|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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/ ================================================== ========= |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Another FLJS drivels about cyclists...
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Another FLJS drivels about cyclists...
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Another FLJS drivels about cyclists...
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 -- |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Another FLJS drivels about cyclists...
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 -- |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Another FLJS drivels about cyclists...
"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/ ================================================== ========= |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Another FLJS drivels about cyclists...
"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/ ================================================== ========= |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Another FLJS drivels about cyclists...
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Another FLJS drivels about cyclists...
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Another FLJS drivels about cyclists...
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Road or Sidewalk? | K-Man | General | 74 | June 19th 04 12:26 AM |
Putting cyclists at risk | Wallace Shackleton | UK | 25 | March 19th 04 11:51 AM |
Speeding cyclists | dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers | UK | 152 | March 15th 04 11:03 AM |
Convincing people to use helmets | Oliver Keating | UK | 391 | February 25th 04 11:50 AM |
Mutual respect - long-ish | vernon levy | UK | 4 | January 31st 04 07:04 PM |