Another FLJS drivels about cyclists...

This morning's Indy

http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/m...p?story=504036

"Ruth Brandon: Can anything stop the new breed of boy-racer cyclists?

They view traffic signs as a challenge rather than an instruction

23 March 2004

I've been thinking about cyclists a lot recently. I try not to, but then
there they are again, whizzing along the pavement or just failing to cause
an accident as they swoop the wrong way up a one-way street. Drivers always
hated them; now pedestrians hate them, too. What's happened to them?

Cyclists used to be sedate and benevolent. In Britain they were steeds for
penniless students, cloth-capped trade unionists or unfashion-conscious
dons. In Holland and Denmark even royalty used them, spreading a benign
social-democratic glow as they pedalled virtuously and non-pollutingly
along.

Then, round about 10 or so years ago, two things happened. Bikes shed their
dowdy, respectable image, becoming flashy, fast and tremendously expensive.
And the world fell prey to new fears. Everyone knew cars were dangerous and
dirty: now, as global warming replaced pollution at the top of the
mass-killer agenda, it seemed they were deadly in other ways. Cyclists, on
their smart, shiny new machines, suddenly became trendy, and virtuous to
boot.

The result, in London at least, is a race of two-wheeled hyenas. Convinced
that they alone are saving the world, cyclists ignore every rule of the
road.

The average cyclist used to be a middle-aged matron: now it's a young man
filled with boy-racer testosterone, and since he's unlikely to kill anyone,
he views traffic signs as a challenge rather than an instruction. No entry?
For the birds. One way street? A ludicrous idea! Red light?

Coward!

These new cyclists even ignore "No Cycling" signs. Years ago, I was knocked
down by a bike outside the Oxo Tower. So, it seems, were others: now there
are bollards and a notice saying "No Cycles". Do they dismount? Do they
hell.

For Londoners, before Ken Livingstone became Mayor, you could almost
sympathise. There was so much traffic there was no room for even the
slimmest cyclist. I was once walking down Gower Street when a motorcycle
mounted the pavement. By comparison, pedal-cyclists seemed very small beer.

But we have a new age. If traffic is blocked in London now, it is probably
due to new cycle lanes, built to accommodate the post-congestion-charge
influx of two-wheel social benefactors. These are not much used by cyclists.
They shun the hateful things, boringly safe as they are.

Cyclists prefer a bit of edge.

The other day I noticed one ignore the cycle lane in a square in favour of a
quick weave through the taxi-cabs prior to a foray the wrong way up the main
road. I've even seen them ride along the pavement with a cycle lane beside
them.

Pavements are for pedestrians. There are exceptions. Pavements contain
wheelchairs, buggies and prams; they even, grudgingly, accommodate in-lines,
skateboards and those little shiny scooters.

It's a slippery slope, and cyclists take full advantage. If in-lines (you
can hear them think), why not bikes? I, too, can be an honorary pedestrian
(as, for some vegetarians, fish become honorary vegetables).

Recently, I met one. I was at the kerb, waiting to cross the road; he drew
up on the pavement beside me. "Lovely day," he observed. "You're not allowed
on the pavement," I boorishly replied. He looked as though I'd done
something unforgivable. Can't a chap pass the time of day without some old
cow jumping down his throat? But others had heard: unwillingly, he pedalled
off -- needless to say, jumping a red light.

I felt like those denizens of old New York who, when the first cyclists
appeared, scattered tin-tacks in their path. Right is on our side, but it
won't prevail."

Gun...petrol...matches...

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========

Dave Larrington wrote:
This morning's Indy


http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/m...story.jsp?stor
y=504036

Deriding that as drivel is pointless. I drive and cycle, and acknowledge
that a lot of cyclists ride without the correct lights and often on the
pavement, and don't use cycle paths. On Sunday morning when I was in Norwich
a couple of cyclists came along the pavement abreast with each other,
despite there being a cycle path on the correct side of the road for their
direction of travel less than 3 feet away. I doubt that many of the people
who cycle like this are members of cycle clubs, but are mostly people who
use their bike to get from A to B.

Dave Larrington wrote:
This morning's Indy


http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/m...story.jsp?stor
y=504036

Deriding that as drivel is pointless. I drive and cycle, and acknowledge
that a lot of cyclists ride without the correct lights and often on the
pavement, and don't use cycle paths. On Sunday morning when I was in Norwich
a couple of cyclists came along the pavement abreast with each other,
despite there being a cycle path on the correct side of the road for their
direction of travel less than 3 feet away. I doubt that many of the people
who cycle like this are members of cycle clubs, but are mostly people who
use their bike to get from A to B.

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:37:55 -0000, Doki wrote:



Dave Larrington wrote:
This morning's Indy


http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/m...story.jsp?stor
y=504036

Deriding that as drivel is pointless. I drive and cycle, and acknowledge
that a lot of cyclists ride without the correct lights and often on the
pavement, and don't use cycle paths.

While acknowledging that a lot of cyclists ride without the correct lights
and often on the pavement, which is wrong of them, the article is drivel
because she writes: "If traffic is blocked in London now, it is probably
due to new cycle lanes, built to accommodate the post-congestion-charge
influx of two-wheel social benefactors. These are not much used by
cyclists. They shun the hateful things, boringly safe as they are."

Cycle lanes are not boringly safe. Cyclists have a right to use the road
fully rather than being forced to use a dangerous, narrow, litter strewn
gutter.

Colin
--

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:37:55 -0000, Doki wrote:



Dave Larrington wrote:
This morning's Indy


http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/m...story.jsp?stor
y=504036

Deriding that as drivel is pointless. I drive and cycle, and acknowledge
that a lot of cyclists ride without the correct lights and often on the
pavement, and don't use cycle paths.

While acknowledging that a lot of cyclists ride without the correct lights
and often on the pavement, which is wrong of them, the article is drivel
because she writes: "If traffic is blocked in London now, it is probably
due to new cycle lanes, built to accommodate the post-congestion-charge
influx of two-wheel social benefactors. These are not much used by
cyclists. They shun the hateful things, boringly safe as they are."

Cycle lanes are not boringly safe. Cyclists have a right to use the road
fully rather than being forced to use a dangerous, narrow, litter strewn
gutter.

Colin
--

"Dave Larrington" wrote in message
...
This morning's Indy


http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/m...p?story=504036

"Ruth Brandon: Can anything stop the new breed of boy-racer cyclists?

They view traffic signs as a challenge rather than an instruction

23 March 2004

I've been thinking about cyclists a lot recently. I try not to, but then
there they are again, whizzing along the pavement or just failing to cause
an accident as they swoop the wrong way up a one-way street. Drivers
always
hated them; now pedestrians hate them, too. What's happened to them?

Cyclists used to be sedate and benevolent. In Britain they were steeds for
penniless students, cloth-capped trade unionists or unfashion-conscious
dons. In Holland and Denmark even royalty used them, spreading a benign
social-democratic glow as they pedalled virtuously and non-pollutingly
along.

Then, round about 10 or so years ago, two things happened. Bikes shed
their
dowdy, respectable image, becoming flashy, fast and tremendously
expensive.
And the world fell prey to new fears. Everyone knew cars were dangerous
and
dirty: now, as global warming replaced pollution at the top of the
mass-killer agenda, it seemed they were deadly in other ways. Cyclists, on
their smart, shiny new machines, suddenly became trendy, and virtuous to
boot.

The result, in London at least, is a race of two-wheeled hyenas. Convinced
that they alone are saving the world, cyclists ignore every rule of the
road.

The average cyclist used to be a middle-aged matron: now it's a young man
filled with boy-racer testosterone, and since he's unlikely to kill
anyone,
he views traffic signs as a challenge rather than an instruction. No
entry?
For the birds. One way street? A ludicrous idea! Red light?

Coward!

These new cyclists even ignore "No Cycling" signs. Years ago, I was
knocked
down by a bike outside the Oxo Tower. So, it seems, were others: now there
are bollards and a notice saying "No Cycles". Do they dismount? Do they
hell.

For Londoners, before Ken Livingstone became Mayor, you could almost
sympathise. There was so much traffic there was no room for even the
slimmest cyclist. I was once walking down Gower Street when a motorcycle
mounted the pavement. By comparison, pedal-cyclists seemed very small
beer.

But we have a new age. If traffic is blocked in London now, it is probably
due to new cycle lanes, built to accommodate the post-congestion-charge
influx of two-wheel social benefactors. These are not much used by
cyclists.
They shun the hateful things, boringly safe as they are.

Cyclists prefer a bit of edge.

The other day I noticed one ignore the cycle lane in a square in favour of
a
quick weave through the taxi-cabs prior to a foray the wrong way up the
main
road. I've even seen them ride along the pavement with a cycle lane beside
them.

Pavements are for pedestrians. There are exceptions. Pavements contain
wheelchairs, buggies and prams; they even, grudgingly, accommodate
in-lines,
skateboards and those little shiny scooters.

It's a slippery slope, and cyclists take full advantage. If in-lines (you
can hear them think), why not bikes? I, too, can be an honorary pedestrian
(as, for some vegetarians, fish become honorary vegetables).

Recently, I met one. I was at the kerb, waiting to cross the road; he drew
up on the pavement beside me. "Lovely day," he observed. "You're not
allowed
on the pavement," I boorishly replied. He looked as though I'd done
something unforgivable. Can't a chap pass the time of day without some old
cow jumping down his throat? But others had heard: unwillingly, he
pedalled
off -- needless to say, jumping a red light.

I felt like those denizens of old New York who, when the first cyclists
appeared, scattered tin-tacks in their path. Right is on our side, but it
won't prevail."

Gun...petrol...matches...

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/

How about changing the word "Cyclist" for black or paki. Do you think she
would be so sweeping then ?

Graham
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========

"Dave Larrington" wrote in message
...
This morning's Indy


http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/m...p?story=504036

"Ruth Brandon: Can anything stop the new breed of boy-racer cyclists?

They view traffic signs as a challenge rather than an instruction

23 March 2004

I've been thinking about cyclists a lot recently. I try not to, but then
there they are again, whizzing along the pavement or just failing to cause
an accident as they swoop the wrong way up a one-way street. Drivers
always
hated them; now pedestrians hate them, too. What's happened to them?

Cyclists used to be sedate and benevolent. In Britain they were steeds for
penniless students, cloth-capped trade unionists or unfashion-conscious
dons. In Holland and Denmark even royalty used them, spreading a benign
social-democratic glow as they pedalled virtuously and non-pollutingly
along.

Then, round about 10 or so years ago, two things happened. Bikes shed
their
dowdy, respectable image, becoming flashy, fast and tremendously
expensive.
And the world fell prey to new fears. Everyone knew cars were dangerous
and
dirty: now, as global warming replaced pollution at the top of the
mass-killer agenda, it seemed they were deadly in other ways. Cyclists, on
their smart, shiny new machines, suddenly became trendy, and virtuous to
boot.

The result, in London at least, is a race of two-wheeled hyenas. Convinced
that they alone are saving the world, cyclists ignore every rule of the
road.

The average cyclist used to be a middle-aged matron: now it's a young man
filled with boy-racer testosterone, and since he's unlikely to kill
anyone,
he views traffic signs as a challenge rather than an instruction. No
entry?
For the birds. One way street? A ludicrous idea! Red light?

Coward!

These new cyclists even ignore "No Cycling" signs. Years ago, I was
knocked
down by a bike outside the Oxo Tower. So, it seems, were others: now there
are bollards and a notice saying "No Cycles". Do they dismount? Do they
hell.

For Londoners, before Ken Livingstone became Mayor, you could almost
sympathise. There was so much traffic there was no room for even the
slimmest cyclist. I was once walking down Gower Street when a motorcycle
mounted the pavement. By comparison, pedal-cyclists seemed very small
beer.

But we have a new age. If traffic is blocked in London now, it is probably
due to new cycle lanes, built to accommodate the post-congestion-charge
influx of two-wheel social benefactors. These are not much used by
cyclists.
They shun the hateful things, boringly safe as they are.

Cyclists prefer a bit of edge.

The other day I noticed one ignore the cycle lane in a square in favour of
a
quick weave through the taxi-cabs prior to a foray the wrong way up the
main
road. I've even seen them ride along the pavement with a cycle lane beside
them.

Pavements are for pedestrians. There are exceptions. Pavements contain
wheelchairs, buggies and prams; they even, grudgingly, accommodate
in-lines,
skateboards and those little shiny scooters.

It's a slippery slope, and cyclists take full advantage. If in-lines (you
can hear them think), why not bikes? I, too, can be an honorary pedestrian
(as, for some vegetarians, fish become honorary vegetables).

Recently, I met one. I was at the kerb, waiting to cross the road; he drew
up on the pavement beside me. "Lovely day," he observed. "You're not
allowed
on the pavement," I boorishly replied. He looked as though I'd done
something unforgivable. Can't a chap pass the time of day without some old
cow jumping down his throat? But others had heard: unwillingly, he
pedalled
off -- needless to say, jumping a red light.

I felt like those denizens of old New York who, when the first cyclists
appeared, scattered tin-tacks in their path. Right is on our side, but it
won't prevail."

Gun...petrol...matches...

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/

How about changing the word "Cyclist" for black or paki. Do you think she
would be so sweeping then ?

Graham
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========

How about changing the word "Cyclist" for black or paki. Do you think she
would be so sweeping then ?

If somebody has a prejudice against people on bicycles, is that called
being "cyclistist"?

--
DISCLAIMER: My email box is private property.Email which
appears in my inbox is mine to do what I like with.
Anything which is sent to me (whether intended or not)
may, if I so desire, form a legal and binding contract.

How about changing the word "Cyclist" for black or paki. Do you think she
would be so sweeping then ?

If somebody has a prejudice against people on bicycles, is that called
being "cyclistist"?

--
DISCLAIMER: My email box is private property.Email which
appears in my inbox is mine to do what I like with.
Anything which is sent to me (whether intended or not)
may, if I so desire, form a legal and binding contract.

Colin Blackburn wrote:
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 14:37:55 -0000, Doki
wrote:



Dave Larrington wrote:
This morning's Indy



http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/m...story.jsp?stor
y=504036

Deriding that as drivel is pointless. I drive and cycle, and
acknowledge that a lot of cyclists ride without the correct lights
and often on the pavement, and don't use cycle paths.

While acknowledging that a lot of cyclists ride without the correct
lights and often on the pavement, which is wrong of them, the article
is drivel because she writes: "If traffic is blocked in London now,
it is probably due to new cycle lanes, built to accommodate the
post-congestion-charge influx of two-wheel social benefactors. These
are not much used by cyclists. They shun the hateful things, boringly
safe as they are."

Cycle lanes are not boringly safe. Cyclists have a right to use the
road fully rather than being forced to use a dangerous, narrow,
litter strewn gutter.

One rather daft hyperbolic statement doesn't make her article drivel. I
don't live anywhere near any cycle lanes and probably wouldn't ride
drastically differently if they were put in around here. If I were riding in
a busy city centre where a bike can often go quicker than cars, I'd be
inclined to not use it sometimes to avoid overtaking on the wrong side and
making things rather more dangerous than I'd like. It seems drivers and
cyclists generally dislike cycle lanes for different reasons.