduced, or is it best to stick your head in the sand and hope it goes away?
Is it better to acknowledge real issues, try and understand the reasons for them and look at how they can be mitigated or reduced, or is it best to stick your head in the sand and hope it goes away?
2
In reply to DancingOnRock:
I'd assume "the motorists who are driving badly around him."
Once again, you're imagining a generalization about motorists as a group where there isn't one. Why?
> Who are 'they'.
I'd assume "the motorists who are driving badly around him."
Once again, you're imagining a generalization about motorists as a group where there isn't one. Why?
4
In reply to DancingOnRock:
"They" are the sizeable minority of motorists who treat my life with disdain. Beyond that, I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make.
> Who are 'they'. You see, more 'us and them'.
> It works both way. Cyclists as a group shouldn't expect to be treated as individuals any more than motorists should.
"They" are the sizeable minority of motorists who treat my life with disdain. Beyond that, I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make.
3
In reply to Ramblin dave:
So talking about motorists as "they" is fine but to do so about cyclists is terrible? Either accept "they" as a short-hand for inconsiderate motorist and cyclists, or object to both.
So talking about motorists as "they" is fine but to do so about cyclists is terrible? Either accept "they" as a short-hand for inconsiderate motorist and cyclists, or object to both.
2
In reply to MG:
Most people understand the difference between "they" when talking about an experience or a series experiences and "they" in terms of generalizing. As pointed out, most cyclists are also drivers.
> So talking about motorists as "they" is fine but to do so about cyclists is terrible? Either accept "they" as a short-hand for inconsiderate motorist and cyclists, or object to both.
Most people understand the difference between "they" when talking about an experience or a series experiences and "they" in terms of generalizing. As pointed out, most cyclists are also drivers.
2
In reply to Moorside Mo:
Yes. That's the point I'm trying to make. This distinction seems to get blurred an awful lot though.
My main point is that the press seem to relish enforcing this lack of distinction. To what ends? I have already given a few examples.
All I'm saying is that the roads are not as dangerous as they're made out to be, an they're certainly no war zone and in particular there is not a large group of people driving cars aiming to injure cyclists because they hate them.
> Most people understand the difference between "they" when talking about an experience or a series experiences and "they" in terms of generalizing. As pointed out, most cyclists are also drivers.
Yes. That's the point I'm trying to make. This distinction seems to get blurred an awful lot though.
My main point is that the press seem to relish enforcing this lack of distinction. To what ends? I have already given a few examples.
All I'm saying is that the roads are not as dangerous as they're made out to be, an they're certainly no war zone and in particular there is not a large group of people driving cars aiming to injure cyclists because they hate them.
1
In reply to Moorside Mo:
THe whole point is that on this thread at least they don't seem to, or only selectively.
THe whole point is that on this thread at least they don't seem to, or only selectively.
2
In reply to DancingOnRock:
I don't think you have got your head around the article. No one is claiming it is a warzone, but the fact is, cycling has statistically got slightly more dangerous, serious injuries rising faster than participation.
The article does a reasonable job at looking at some of the reasons why.
> All I'm saying is that the roads are not as dangerous as they're made out to be, an they're certainly no war zone and in particular there is not a large group of people driving cars aiming to injure cyclists because they hate them.
I don't think you have got your head around the article. No one is claiming it is a warzone, but the fact is, cycling has statistically got slightly more dangerous, serious injuries rising faster than participation.
The article does a reasonable job at looking at some of the reasons why.
2
In reply to MG:
Which "they" are you talking about, obviously I can see that you are struggling with it.
> THe whole point is that on this thread at least they don't seem to, or only selectively.
Which "they" are you talking about, obviously I can see that you are struggling with it.
2
In reply to DancingOnRock:
I'm not convinced it is, reading the rest of you contribution, I'm fairly sure we don't agree.
> Yes. That's the point I'm trying to make.
I'm not convinced it is, reading the rest of you contribution, I'm fairly sure we don't agree.
2
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Yes, mostly by you at the moment. Pretty much everyone else understands the difference between having a problem with the minority of drivers who are dangerous and having a problem with cyclists in general because of the minority of them who are dangerous.
> This distinction seems to get blurred an awful lot though.
Yes, mostly by you at the moment. Pretty much everyone else understands the difference between having a problem with the minority of drivers who are dangerous and having a problem with cyclists in general because of the minority of them who are dangerous.
6
1
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
Good article with regards to risk taking with other people's lives is https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2015/06/19/karrs-choice/
It is rather annoying having someone pass dangerously close and then have to wait for an hour behind them at a junction when their potential risk sense goes into overtime once a threat to them occurs.
Good article with regards to risk taking with other people's lives is https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2015/06/19/karrs-choice/
It is rather annoying having someone pass dangerously close and then have to wait for an hour behind them at a junction when their potential risk sense goes into overtime once a threat to them occurs.
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...