Another headbutting cyclist

On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 9:33:45 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
On 30/09/2019 03:33, Simon Jester wrote:

So you have no evidence to support your claim that only 'some'
cyclists obey the law.

There is always the possibility that 'many' cyclists sometimes disobey
the law.


I suspect almost all cyclists have broken the law at some point.
The problem is far too many people think just because they once saw a cyclist going through a red light proves all cyclists jump red lights all of the time. This is because they WANT to see that. Anecdotal evidence is usually more about bigotry than facts.

On 30/09/2019 23:44, JNugent wrote:
On 30/09/2019 20:34, TMS320 wrote:
On 30/09/2019 17:50, JNugent wrote:
On 30/09/2019 09:33, TMS320 wrote:
On 30/09/2019 03:33, Simon Jester wrote:

A couple of single track lanes near me form a one way square. I
can still make my outward journey the right way. The problem is
that a new housing estate is being built inside the square and
the return is now blocked while they cut a new road across the
lane.

This means I have to break the law to get home.

You could get off and puch. then you'd be obeying the law. Or you
could go a different way altogether.

Not so long ago it was two way. No physical change was made to the
road when the signs went up. I claim historical rights.

You could get off and push(!). then you'd be obeying the law. Or you
could go a different way altogether.

Of course I could. I didn't want to.

That's what I'd do. It's what any respectful civic-minded citizen
would do.

I doubt anybody with any initiative would do so.

A couple of drivers will have seen me stopped in the hedge
pointing in the wrong direction.

...whatever that means.

...they saw my face rather than the back of my head. What else
could it mean?

It doesn't appear to mean anything.

Maybe this helps -
Dee saw me kite rather than de back o' me barnet.

On 30/09/2019 23:48, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 9:33:45 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
On 30/09/2019 03:33, Simon Jester wrote:

So you have no evidence to support your claim that only 'some'
cyclists obey the law.

There is always the possibility that 'many' cyclists sometimes
disobey the law.

I suspect almost all cyclists have broken the law at some point. The
problem is far too many people think just because they once saw a
cyclist going through a red light proves all cyclists jump red lights
all of the time. This is because they WANT to see that. Anecdotal
evidence is usually more about bigotry than facts.

It is mostly drivers trying to deflect conversation away from their own
habits. And the fact that they injure 100 people a day.

On 30/09/2019 21:13, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

I seem to remember calling you a boring **** in the past.
You have not improved.

If you want a discussion about men with shaved legs perhaps there is
another group that's more to your requirements.

On 01/10/2019 09:13, Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:
TMS320 wrote:
On 30/09/2019 17:50, JNugent wrote:
On 30/09/2019 09:33, TMS320 wrote:
On 30/09/2019 03:33, Simon Jester wrote:

So you have no evidence to support your claim that only 'some'
cyclists obey the law.

There is always the possibility that 'many' cyclists sometimes
disobey the law.

I don't disagree with that.

A couple of single track lanes near me form a one way square. I can
still make my outward journey the right way. The problem is that a
new housing estate is being built inside the square and the return
is now blocked while they cut a new road across the lane.

This means I have to break the law to get home.

You could get off and puch. then you'd be obeying the law. Or you
could go a different way altogether.

Not so long ago it was two way. No physical change was made to the
road when the signs went up. I claim historical rights.

A couple of drivers will have seen me stopped in the hedge pointing
in the wrong direction.

...whatever that means.

...they saw my face rather than the back of my head. What else could
it mean?

Perhaps they did a Nugent and splattered their windscreens with
spittle as they muttered "think of the pedestrians" and "if it
wasn't for my amazing driving skills I hate to think of the damage
that uninsured cyclist could have done to my car"?

I seem to remember calling you a boring **** in the past.
You have not improved.


But then you hate bicyclists.

On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 12:38:28 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
On 30/09/2019 23:48, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 9:33:45 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
On 30/09/2019 03:33, Simon Jester wrote:

So you have no evidence to support your claim that only 'some'
cyclists obey the law.

There is always the possibility that 'many' cyclists sometimes
disobey the law.

I suspect almost all cyclists have broken the law at some point. The
problem is far too many people think just because they once saw a
cyclist going through a red light proves all cyclists jump red lights
all of the time. This is because they WANT to see that. Anecdotal
evidence is usually more about bigotry than facts.

It is mostly drivers trying to deflect conversation away from their own
habits. And the fact that they injure 100 people a day.

And then there is the motorist definition of law breaking.
If a cyclist goes through a red after 0.1 seconds it proves all cyclists are habitual rlj'ers.
If a motorist goes through a red after 10 seconds it was not the motorist's fault because
- The amber phase was too short
- The was another car too close behind
- It was perfectly safe because I am an above average driver
- It was a cyclists fault
or the ultimate get out of jail free card, 'I pay road tax'

On 01/10/2019 18:09, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 12:38:28 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
On 30/09/2019 23:48, Simon Jester wrote:
On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 9:33:45 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:
On 30/09/2019 03:33, Simon Jester wrote:

So you have no evidence to support your claim that only 'some'
cyclists obey the law.

There is always the possibility that 'many' cyclists sometimes
disobey the law.

I suspect almost all cyclists have broken the law at some point. The
problem is far too many people think just because they once saw a
cyclist going through a red light proves all cyclists jump red lights
all of the time. This is because they WANT to see that. Anecdotal
evidence is usually more about bigotry than facts.

It is mostly drivers trying to deflect conversation away from their own
habits. And the fact that they injure 100 people a day.

And then there is the motorist definition of law breaking.
If a cyclist goes through a red after 0.1 seconds it proves all cyclists are habitual rlj'ers.
If a motorist goes through a red after 10 seconds it was not the motorist's fault because
- The amber phase was too short
- The was another car too close behind
- It was perfectly safe because I am an above average driver
- It was a cyclists fault
or the ultimate get out of jail free card, 'I pay road tax'



Check-list for Cyclophobes.
All credit to Carlton Reid


1. ALL cyclists run red lights.

Some motorists may also be guilty of such rare transgressions but they
are rogue and unrepresentative.

***

2. Cyclists always ride on the pavement.

Cyclists should get off roads designed for motorists and ride on the
pavement instead.

***

3. Cyclists that ride in cities at 20mph are clearly riding too fast for
the conditions and will almost certainly kill pedestrians.

It’s crazy talk to expect motorists to travel as cripplingly slow as 20mph.

***

4. Cyclists ride two abreast, blocking the road.

Don’t mention the fact that motorists, even when driving solo, ride two
abreast all of the time.

***

5. Cyclists no longer tinkle little bells to warn pedestrians.

Cyclists expect pedestrians to jump out of the way when they rudely ring
their stupid bells.

***

6. Cyclists are paupers that cannot afford cars.

Cyclists are wealthy elites that own expensive carbon bikes which get in
the way of poor people in cars just trying to earn a crust.

***
7. Not enough cyclists wear helmets.

Cyclists wear mushrooms on their heads, haha!

***

8. Cyclists don’t ride with lights.

Cyclists dazzle motorists with their flashing lights.

***

9. Cyclists who ride with earbuds deserve it when they get run over and
killed.

Motorists should be able to listen to loud music in their cars if they
want to. It is not as though it is a distraction.

***

10. Cyclists are smug treehuggers.

Cyclists emit CO2, endangering the planet.

***

11. Cyclists cause pollution because of all the motorists stuck behind
them forced to drive slowly.

Ergo, no cyclists, no pollution.

***

12. Cycling is something you grow out of, it’s only for children not adults.

Children should stick to parks and should not be allowed to cycle on roads.

***

13. Too few cyclists are killed.

Jeez, cyclists can’t take a joke.

***

14. Cycling is leisure.

A motorist driving to the gym (to ride on a stationary bike) is a
legitimate road user.

***

15. Spending half a million on a cycleway is a subsidy too far, an
incredible waste of taxpayers’ hard-earned cash.

Spending billions on new roads for more motoring is an investment.

***

16. Society should pay for roads for motorists.

Cyclists should pay for cycleways.



17. Cyclists use the roads as a gym; they should ride on a velodrome
instead.

Motorists have places to get to, you know.

***

18. A cyclist going near a motorist’s sacrosanct car is a “jerk.�

Motorists should not give cyclists lots of space when overtaking them
because that would waste, what, two seconds?

***

19. Cyclists should wear yellow hi-viz jackets at all times for their
own safety.

Motorists can choose whatever colour car they like: stealth grey is
currently the most popular. Car? What car?

***

20. Cycleways are an incredible waste of space.

Motorists should be provided with masses of free parking.

***

21. Roads are dangerous so taking children to school by bicycle is
criminally irresponsible.

It’s perfectly acceptable for motorists to rush their children to school
in oversized SUVs and then to park right next to school gates. Kids not
in cars are fair game.

***

22. Dockless bikes and scooters clutter the streets.

Cars parked everywhere is totes okay.

***

23. Cyclists don’t have to cycle, it’s a hairshirty, eco-loopy personal
choice.

I HAVE to drive everywhere.

***

24. Cycleways take up too much road space.

Roads should be widened for motorists, and especially today’s wider cars.



25. Cycle parking corrals are a waste of valuable space and, if they are
to exist at all, should be hidden away.

A parking spot right outside the cafe/my house/local shop is a God-given
right.

***

26. Cyclists exhibit devious entitlement by demanding safety on the roads.

Motorists never exhibit any form of entitlement ever.

***

27. Cycling on the sidewalk is a heinous crime.

It’s necessary for motorists to half-wheel sidewalks, where else is
there to park?

***

28. Cyclists should always use the cycleways provided for them at great
expense, no matter how badly surfaced or stupidly routed the cycleway
might be.

Motorists should have access to every road everywhere, and these roads
should be butter smooth.

***

29. Cyclists should be happy with cycleways that don’t go direct to
destinations because they are riding for recreation not transport.

Motorists should be provided with the most direct routes possible
because motoring is transport.

***

30. Cyclists dress funny, they are all Lycra Louts.

Motorists are normal members of society and don’t wear silly clothes.

***

31. Plans for a short stretch of cycleway should be put out to public
consultation and should be blocked if it requires the loss of any car
parking spaces whatsoever.

Hugely expensive road projects will cure congestion so should always be
nodded through.

***

32. It’s “accident.�

Never “crash.�

***

33. Remember, it’s “the cyclist collided with� not “the cyclist was hit
by� a car.

***

34. Driverless cars roam the streets, so it’s “Four injured as car
smashes into house� not “Four injured as motorist crashes car into house.�

On the other hand, always mention the mode of transport when it involves
a miscreant who happens to have been riding a bicycle. So, it’s “Cyclist
strangled cat,� but never “Motorist strangled cat.�

***

35. Cyclists dangerously weave in and out of traffic.

It’s okay for motorists to switch lanes if there’s a gap in traffic.


36. Cyclists should not ride up the inside of trucks, putting themselves
in danger.

It’s okay for truck drivers to overtake cyclists, putting these cyclists
on the inside.

***

37. Cycleways can start and end in the middle of nowhere.

Roads for motorists should be hyper-connected.

***

38. Cyclists who ride fast are scofflaws.

Motorists may break the speed limit from time to time, but these are
arbitrary war-on-the-motorist rules and, anyway, we are just trying to
get somewhere in a reasonable length of time, the police should be out
there catching real criminals.

***

39. Cyclists who kill pedestrians deserve jail-time.

Motorists who kill pedestrians didn’t mean to so shouldn’t even be
charged, never mind jailed.

***

40. Any bicyclist in front of a motorist is “in the way� and has to be
overtaken swiftly and aggressively.

Any car in front of a motorist is just how it is and it’s fine to wait
patiently behind because it’s not like you’re going to get anywhere any
faster.

***

41. Electric cars should be subsidised.

Electric bikes are a luxury, middle class items and should never be
subsidised.

***

42. A motorist’s time is more important than a cyclist’s life.

***

43. Roads were not built for bicyclists.

***

44. Cyclists are very angry people, always shaking their fists.

Why do cyclists get so defensive about being nudged from behind by my
bumper, cut up on corners or nearly being sideswiped when I shot out of
that junction without looking for anything other than other motor
vehicles? It’s a total mystery.

***

45. Cycling is weird. Driving is normal.