That's it, I am no longer defending Cyclists!
Discussion
heebeegeetee said:
saaby93 said:
Schmed said:
Only retarded lemmings with no sense of self preservation would challenge sensible Highway Code advice to “wear helmets and protective clothing”. Jesus Christ.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jan/...
Good video https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jan/...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=372&am...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-46790235/...
DonkeyApple said:
Out of interest what is the obsession with weight? Why does that crop up so often in this thread with people accusing those who don’t cycle of being fat?
Why do the militant cyclists think that they are such superior humans? We keep seeing these references to fat people, unhealthy people, stupid people etc.
As Julian pointed out earlier, most people just get along fine on the roads but there seems to be these militant extremists who cause friction and going around thinking that you are superior is going to put you at one end of that group while at the other end will be the downtrodden blokes who see an opportunity to stick it to their ‘line manager’ of whatever it is that causes them to seek out confrontation with vulnerable road users.
If people really want to see one of the reasons why cycling works better in some other countries they should study the mental state of the white, middle management males who are cycling.
Bit of a sweeping generalisation there. What next, white privilege because you own a bike? I'm sure we have been down this road before on here where you have grouped people by their appearance and apparent career level. Bit of an odd thing to do.Why do the militant cyclists think that they are such superior humans? We keep seeing these references to fat people, unhealthy people, stupid people etc.
As Julian pointed out earlier, most people just get along fine on the roads but there seems to be these militant extremists who cause friction and going around thinking that you are superior is going to put you at one end of that group while at the other end will be the downtrodden blokes who see an opportunity to stick it to their ‘line manager’ of whatever it is that causes them to seek out confrontation with vulnerable road users.
If people really want to see one of the reasons why cycling works better in some other countries they should study the mental state of the white, middle management males who are cycling.
Of all of the white middle management male people I know, they wouldn't be seen dead on a bicycle. They prefer Audi's.
There is much more to the reason why cycling works better in other countries. The infrastructure is geared towards it, there are laws around drivers being found at fault by default (unless there are specific circumstances) if they have a collision with vulnerable road users, the attitude towards cycling is completely different (people just use their bikes), etc.
You are right about militants. But there are militants in every walk of life. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I was abused last year by a bloke in a Focus because I dared to ride on the road. I wasn't doing anything wrong. Wasn't holding him up. He just didn't like me being on 'his' road. I don't go around labelling all blokes who drive a Focus w
kers now.deltashad said:
yonex said:
Did you have a point, or was that a mild attempt to prove a tenuous link between cycling and crap cars?
That's a perfectly good useable vehicle with many attributes.funkyrobot said:
Bit of a sweeping generalisation there. What next, white privilege because you own a bike? I'm sure we have been down this road before on here where you have grouped people by their appearance and apparent career level. Bit of an odd thing to do.
Of all of the white middle management male people I know, they wouldn't be seen dead on a bicycle. They prefer Audi's.
There is much more to the reason why cycling works better in other countries. The infrastructure is geared towards it, there are laws around drivers being found at fault by default (unless there are specific circumstances) if they have a collision with vulnerable road users, the attitude towards cycling is completely different (people just use their bikes), etc.
You are right about militants. But there are militants in every walk of life. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I was abused last year by a bloke in a Focus because I dared to ride on the road. I wasn't doing anything wrong. Wasn't holding him up. He just didn't like me being on 'his' road. I don't go around labelling all blokes who drive a Focus wkers now.
I agree, militants are militants, they are found everywhere and arguably the ones who use their cars as extentionsnof their militancy are much more dangerous to all of us but that doesn’t mean we should tolerate or excuse any of them. Of all of the white middle management male people I know, they wouldn't be seen dead on a bicycle. They prefer Audi's.
There is much more to the reason why cycling works better in other countries. The infrastructure is geared towards it, there are laws around drivers being found at fault by default (unless there are specific circumstances) if they have a collision with vulnerable road users, the attitude towards cycling is completely different (people just use their bikes), etc.
You are right about militants. But there are militants in every walk of life. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I was abused last year by a bloke in a Focus because I dared to ride on the road. I wasn't doing anything wrong. Wasn't holding him up. He just didn't like me being on 'his' road. I don't go around labelling all blokes who drive a Focus w
kers now.I don’t see any difference between the chap who thinks he’s superior because he is in an Audi and the chap who thinks he’s superior because he is on a bike. To me they are just the opposing sides of the same coin and a menace to the majority of road users who all get along fine.
As for generalisations, you only need to wander along Embankment on a morning to see that cycling is very much the preserve of a specific demographic and to me that forms an integral part of why some car/van drivers find themselves dangerously venting at cyclists’ expense.
Outside of the clueless chump who, for example, just turns left without checking to see if a cyclist is there the majority of incidents I witness are when a driver has very deliberately sought completely avoidable confrontation with a cyclist such as passing deliberately closely, or pulling away at the lights to catch a cyclist etc. At the same time I see cyclists deliberately move themselves into confrontation with other road users. Forget infrastructure differences on the continent, it is this typical British aggressive and confrontational behaviour that is the big cultural difference.
And to me, when I see posters alluding to fat people, stupid people or unhealthy people what I see is a that typical Little Briton who thinks he is superior to others and is part of the problem.
DonkeyApple said:
I agree, militants are militants, they are found everywhere and arguably the ones who use their cars as extentionsnof their militancy are much more dangerous to all of us but that doesn’t mean we should tolerate or excuse any of them.
I don’t see any difference between the chap who thinks he’s superior because he is in an Audi and the chap who thinks he’s superior because he is on a bike. To me they are just the opposing sides of the same coin and a menace to the majority of road users who all get along fine.
As for generalisations, you only need to wander along Embankment on a morning to see that cycling is very much the preserve of a specific demographic and to me that forms an integral part of why some car/van drivers find themselves dangerously venting at cyclists’ expense.
Outside of the clueless chump who, for example, just turns left without checking to see if a cyclist is there the majority of incidents I witness are when a driver has very deliberately sought completely avoidable confrontation with a cyclist such as passing deliberately closely, or pulling away at the lights to catch a cyclist etc. At the same time I see cyclists deliberately move themselves into confrontation with other road users. Forget infrastructure differences on the continent, it is this typical British aggressive and confrontational behaviour that is the big cultural difference.
And to me, when I see posters alluding to fat people, stupid people or unhealthy people what I see is a that typical Little Briton who thinks he is superior to others and is part of the problem.
I agree. There are militants using each type of vehicle. There are even militant pedestrians. I don’t see any difference between the chap who thinks he’s superior because he is in an Audi and the chap who thinks he’s superior because he is on a bike. To me they are just the opposing sides of the same coin and a menace to the majority of road users who all get along fine.
As for generalisations, you only need to wander along Embankment on a morning to see that cycling is very much the preserve of a specific demographic and to me that forms an integral part of why some car/van drivers find themselves dangerously venting at cyclists’ expense.
Outside of the clueless chump who, for example, just turns left without checking to see if a cyclist is there the majority of incidents I witness are when a driver has very deliberately sought completely avoidable confrontation with a cyclist such as passing deliberately closely, or pulling away at the lights to catch a cyclist etc. At the same time I see cyclists deliberately move themselves into confrontation with other road users. Forget infrastructure differences on the continent, it is this typical British aggressive and confrontational behaviour that is the big cultural difference.
And to me, when I see posters alluding to fat people, stupid people or unhealthy people what I see is a that typical Little Briton who thinks he is superior to others and is part of the problem.
I just can't generalise someone based on what they look like and what job I think they do. You also can't generalise based on what you see in one part of London.
saaby93 said:
heebeegeetee said:
saaby93 said:
Schmed said:
Only retarded lemmings with no sense of self preservation would challenge sensible Highway Code advice to “wear helmets and protective clothing”. Jesus Christ.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jan/...
Good video https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jan/...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=372&am...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-46790235/...
The main argument against is that it makes cycling less attractive as an activity!
Well what if it does?
Who is that desperate to keep cycling numbers up, even to the detriment of individual cyclists we have to ask ourselves.
DonkeyApple said:
Out of interest what is the obsession with weight? Why does that crop up so often in this thread with people accusing those who don’t cycle of being fat?
Why do the militant cyclists think that they are such superior humans? We keep seeing these references to fat people, unhealthy people, stupid people etc.
As Julian pointed out earlier, most people just get along fine on the roads but there seems to be these militant extremists who cause friction and going around thinking that you are superior is going to put you at one end of that group while at the other end will be the downtrodden blokes who see an opportunity to stick it to their ‘line manager’ of whatever it is that causes them to seek out confrontation with vulnerable road users.
If people really want to see one of the reasons why cycling works better in some other countries they should study the mental state of the white, middle management males who are cycling.
No obsession at all, unlike the usual suspects I couldn’t care less what others do and have no problem navigating cyclists on the road. It seems that all some exist on here for is to slag off cyclists. It’s very odd. Why do the militant cyclists think that they are such superior humans? We keep seeing these references to fat people, unhealthy people, stupid people etc.
As Julian pointed out earlier, most people just get along fine on the roads but there seems to be these militant extremists who cause friction and going around thinking that you are superior is going to put you at one end of that group while at the other end will be the downtrodden blokes who see an opportunity to stick it to their ‘line manager’ of whatever it is that causes them to seek out confrontation with vulnerable road users.
If people really want to see one of the reasons why cycling works better in some other countries they should study the mental state of the white, middle management males who are cycling.
swisstoni said:
Re the Guardian video; it acknowledges that wearing a helmet is beneficial to the individual in the event of a fall.
The main argument against is that it makes cycling less attractive as an activity!
Well what if it does?
Who is that desperate to keep cycling numbers up, even to the detriment of individual cyclists we have to ask ourselves.
Do we really ask ourselves that? Really?The main argument against is that it makes cycling less attractive as an activity!
Well what if it does?
Who is that desperate to keep cycling numbers up, even to the detriment of individual cyclists we have to ask ourselves.
It's all about the management of risk. Thousands of cyclists ride thousands of miles every day, and few of them fall off. Few of those who fall off seriously hurt themselves, beyond a little road rash. So the risk of a serious head injury that might be mitigated against by the wearing of a helmet is very small indeed while "utility" cycling, wearing "normal clothes" on "normal (whatever they are) roads". So people don't.
There are far greater risks from driving badly, or cheaply maintained cars. Bald tyres, a rain shower, and a diesel spill will swiftly combine to put a driver upside down in a ditch. Yet thousands of idiots will drive with illegally worn to excess tyres for months before an MOT tester tells them they absolutely must buy new (or remoulded/part worn) tyres in order to keep their car on the road. This risk extends to other road users (presumably like you and me) who buy quality tyres and don't wait until the cords are showing to replace them. Yet we still get morons (even here on PistonHeads) trotting out the "snitches get stitches" line when people admit that they reported a car with defective tyres to the police.
So if I'm being advised to "mind my own business" about defective lights, tyres, etc on other people's cars, even when they DO pose a significant risk to me and people I care about, then I'll bid you, and anyone else involved in this debate, to "mind your own business" about perfectly safe and legal stuff that has no conceivable effect on you or anyone other than the helmetless riders themselves.
I almost always ride with a helmet out of choice. I wear one on roads because knob-heads overfill fuel tanks and dump oilslicks on roundabouts, etc, so I might find myself face-planting on a bend or corner through no fault of my own. I was once knocked off my bike by a van, breaking my shoulder-blade. My helmet was entirely unmarked, having not made contact with the van, or the road, at all. I religiously wear a lid on the MTB trails because that's the one type of riding where a helmet HAS prevented injuries for me. Not serious injuries, but the odd contact with a low-hanging branch, or dragging my head through a Gorse bush would have been far less shrug-offable if I'd been bare-headed. It's the same reason I wear ballistic protection glasses when riding. I've needed the protection of glasses both on the road and off far more times than I've relied upon the limited protection of a polystyrene hat. Yet there isn't a road safety campaign urging all cyclists to wear protective spectacles to ensure that loose stones, etc, flicked up by vehicle tyres don't rob them of their eyesight.
Management of risk. You do it every day, unconsciously or consciously. Whether to cross the road or wait for that car to pass? Whether to take an umbrella out on a cloudy day? Whether or not to play golf in a thunderstorm? So I'll thank you and anyone else with an unsolicited opinion to keep said opinions to themselves and let me get on with assessing my own unique set of risks.
And yes. If helmets were made compulsory, then cyclist numbers WOULD shrink, according to almost anyone who has studied and published papers on the subject. This would remove the "safety in numbers" aspect of mass participation cycling, and drivers would be less "tuned in" to encountering cyclists on the road. Proportionately, according to studies in countries where helmets ARE compulsory, collisions, and consequently injuries, increase. Making it measurably more dangerous. This is irony on a grand scale, after the reason most loudmouths use for making helmet use compulsory turns out to be a desire to "make cycling safer".
TL;DR? If you don't understand something, leave it well alone, ta very much...
yonex said:
No obsession at all, unlike the usual suspects I couldn’t care less what others do and have no problem navigating cyclists on the road. It seems that all some exist on here for is to slag off cyclists. It’s very odd.
Precisely.I happen to think that collecting overpriced wristwatches is quite sad, and borderline insanity. So I stay out of the watches threads, and don't start GG threads questioning the wit and wisdom of fools and their money. But cyclist-hating (and baiting) on PistonHeads has gone so far now that it is quite beyond parody.
I'm just about to drive to an appointment. I forecast that I'll be held up by cyclists for the sum total of zero minutes and zero seconds. Yet I'll almost certainly spend about five minutes of my journey waiting unnecessarily at roundabouts because other drivers cannot fathom basic road positioning and indication, or waiting for oncoming traffic to clear so that I can drive around a parked car that is obstructing my progress along the highway. Add in idiots trying to reverse out of driveways into established traffic, the phone zombies who don't notice that the traffic light has been green for about 20 seconds already, and absolute f
knuggets who wait against the nearside edge of the carriageway to turn right, or stick their car diagonally into a right turn filter lane thereby negating it's purpose (to let them clear out of everyone else's way), and I reckon I should probably have left ten minutes ago to allow for all the delays caused by other drivers. And while I'm driving along, every other driver will be quietly cursing me for being on the road because they'll also feel that if I wasn't there, then they'd be able to get to their destination faster. Oh, and my car journey will be three (or more) miles longer than a bicycle ride to the same destination because on the bike I can cross the two railway lines via a pedestrian level crossing and a footbridge, whereas in the car I have to drive to the (one under, one over) road bridges on the route... ...and so the cycle of hypocrisy will continue to slowly roll along.
Where do we stand on these things? I regularly follow a gentleman on the A4 at 7am holding up traffic whilst peddling in the middle of the road. He's well lit, and going as quick as possible, but ignores laybys/bus stops where he could easily let the early morning commuters go by....
80sMatchbox said:
As an aside, is there any other situation on PH where men's atire is judged like it is on cycling threads? Do men who do this spend their day commenting as such regardless of situations?
I can't speak for anyone else, but when I see someone dressed in a multicoloured clown suit, taking themselves 'oh-so-seriously', I can't help but laugh. The fact that many of them look like a cross between Mr Blobby and the Michelin Man is just icing on the cake. 
The best one so far was a stick-thin guy, wearing a one-piece dayglo-yellow Lycra catsuit, pink cycle helmet, and leg warmers, carrying ski poles, whilst riding a unicycle along a narrow country lane near me. Priceless!
And no, I'm not being deliberately contentious to wind up the Lycra brigade. And yes, I do laugh at myself too - frequently.
swisstoni said:
Re the Guardian video; it acknowledges that wearing a helmet is beneficial to the individual in the event of a fall.
The main argument against is that it makes cycling less attractive as an activity!
Well what if it does?
Who is that desperate to keep cycling numbers up, even to the detriment of individual cyclists we have to ask ourselves.
As the health professional in the video says, "There's an overwhelming body of evidence that the health benefits of cycling vastly, vastly outweigh the health risks."The main argument against is that it makes cycling less attractive as an activity!
Well what if it does?
Who is that desperate to keep cycling numbers up, even to the detriment of individual cyclists we have to ask ourselves.
It's also very well known that cyclists are safer in numbers (as I guess everyone else is) and so by reducing the numbers of cyclists the accident rate is raised.
I really don't know why there is such an obsession of saving few "individual cyclists" from themselves given that 85,000 die from inactivity each year.
The other enormous mystery for me is, as you say: "acknowledges that wearing a helmet is beneficial to the individual in the event of a fall." - why would this only apply to cyclists? Answer: It doesn't. *Everybody* would benefit from a helmet when having a fall or accident. I have read that there is a person with an ABI (Acquired brain injury) admitted to hospital every 90 seconds. That's 'admitted' mind, not just visiting A&E, every 90 seconds.
Every single one of those would have benefited from a helmet, and vehicle occupants make up 44% of road casualties (even with all the air bags and seat belts etc), as opposed to 6% being cyclists, so why aren't we making sure the 44% are wearing helmets and not some piddling 6%?
Mort7 said:
I can't speak for anyone else, but when I see someone dressed in a multicoloured clown suit, taking themselves 'oh-so-seriously', I can't help but laugh. The fact that many of them look like a cross between Mr Blobby and the Michelin Man is just icing on the cake.
The best one so far was a stick-thin guy, wearing a one-piece dayglo-yellow Lycra catsuit, pink cycle helmet, and leg warmers, carrying ski poles, whilst riding a unicycle along a narrow country lane near me. Priceless!
And no, I'm not being deliberately contentious to wind up the Lycra brigade. And yes, I do laugh at myself too - frequently.
I think a lot of people on here can laugh at themselves(I do all the time) and ridiculous things that they wear at tines but that's not what I was referring too. The best one so far was a stick-thin guy, wearing a one-piece dayglo-yellow Lycra catsuit, pink cycle helmet, and leg warmers, carrying ski poles, whilst riding a unicycle along a narrow country lane near me. Priceless!
And no, I'm not being deliberately contentious to wind up the Lycra brigade. And yes, I do laugh at myself too - frequently.
It's really in reference to phrases like "lycra warrior" or even "lycra brigade" not said in jest.
I've been known to wear my fair share of lycra. If I happened to be in a place where one wouldn't usually wear it(a Friday night takeaway on the way home from a ride), no one has ever said anything to me. Well, except for a woman with a teenage son who did look me up and down once or twice, and make some suggestive comments.
Women don't seem to have any issue with it, quite the opposite.
L500 said:
Where do we stand on these things? I regularly follow a gentleman on the A4 at 7am holding up traffic whilst peddling in the middle of the road. He's well lit, and going as quick as possible, but ignores laybys/bus stops where he could easily let the early morning commuters go by....
L500 said:
Where do we stand on these things? I regularly follow a gentleman on the A4 at 7am holding up traffic whilst peddling in the middle of the road. He's well lit, and going as quick as possible, but ignores laybys/bus stops where he could easily let the early morning commuters go by....
heebeegeetee said:
swisstoni said:
Re the Guardian video; it acknowledges that wearing a helmet is beneficial to the individual in the event of a fall.
The main argument against is that it makes cycling less attractive as an activity!
Well what if it does?
Who is that desperate to keep cycling numbers up, even to the detriment of individual cyclists we have to ask ourselves.
As the health professional in the video says, "There's an overwhelming body of evidence that the health benefits of cycling vastly, vastly outweigh the health risks."The main argument against is that it makes cycling less attractive as an activity!
Well what if it does?
Who is that desperate to keep cycling numbers up, even to the detriment of individual cyclists we have to ask ourselves.
It's also very well known that cyclists are safer in numbers (as I guess everyone else is) and so by reducing the numbers of cyclists the accident rate is raised.
I really don't know why there is such an obsession of saving few "individual cyclists" from themselves given that 85,000 die from inactivity each year.
The other enormous mystery for me is, as you say: "acknowledges that wearing a helmet is beneficial to the individual in the event of a fall." - why would this only apply to cyclists? Answer: It doesn't. *Everybody* would benefit from a helmet when having a fall or accident. I have read that there is a person with an ABI (Acquired brain injury) admitted to hospital every 90 seconds. That's 'admitted' mind, not just visiting A&E, every 90 seconds.
Every single one of those would have benefited from a helmet, and vehicle occupants make up 44% of road casualties (even with all the air bags and seat belts etc), as opposed to 6% being cyclists, so why aren't we making sure the 44% are wearing helmets and not some piddling 6%?
Also if people didn't cycle its very likely that those would do some other physical activity like walking. So claiming to be doing the country a massive favour is a spurious stat too.
swisstoni said:
1. The 'cycling lobby' seem threatened by any chances of the number of cyclists dwindling and are clearly happy so sow seeds of doubt about head protection for cyclists so that they are not dissuaded from cycling. That is vaguely sinister frankly.
2. Also if people didn't cycle its very likely that those would do some other physical activity like walking. So claiming to be doing the country a massive favour is a spurious stat too.
1. You don't know that the health professionals in that video are cyclists., they certainly haven't said they are.2. Also if people didn't cycle its very likely that those would do some other physical activity like walking. So claiming to be doing the country a massive favour is a spurious stat too.
2. *Exactly*. And pedestrians have a higher fatality rate than cyclists.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff