Telegraph article

On 26/1/04 10:15 am, in article
am, "John Hearns"
wrote:

Sorry to reply to my own post, but in the article:

"So it is my sad duty to have to report on the ruin of cycling itself.
Just a week of regular city riding has revealed how much the spirit of
cycling has been repressed.

We'll start with my local network of cycle lanes, which have been made so
incomprehensible and fatuously pedantic that no one takes any notice of
them."


So cycling is getting the Top Gear treatment. James May is the new presenter
on Top Gear (for a year or so now.) He has to cycle to his Bentley because
the nearest garage he could fit it in was 8 miles away.

SO that is two out of three TG presenters who regularly ride a bike (JC for
exercise though he won't admit to it).

...d

Anybody else see the article on cycling by James Moy
in the motoring section of the Saturday Telegraph?
http://tinyurl.com/3a3ua
(registration required I'm afraid)

Full Text:

As seen on TV: On yer bike? Give us a wave!
(Filed: 24/01/2004)

Cycling is a great leveller, and must not be hijacked by miserablists, says
James May


Last week, having been laid up for several days by a pox of such virulent and
ancient strain that it probably appears in medical text books with "ye'' in
front of it, I resolved to do more exercise.

So I bought a new bicycle.
I should admit that I already have several bicycles. There is the ancient, dark
green Raleigh Superbe, a bike made of pig-iron and Bakelite and of a style that
means old people sometimes flag me down and attempt to place an order with the
local butcher. Then there is the peerless Brompton folder, the bicycle that
makes life with a Bentley garaged eight miles away vaguely feasible. There is
also the Pashley roadster and even an old tandem awaiting restoration.

Unlike some of my professional colleagues, I've always been a big fan of the
bicycle. I believe it might be the world's greatest invention. A bicycle seems
to offer the rare commodity of something for nothing; a machine that improves
the efficiency of the human engine without consuming anything extra, although
you might want a Mars bar before a big ride.

And it's amazing how much the bicycle has come on in recent years. My new mount
is something called a Dawes Chilliwack - stupid name, but a great piece of kit,
and car makers often get that the other way round. It has 24 ``indexed'' gears,
a sprung saddle post, brilliant brakes, sponge bar grips and lights with LED
bulbs. It cost less than £250, which is pretty remarkable.

Gone are the days when my bikes were made out of bits scrounged from neighbours
and mates, and when cotter pins hand-crafted in Taiwan out of the finest cheddar
cheese sheared on uphill sections to bring my chin into character-building
contact with the steering-head nut. Pedal cranks are ``cotterless'' now and the
multi-adjustable handlebars are secured with a smooth and complexion-friendly
allen bolt. The bicycle has never been in better shape.

So it is my sad duty to have to report on the ruin of cycling itself. Just a
week of regular city riding has revealed how much the spirit of cycling has been
repressed.

We'll start with my local network of cycle lanes, which have been made so
incomprehensible and fatuously pedantic that no one takes any notice of them.
And rightly so, because attempts to regulate bicycle riding run contrary to the
urge for total independence that made us crave the things as children. A mate of
mine reports on a new cycle lane near his house that ends suddenly and abruptly
at the edge of a disused canal. At best this explains why disused canals are
always full of rusty bicycles.

And what's with these so-called "advanced stop lines" that allow cyclists to
wait ahead of cars at traffic lights? I fail to see how placing a cyclist,
inevitably stuck in 22nd gear, in front of my 2·25-ton motor just as the lights
change helps the cause of bicycling in any way. Never mind that all this stuff
costs hundreds of thousands of pounds that could have been spent on hospitals or
housing for the residentially challenged.

What bothers me most, however, is the demeanour of my fellow riders. Every
morning I cycle along the nearby riverside for six miles, in rain, wind, the
lot. So do many other people. And so I wave, I shout ``Good morning'' and other
encouragements, or at least deliver the traditional English acknowledgement of a
faint nod.

What do I get in return? Nothing. They hunker into their
waterproof-but-breathable gaily coloured, cycling clothing, stare hard at
lightweight front wheels extruded from 100 per cent unobtanium, or tilt their
heads so their eyes are shielded by their stupid polystyrene hats. In a week of
riding not one of dozens and dozens of riders - men, women, young and old - has
returned my greeting.

I suspect that, because I ride in my normal clothes and a pair of proper shoes,
they think I'm not a ``real'' cyclist. And this is exactly where we're going
wrong. There is not, and shouldn't be, any such thing as a ``real'' cyclist.

Cycling, as I see it, is a celebration of elemental freedom; like the local pub,
it is a great social leveller that admits anyone and asks for nothing in return.
There are no qualifications, no exclusions and no burdens attendant on its
pursuit. That's as it should be. That way, the machine that revealed the marvel
of personal mobility to the masses will continue to make sense a century and a
half after its creation.

But I can't help a nagging suspicion that it is now being hijacked, by
mealy-mouthed local government activists, people with a point to make and, worst
of all, downright miserablists.

So if you happen to be one of those riders who uses my local route, do us a
favour. Do something positive for cycling. Give us a wave.

.. James May co-presents Top Gear, which returns to BBC2 in April

In article ,
David Martin wrote:
So cycling is getting the Top Gear treatment.

It must cause some serious cognitive dissonance to the more hardcode
cyclists when a presenter of Top Gear starts expressing sound views on
cycling in general and helmets and cycle lanes in particular.

ian

Mark Thompson wrote:
Anybody else see the article on cycling by James Moy
in the motoring section of the Saturday Telegraph?
http://tinyurl.com/3a3ua
(registration required I'm afraid)

Full Text:

As seen on TV: On yer bike? Give us a wave!
(Filed: 24/01/2004)

Cycling is a great leveller, and must not be hijacked by
miserablists, says James May


Last week, having been laid up for several days by a pox of such
virulent and ancient strain that it probably appears in medical text
books with "ye'' in front of it, I resolved to do more exercise.

So I bought a new bicycle.
I should admit that I already have several bicycles. There is the
ancient, dark green Raleigh Superbe, a bike made of pig-iron and
Bakelite and of a style that means old people sometimes flag me down
and attempt to place an order with the local butcher. Then there is
the peerless Brompton folder, the bicycle that makes life with a
Bentley garaged eight miles away vaguely feasible. There is also the
Pashley roadster and even an old tandem awaiting restoration.

Unlike some of my professional colleagues, I've always been a big fan
of the bicycle. I believe it might be the world's greatest invention.
A bicycle seems to offer the rare commodity of something for nothing;
a machine that improves the efficiency of the human engine without
consuming anything extra, although you might want a Mars bar before a
big ride.

And it's amazing how much the bicycle has come on in recent years. My
new mount is something called a Dawes Chilliwack - stupid name, but a
great piece of kit, and car makers often get that the other way
round. It has 24 ``indexed'' gears, a sprung saddle post, brilliant
brakes, sponge bar grips and lights with LED bulbs. It cost less than
£250, which is pretty remarkable.

Gone are the days when my bikes were made out of bits scrounged from
neighbours and mates, and when cotter pins hand-crafted in Taiwan out
of the finest cheddar cheese sheared on uphill sections to bring my
chin into character-building contact with the steering-head nut.
Pedal cranks are ``cotterless'' now and the multi-adjustable
handlebars are secured with a smooth and complexion-friendly allen
bolt. The bicycle has never been in better shape.

So it is my sad duty to have to report on the ruin of cycling itself.
Just a week of regular city riding has revealed how much the spirit
of cycling has been repressed.

We'll start with my local network of cycle lanes, which have been
made so incomprehensible and fatuously pedantic that no one takes any
notice of them. And rightly so, because attempts to regulate bicycle
riding run contrary to the urge for total independence that made us
crave the things as children. A mate of mine reports on a new cycle
lane near his house that ends suddenly and abruptly at the edge of a
disused canal. At best this explains why disused canals are always
full of rusty bicycles.

And what's with these so-called "advanced stop lines" that allow
cyclists to wait ahead of cars at traffic lights? I fail to see how
placing a cyclist, inevitably stuck in 22nd gear, in front of my
2·25-ton motor just as the lights change helps the cause of bicycling
in any way. Never mind that all this stuff costs hundreds of
thousands of pounds that could have been spent on hospitals or
housing for the residentially challenged.

What bothers me most, however, is the demeanour of my fellow riders.
Every morning I cycle along the nearby riverside for six miles, in
rain, wind, the lot. So do many other people. And so I wave, I shout
``Good morning'' and other encouragements, or at least deliver the
traditional English acknowledgement of a faint nod.

What do I get in return? Nothing. They hunker into their
waterproof-but-breathable gaily coloured, cycling clothing, stare
hard at lightweight front wheels extruded from 100 per cent
unobtanium, or tilt their heads so their eyes are shielded by their
stupid polystyrene hats. In a week of riding not one of dozens and
dozens of riders - men, women, young and old - has returned my
greeting.

I suspect that, because I ride in my normal clothes and a pair of
proper shoes, they think I'm not a ``real'' cyclist. And this is
exactly where we're going wrong. There is not, and shouldn't be, any
such thing as a ``real'' cyclist.

Cycling, as I see it, is a celebration of elemental freedom; like the
local pub, it is a great social leveller that admits anyone and asks
for nothing in return. There are no qualifications, no exclusions and
no burdens attendant on its pursuit. That's as it should be. That
way, the machine that revealed the marvel of personal mobility to the
masses will continue to make sense a century and a half after its
creation.

But I can't help a nagging suspicion that it is now being hijacked, by
mealy-mouthed local government activists, people with a point to make
and, worst of all, downright miserablists.

So if you happen to be one of those riders who uses my local route,
do us a favour. Do something positive for cycling. Give us a wave.

. James May co-presents Top Gear, which returns to BBC2 in April

Just get on with riding and stop whining Mr May. All the riders you saw were
being part of the solution, not part of the problem, applaud them for that
instead of chastising them. Some folk wave some don't. Why do people get
hung up with this ? If I said hello to every pedestrian when I walked
through the city centre folk would think I was some sort of nutter.



--
The Reply & From email addresses are checked rarely.
http://www.mseries.freeserve.co.uk

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:17:35 -0000, MSeries
wrote:

Just get on with riding and stop whining Mr May. All the riders you saw
were
being part of the solution, not part of the problem, applaud them for
that
instead of chastising them. Some folk wave some don't. Why do people get
hung up with this ? If I said hello to every pedestrian when I walked
through the city centre folk would think I was some sort of nutter.

It vey much depends where you cycle too. If I'm out in the country all
manor of cyclists, real and virtual, will acknowledge me and me them. In
town, as you suggest, it would be barmy, and probably dangerous, to wave
to every cyclist.

Colin
--

"John Hearns" wrote in message
news
I agree about waving back to people - I often wave or
say good morning to people when out on the bike.
The miserablists he's referring to are people togged up in
the latest cyclign gear, who won't even acknowledge a wave.

He's in london.

Would he say hello to anyone he didn't know if he was walking?
Even make eye contact with people on the tube?

On 26-Jan-2004, "MSeries" wrote:

Some folk wave some don't

Here is one of the tasks delegated to the stoker. To wave at cyclists and
pedestrians


--
replace deadspam with btinternet to reply
Tom Anderson
Leighton Buzzard
England

Ian G Batten wrote:

In article ,
David Martin wrote:


So cycling is getting the Top Gear treatment.



It must cause some serious cognitive dissonance to the more hardcode
cyclists when a presenter of Top Gear starts expressing sound views on
cycling in general and helmets and cycle lanes in particular.

ian



Why? Many of the problems facing cyclists are broadly the same as those
facing motorists (and vice versa). Additionally,many of the reasons why
cyclists cycle are the same as the reasons why motorists drive. [1]

Think about it - the problems are largely the same for all road users.
We're all fed up with unconsiderate road users; we're all fed up with
being tarred with the same brush as those idiots; and above all we're
all fed up of having to be treated like idiots in order to protect those
idiots from themselves.

Or at least, thats my take on the situation.


[1] Obviously, cyclist != Bollen-esque lycra lout and motorist !=
Daily-mail reading cager in this context - rather I refer to those
whose choice in transport is largely based on the fact they enjoy their
choosen mode of transport, admit as much, and thus don't need to resort
to dodgy reasons to justify their choice.

Nathaniel David wrote:
Why? Many of the problems facing cyclists are broadly the same as those
facing motorists (and vice versa). Additionally,many of the reasons why
cyclists cycle are the same as the reasons why motorists drive. [1]
Think about it - the problems are largely the same for all road users.
We're all fed up with unconsiderate road users; we're all fed up with
being tarred with the same brush as those idiots; and above all we're
all fed up of having to be treated like idiots in order to protect those
idiots from themselves.
Or at least, thats my take on the situation.

I disagree. Get hit by a car you get bruses, breaks or death. Hit a car
the car gets a scratch. The problems are much more serious for riders
Thats just my take


-

"2LAP" wrote in message
...
Nathaniel David wrote:
Why? Many of the problems facing cyclists are broadly the same as
those
facing motorists (and vice versa). Additionally,many of the reasons
why
cyclists cycle are the same as the reasons why motorists drive. [1]
Think about it - the problems are largely the same for all road users.
We're all fed up with unconsiderate road users; we're all fed up with
being tarred with the same brush as those idiots; and above all we're
all fed up of having to be treated like idiots in order to protect
those
idiots from themselves.
Or at least, thats my take on the situation.


I disagree. Get hit by a car you get bruses, breaks or death. Hit a car,
the car gets a scratch. The problems are much more serious for riders.
Thats just my take!


I think you're missing my point somewhat. What I'm saying is that in order
to reduce road casualties, the government is having to regulate and nanny
road users (motorised or otherwise). Whilst I unreservadely agree that
reducing road casualties is a good thing, and that regulation is necessary I
think its a great that regulation is necessary, and that cycling and
motoring would be rather more enjoyable if society behaved sensibly and
didn't need regulating - it would be more human for a start. Additionally,
we could dispense with lots of unnecessary and ugly traffic signs, cameras
and calming schemes, our roads would be more friendly to all road users and
we could take traffic police off the roads onto doing other things - as all
of these things would become redundant. Everyone would win.

Now I'm not suggesting that if all traffic law was repealed over night that
the roads would suddenly become safer and more pleasant, however, I am
saying we should be aiming for a society were people can be trusted and
don't need telling what to do. Sadly, the thinking at the minute seems to be
the opposite - Northants CC have felt the need to put up signs on the A428
to remind road users that traffic at junctions might turn. I'm sure you'll
agree that its sad that society has become so irresponsible that LAs feel
the need to state the obvious.

I think you're missing point by making it a car vs. bike issue, and too many
people make road safety a battle between the car and everyone else. The
problem is sensible road users against idiotic road users, regardless if
they have 2 or 4 (or any number, or none at all) of wheels.