# He touched my car



## Pale Rider (27 Oct 2012)

Trundling through heavy traffic into York in my car this morning a roadie made his way up the nearside and rested his right hand on my bootlid.

I'm guessing this was to save him from unclipping his cleats as he knew we would be off again in a few seconds, which we were.

Do lots of road cyclists do this?

First time it's happened to me, although I don't drive a lot in traffic.

And is resting your hand on another vehicle acceptable or sensible behaviour?


----------



## HLaB (27 Oct 2012)

I've seen it in a funny youtube clip, somebody will probably dig out and youtube clips of couriers but I've never actually seen someone do it.


----------



## Saluki (27 Oct 2012)

Maybe he was warming his hand up?


----------



## al78 (27 Oct 2012)

HLaB said:


> I've seen it in a funny youtube clip, somebody will probably dig out and youtube clips of couriers but I've never actually seen someone do it.


 

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jWvAxjG0kg


----------



## smokeysmoo (27 Oct 2012)

I've used buses, vans and other commercial vehicles on occasion, although very infrequently TBH, but for some reason I never use cars, go figure


----------



## gaz (27 Oct 2012)

I do it to busses now and then, but in the blind spot of the driver.
Wouldn't do it to any other vehicle.


----------



## sidevalve (27 Oct 2012)

Bit of a poor idea IMHO as it does put you a bit close to another vehicle. Besides if you need something to hang on to just because you can't be bothered putting your foot down either your in a bigger rush than the car drivers or you need to practice unclipping faster. What if there were no cars, would he just fall over ?


----------



## Firestorm (27 Oct 2012)

My Dad did this many years ago
Leant on the wheel arch of a Post Office van
In the 50's they were rubber, it folded and slowly dumped him in the road


----------



## Andrew_Culture (27 Oct 2012)

I've only done it while taking evasive action.


----------



## Accy cyclist (28 Oct 2012)

I'd take it as a sign of trust, meaning that he knew you wouldn't mind because he sensed that you were a cyclist too!


----------



## growingvegetables (28 Oct 2012)

Pale Rider said:


> And is resting your hand on another vehicle acceptable or sensible behaviour?


Probably not - but that may be more of a comment on motorists' perception of "their territory". It would be nice if they all showed the same exaggerated sensitivity to other road users' space.


----------



## I like Skol (28 Oct 2012)

growingvegetables said:


> Probably not - but that may be more of a comment on motorists' perception of "their territory". It would be nice if they all showed the same exaggerated sensitivity to other road users' space.


 
Excuse me but it is their territory! This is a shiny peice of mechanical marvel costing new in the region of £20k and IMO it is rude and selfish to use it as a leaning post. Show some respect and get some in return. I will sometimes rest on railing when at a junction but would not consider resting on someones car, it just isn't the done thing.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (28 Oct 2012)

gaz said:


> I do it to busses now and then, but in the blind spot of the driver.
> Wouldn't do it to any other vehicle.



I try to avoid putting myself in the blind spots of big vehicles


----------



## gilespargiter (28 Oct 2012)

Well if they are going to go around taking up the whole road and getting in the way all the time; might as well make themselves useful. I do it whenever convenient.
Definitely not a good idea to ever stop in any vehicles blind spot.


----------



## Keith Oates (28 Oct 2012)

In the UK ,and maybe other countries, people are very protective of their cars etc. and I must admit I was one them when in the UK. However out here people will sit on your parked motorbike outside of a restaurant etc. when talking to their friends. The first time it happened to me I was a little indignant and asked him to get off the bike. All the locals laughed and thought I was crazy, now when it happens I don't say anything although the feeling is still there to some extent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## gaz (28 Oct 2012)

shouldbeinbed said:


> I try to avoid putting myself in the blind spots of big vehicles


I meant my arm in it's blind spot. so the driver can see me but not my arm. I should have made that clearer.


----------



## addictfreak (28 Oct 2012)

Never done it, I usually try to use a barrier if possible if not I unclip. Just not something I would do, in the same way as I would not sit or lean on someone's car. And if he pulls away unexpectedly you look pretty foolish on the ground!


----------



## G2EWS (28 Oct 2012)

I have to agree with 'I like Skol'.

Why would you put your hand on a car that may have dirt on it and when you move your hand you scratch the car?

Seems very inconsiderate to me and lazy if all you have to do is unclip.

I told a lad off, for wiping his hand across the wet bonnet of my car ans splashing his mate with the water. His Mother was very indignant and said, 'is your car worth more than my son having a bit of fun'? 

'It certainly is' I replied, 'unless you are happy to pay for the bonnet to be detailed where he will most certainly of scratched it'! She went off in a huff!

Respect! That's all you need.

Regards

Chris


----------



## theclaud (28 Oct 2012)

G2EWS said:


> I have to agree with 'I like Skol'.
> 
> Why would you put your hand on a car that may have dirt on it and when you move your hand you scratch the car?
> 
> ...


 
Oh, please. A child touched your car. With his hand. If it's so delicate perhaps you shouldn't take it out of your garage.


----------



## srw (28 Oct 2012)

theclaud said:


> Oh, please. A child touched your car. With his hand. If it's so delicate perhaps you shouldn't take it out of your garage.


Of course as a non-driver you wouldn't know that they don't use toughened paint on cars. It's the breath of fairies from the planet Zarquoon applied with brushes made from fibres plucked from the undersides of the coats of the rare Siberian minx. A baby's breath will damage it permanently and irreparably.

And that's why it's not a good idea to touch someone else's car.


----------



## Deleted member 20519 (28 Oct 2012)

I do it to railings but never to vehicles.


----------



## green1 (28 Oct 2012)

gilespargiter said:


> Well if they are going to go around taking up the whole road and getting in the way all the time; might as well make themselves useful. I do it whenever convenient.
> Definitely not a good idea to ever stop in any vehicles blind spot.


If you did that to my car you'd soon have your hand on the road, because I'd get out of my car and put you on your arse. Have respect for other people and that includes their property.


----------



## green1 (28 Oct 2012)

srw said:


> Of course as a non-driver you wouldn't know t*hat they don't use toughened paint on cars*. It's the breath of fairies from the planet Zarquoon applied with brushes made from fibres plucked from the undersides of the coats of the rare Siberian minx. A baby's breath will damage it permanently and irreparably.
> 
> And that's why it's not a good idea to touch someone else's car.


They don't anymore, they have to use water based paints which are a hell of a lot softer than the old paints used.


----------



## User16625 (28 Oct 2012)

Not something I would even think of doing. Mostly coz I use standard pedals but also because I wouldnt want to get my ass kicked for getting finger prints on some roiders pride and joy.


----------



## theclaud (28 Oct 2012)

green1 said:


> If you did that to my car you'd soon have your hand on the road, because I'd get out of my car and put you on your arse. Have respect for other people and that includes their property.


----------



## Gary E (28 Oct 2012)

I think it's a question of intent.

If somebody fell off their bike onto my car and dented it then I'd think s**t happens and help the guy up. But if he made the decision, without knowing or asking me, that it was OK to use my car (which although it's nothing flash I care greatly for  ) then I'd be insulted/annoyed.

If you're on an escalator do you put your hands on the person in front to steady yourself?


----------



## Arch (28 Oct 2012)

I don't use clipless pedals except on my trike, so it's not an issue, but I wouldn't lean on someone's car for a couple of reasons - it is their property, and I can see how it would seem to invade their personal space a bit and also it would mean I was far to close to a vehicle for comfort. In traffic, I either want to be clear ahead in the ASL, or claiming a place of my own in the queue in primary. I want room to wobble when I move off.


----------



## Gary E (28 Oct 2012)

[QUOTE 2122899, member: 9609"]It's strange how some people consider their car to be part of themselves. Would you get all upset if someone touched your fence round your garden.[/quote]
No, I'd want to know who the hell build a fence around my garden


----------



## Deleted member 20519 (28 Oct 2012)

[QUOTE 2122899, member: 9609"]It's strange how some people consider their car to be part of themselves. Would you get all upset if someone touched your fence round your garden.[/quote]

I wouldn't like some pedestrian touching my bike while I'm stopped at lights.


----------



## green1 (28 Oct 2012)

[QUOTE 2122899, member: 9609"]It's strange how some people consider their car to be part of themselves. Would you get all upset if someone touched your fence round your garden.[/quote]
What if they tagged your fence with spray paint? I've had my car for 4 years, I've had to get parts of it repainted twice leaving me 500 hundred quid out of pocket. One because some pissed up w@nker decided to boot off the door mirror when it was in a car park leaving deep gouges in the paint and another time when some funny farker decided to write clean me down the side of the car leaving the message ingrained in the paintwork.


----------



## Gary E (28 Oct 2012)

Bottom line - I respect other people and their property and expect the same consideration in return. I said I would be insulted/annoyed, not that I'd leap to take revenge (although putting the car in reverse, as in the video, is definitely a possibility for repeat offenders)


----------



## Accy cyclist (28 Oct 2012)

green1 said:


> If you did that to my car you'd soon have your hand on the road, because I'd get out of my car and put you on your arse. Have respect for other people and that includes their property.


I don't think that you are allowed to assault someone because they've decided to steady themselves on your precious car! Are you one of these motorists who cycles occasionally and expects to be treated courteously yet forgets they're a part-time cyclist when they're behind a wheel?


----------



## Typhon (28 Oct 2012)

I wouldn't do it on my bike. If a cyclist did it to my car I would give them accusing half-glances in a very English way.

I would still make sure they had taken their hand off the car before taking my foot off the brake though (it's an automatic so would move forward instantly). At the end of the day it's just a bit rude of them, nothing to get too worked up about and certainly nothing worth hurting them over..


----------



## screenman (28 Oct 2012)

Green1 they use water borne paints but only for the base coat, there is then a few layers of hard twin pack laquers applied over this. However I do agree that the laquer is quite easy to scratch, one of many things I teach is paintwork rectification, which is the skill of polishing these types of marks out of vehicles.

Would I put my hand on somebodies car, no way just asking for trouble and also shows a complete lack of respect. Would I put myself in the blind spot of a large vehicle, not if I can help it that is for sure.


----------



## green1 (28 Oct 2012)

Accy cyclist said:


> Are you one of these motorists who cycles occasionally and expects to be treated courteously yet forgets they're a part-time cyclist when they're behind a wheel?


No, I'm the sort of road user who respects others on the road. I have one more than one occasion had drivers beeping at me for not overtaking cyclists when I have been behind one because I felt there wasn't enough room without it being a close pass.


----------



## al78 (28 Oct 2012)

[QUOTE 2122932, member: 9609"]
TBH, I probably would feel a bit insulted if a cyclist steadied himself by touching the side of my car - but I don't really know why, I couldn't care less if he was to steady himself momentarily holding onto my garden fence. Car ownership seems to have a very strange effect on people.
[/quote]

It is probably because cars tend to be expensive and are vulnerable to significant depreciation for even minor amounts of cosmetic damage.

Thus if you scratch someone's car as a result of leaning on it then they either have to spend money putting it right or they have to expect a lower price when part-exchanging or selling it in the future. Either way they are out of pocket so the net effect is equivalent to stealing a few hundred pounds from them. How would you feel if someone stole a few hundred pounds from you?


----------



## Mugshot (28 Oct 2012)

G2EWS said:


> Respect! That's all you need.


I thought it was dedication, must be where I've been going wrong all these years


----------



## Accy cyclist (28 Oct 2012)

al78 said:


> It is probably because cars tend to be expensive and are vulnerable to significant depreciation for even minor amounts of cosmetic damage.
> 
> Thus if you scratch someone's car as a result of leaning on it then they either have to spend money putting it right or they have to expect a lower price when part-exchanging or selling it in the future. Either way they are out of pocket so the net effect is equivalent to stealing a few hundred pounds from them. How would you feel if someone stole a few hundred pounds from you?


 


I don't that by resting a gloved cycling hand on a car will cause hundreds of pounds of damage al, but if a scratch does happen then http://www.google.co.uk/products/ca...a=X&ei=jT-NUPPvD-nG0QXizoDIAQ&ved=0CHgQ8wIwAA will clear it up!


----------



## Andy_R (28 Oct 2012)

jazloc said:


> I wouldn't like some pedestrian touching my bike while I'm stopped at lights.


same here


----------



## Boris Bajic (28 Oct 2012)

Generally, I think it is poor form to lean on a car while at rest in traffic. It happens and is nothing to have a cow about, but it is poor form.

One may wince when hearing of motorists who are slightly precious about their cars, but this is little different (if at all) from the attitude of some cyclists who appear to think that their steed is somehow special because it cost a lot. At a guess, I think I know more cyclists who'd be uppity about someone touching or leaning on their bicycle than I do motorists who think that way about their car. Most cars are left in the street all night. Most bicycles are not. Many top-end bicycles are treated and spoken of almost as religious icons.... Tape and frame must match... Bidon must match saddle... But I digess... as usual. 

I giggle when I read the _"If you did that to my car you'd be on the floor"_ comments on these threads. They tend to be from male posters (I nearly wrote male members) and if they were even remotely close to reality, there would be a lot of cyclists being banged on the noggin and sent floorwards with venom. There are not. There is a huge difference between sounding tough on the Internet and an act of road rage... Thank Goodness.

I confess to using the rear pole of Routemasters when a teen and pre-teen, but even then the conductor would always try to shoo away cyclists and sateboarders. I knew it was naughty and that was part of the fun.

I've never used a car, but did sprawl onto the bonnet of a taxi on Poland Street once in a clipless moment. I apologised and the driver just giggled and waved the apology away.

Done deliberately it is poor form, but more a case of thoughtless ignorance of the presence and concerns of others than a hanging offence.

We should all be lovely and smile more.

Thank you.


----------



## theclaud (28 Oct 2012)

al78 said:


> It is probably because cars tend to be expensive and are vulnerable to significant depreciation for even minor amounts of cosmetic damage.
> 
> Thus if you scratch someone's car as a result of leaning on it then they either have to spend money putting it right or they have to expect a lower price when part-exchanging or selling it in the future. Either way they are out of pocket so the net effect is equivalent to stealing a few hundred pounds from them. How would you feel if someone stole a few hundred pounds from you?


 
Oh don't be silly. Apart from the fact that touching cars does not cause any damage whatever, do you not think it's somewhat absurd for cars, which are heavy objects whizzing about at high speeds in all weathers in close proximity to hundreds of similar objects, to be so apparently fragile? If they're so ill-suited to practical use, perhaps their owners should think twice about taking them out anywhere other than a private track.


----------



## theclaud (28 Oct 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Generally, I think it is poor form to lean on a car while at rest in traffic.


 
I disagree. And though it isn't something I ever seem to find it necessary or convenient to do, these threads incline me to have a go at it, just to communicate to drivers that bringing a car with you does not mean that you own the space it takes up, any more than putting cones outside your house confers ownership of the street.


----------



## green1 (28 Oct 2012)

[QUOTE 2123130, member: 9609"] FFS it's a mass produced lump of metal, why do people spend so much of their money, then so much time washing. polishing and worrying about it - very very strange.[/quote]
Could say exactly the same thing about a bikes.


----------



## Boris Bajic (28 Oct 2012)

theclaud said:


> I disagree. And though it isn't something I ever seem to find it necessary or convenient to do, these threads incline me to have a go at it, just to communicate to drivers that bringing a car with you does not mean that you own the space it takes up, any more than putting cones outside your house confers ownership of the street.


 
I realise that many will disagree. It's not a major issue to me and I imagine it isn't one to you either.

I'm not sure I know any drivers who would be silly enough to think they own the space taken up by their vehicle. I may, but it's not something I've ever asked. Much as I've never asked drivers whether they think pixies put the pips in raspberries.... Both are slightly silly and fanciful notions.

I'd agree that some road users give the impression that they might think they own the space they and their car, bicycle or lorry occupy. But I doubt whether any of them really thinks they do.


----------



## theclaud (28 Oct 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I realise that many will disagree. It's not a major issue to me and I imagine it isn't one to you either.
> 
> I'm not sure I know any drivers who would be silly enough to think they own the space taken up by their vehicle. I may, but it's not something I've ever asked. Much as I've never asked drivers whether they think pixies put the pips in raspberries.... Both are slightly silly and fanciful notions.
> 
> I'd agree that some road users give the impression that they might think they own the space they and their car, bicycle or lorry occupy. But *I doubt whether any of them really thinks they do*.


 
Some of the responses in this thread indicate otherwise...


----------



## Pale Rider (28 Oct 2012)

Would this cyclist have been so keen to lean on my car had it been white with a blue light on top?
I think we all know the answer.


----------



## SomethingLikeThat (28 Oct 2012)

I'd do it to a parked car perhaps with no one in it, or a railing, but not one that someone is driving. I'm not sure why it's such a big deal. If I drove I probably wouldn't care because fingerprints are not going to damage it. You'd more likely pick up scratches while parking or from shopping trolleys etc.


----------



## ianrauk (28 Oct 2012)

Pale Rider said:


> Would this cyclist have been so keen to lean on my car had it been white with a blue light on top?
> I think we all know the answer.


 

I have lent on a police car for balance with no problems.
Had a chat with the fuzz inside, she certainly didn't mind.


----------



## Boris Bajic (28 Oct 2012)

theclaud said:


> Some of the responses in this thread indicate otherwise...


 
That you are right on this makes me slightly sad.

But I think that most drivers and most cyclists are reasonable and socially responsible creatures.


----------



## ianrauk (28 Oct 2012)

It's quite simple really.
Don't want a cyclist (ie me) leaning on your car?.... then don't wash it.
I pick and choose what cars I lean on.
Anything mucky is a no no.
Don't want to get crap on my gloves then transfer to my bar tape


----------



## G2EWS (28 Oct 2012)

theclaud said:


> Oh, please. A child touched your car. With his hand. If it's so delicate perhaps you shouldn't take it out of your garage.


 
Oh my, you obviously are a bit of a dork, with a statement like that.

Regards

Chris


----------



## Pale Rider (28 Oct 2012)

ianrauk said:


> It's quite simple really.
> Don't want a cyclist (ie me) leaning on your car?.... then don't wash it.
> I pick and choose what cars I lean on.
> Anything mucky is a no no.
> Don't want to get crap on my gloves then transfer to my bar tape


 
My car was filthy after a rainy/sleety/snowy run down the A19 into York.


----------



## al78 (28 Oct 2012)

2123255 said:


> Drivers of diesel engine cars steal years of life expectancy from people.


 
Which has got absolutely nothing to do with the issue under discussion and is therefore totally irrelevant.


----------



## Fnaar (28 Oct 2012)

If I have to stop in traffic at lights, I like to entertain the drivers by lying on their car bonnet, and pouting at them, whilst making suggestive hip movements.


----------



## al78 (28 Oct 2012)

theclaud said:


> Oh don't be silly. Apart from the fact that touching cars does not cause any damage whatever, do you not think it's somewhat absurd for cars, which are heavy objects whizzing about at high speeds in all weathers in close proximity to hundreds of similar objects, to be so apparently fragile? If they're so ill-suited to practical use, perhaps their owners should think twice about taking them out anywhere other than a private track.


 
Well someone earlier suggested that leaning on a car that has dirt on it risks scratching the paintwork, so I was merely following on from that.

Cosmetic damage does not imply "ill suited to practical use", that is just a strawman you erected.


----------



## srw (28 Oct 2012)

al78 said:


> Which has got absolutely nothing to do with the issue under discussion and is therefore totally irrelevant.


You don't believe in the inter-connectedness of all things?


----------



## srw (28 Oct 2012)

al78 said:


> Well someone earlier suggested that leaning on a car that has dirt on it risks scratching the paintwork, so I was merely following on from that.
> 
> Cosmetic damage does not imply "ill suited to practical use", that is just a strawman you erected.


Someone was being a bit of an idiot. If merely touching something can scratch it enough to cause hundreds of pounds of damage then it's best suited to use in a sterile environment.


----------



## theclaud (28 Oct 2012)

G2EWS said:


> Oh my, you obviously are a bit of a dork, with a statement like that.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Chris


 
 Well I've been called a few things round here but I think that's a first for "dork".

Regards

TC


----------



## ianrauk (28 Oct 2012)

theclaud said:


> Well I've been called a few things round here but I think that's a first for "dork".
> 
> Regards
> 
> TC


 

Looking at your avatar, perhaps he meant to say pork?


----------



## theclaud (28 Oct 2012)

ianrauk said:


> Looking at your avatar, perhaps he meant pork?


I'm sorry, Ian, but I can't possibly speak to you unless you sign off more politely.

With all good wishes

TC


----------



## Crackle (28 Oct 2012)

theclaud said:


> Well I've been called a few things round here but I think that's a first for "dork".
> 
> Regards
> 
> TC


And the irony seemed to be lost on him.

We've done this before haven't we. You can lean on mine, hell you can thumb a lift, I've a four bike carrier on top. I'd prefer if you didn't lean on Mrs Crackle's, it's made of some kind of cheese (which is the same answer I gave last time, give or take a few words).


----------



## screenman (28 Oct 2012)

You can certainly scratch a bonnet with the dirt that is on it already just by wiping your hand across the panel, there is an open invite to any guys who want to come here and see me do it. Also painting a bonnet can easily cost in the region of £400+ depending on colour.

Like bikes some people take great pride in the appearance of their cars.


----------



## asterix (28 Oct 2012)

Pale Rider said:


> Trundling through heavy traffic into York in my car this morning a roadie made his way up the nearside and rested his right hand on my bootlid.
> 
> *I'm guessing this was to save him from unclipping his cleats as he knew we would be off again in a few seconds, which we were.*
> 
> ...


 
Could he just have done a track stand? Anyway, I don't wash my car so he'd catch something off it.


----------



## theclaud (28 Oct 2012)

screenman said:


> You can certainly scratch a bonnet with the dirt that is on it already just by wiping your hand across the panel, there is an open invite to any guys who want to come here and see me do it. *Also painting a bonnet can easily cost in the region of £400+ depending on colour*.
> 
> Like bikes some people take great pride in the appearance of their cars.


 
What a ****ing waste of money.


----------



## theclaud (28 Oct 2012)

screenman said:


> You can certainly scratch a bonnet with the dirt that is on it already just by wiping your hand across the panel, there is an open invite to any guys who want to come here and see me do it. Also painting a bonnet can easily cost in the region of £400+ depending on colour.
> 
> Like bikes some people take great pride in the appearance of their cars.


Oops. I mean... what a ****ing waste of money. 

Sincerely yours

TC


----------



## Bigsharn (28 Oct 2012)

Only to some buses... And even then it's when I want a word with the driver. Do it on lampposts regularly though


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (28 Oct 2012)

This one's been done before, with the same result.
Car owning cyclists are advised to please leave the thread before things get nasty.


----------



## Crackle (28 Oct 2012)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> This one's been done before, with the same result.
> *Precious* Car owning cyclists are advised to please leave the thread before things get nasty.


 
Missed a word out


----------



## Glow worm (28 Oct 2012)

srw said:


> If merely touching something can scratch it enough to cause hundreds of pounds of damage then it's best suited to use in a sterile environment.


 
Or better still, here....


----------



## green1 (28 Oct 2012)

2123401 said:


> I have never seen this verb form of the word detail before.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_detailing


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (28 Oct 2012)

Crackle said:


> Missed a word out


 
Nope.


----------



## Glow worm (28 Oct 2012)

green1 said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_detailing


 
Bo**ocks - there goes another couple of minutes I'll never get back after stupidly bothering to click on that link!


----------



## green1 (28 Oct 2012)

growingvegetables said:


> Probably not - but that may be more of a comment on motorists' perception of "their territory". It would be nice if they all showed the same exaggerated sensitivity to other road users' space.


So if you leave your bike locked to a to a bike stand somewhere and someone comes along and damages it, it's okay because its in a public space? Or take it to extremes it's okay to damage anything as long as your in a public space while doing it?


----------



## Rayvon (28 Oct 2012)

Never done it, takes 2 seconds to unclip.


----------



## simon.r (28 Oct 2012)

I'd be miffed if a cyclist leant on my* car for the reasons already stated - it is possible to scratch it, especially if it's dirty. And I'd rather my car wasn't scratched, if that's all the same to you. I'm no more precious about my car than I am any other possesion, but I like to look after the things I have. It irritates me if someone working on my house throws a cigarette end on my garden, or if a worker walks in wearing dirty boots. It's the same sort of thing - just a matter of showing some respect for the property of other people.

*Technically it's not even 'mine' as it's a company car.


----------



## Crackle (28 Oct 2012)

If you touch and it's dirty it scratches, maybe. Really? Well keep it clean then if you're so anal.


----------



## G2EWS (28 Oct 2012)

[QUOTE 2123441, member: 9609"]You will not scratch a car by simply touching it - even if it is dirty at the time.[/quote]

It would be a really good idea, to not make a statement about something that you obviously have absolutely no knowledge or understanding of!

Regards

Chris


----------



## ianrauk (28 Oct 2012)

G2EWS said:


> It would be a really good idea, to not make a statement about something that you obviously have absolutely no knowledge or understanding of!
> 
> Regards
> 
> Chris


 
I have knowledge and understanding of it as I have a car. It's a red one, and quite new one at that. And from my learned knowledge and understanding it has not got scratched from me or someone else touching it, both when it is clean and dirty.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (28 Oct 2012)

Trying to get things back to something close to constructive, and getting away from the 'fark motorists, we don't give a shoot' etc depression of this thread...

Who's responsible if the car starts moving and the cyclists hand slips causing a fall?
Has the cyclist transferred responsibility for his/her safety to the driver? Is that a comfortable situation to put yourself in?

Considering the strength of opinion on this subject - do you really want to trust your safety to someone who may floor it just to prove a point?


----------



## Marshmallow_Fluff (28 Oct 2012)

I do enjoy a good debate but I don't think it's polite to just sit and watch, so I guess I will have to take a side.. not sure which though!
Let me think.. if a cyclist touched my car (especially if it happened to be a proper roadie.. ) I couldn't care less honestly. Maybe because I drive the sh***y one! But then again, I wouldn't care if I was driving the "good" one.. They're just cars you know?
Having said that, if someone was touching my bike while it was parked for example I would be fuming . So I guess it's just a matter of what one's considering as important (or even better "precious"), isn't? 

And, no, I wouldn't lean on a car, as most of them are filthy and it would cause me more trouble to clean my hand (or even worse my glove) than unclip..


----------



## Marshmallow_Fluff (28 Oct 2012)

ianrauk said:


> I have knowledge and understanding of it as I have a car. It's a red one, and quite new one at that. And from my learned knowledge and understanding it has not got scratched from me or someone else touching it, both when it is clean and dirty.


 

Woo! Red is good! 
Mine is unfortunately blue.. and not very new either


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (28 Oct 2012)

My car doesn't get washed often, too busy living a life these days - I'll apologise now for any mucky hands. In fact - let me know as you pass and I'll hand you a sponge and bucket so you can clean a bit while you're there! 
Last owner was a fleet company so it's been washed with dog biscuits and sandpaper anyway.

I don't lean on a cars myself. There's too many angry, bigotted scumbags just waiting for an opportunity to 'do something' to someone on the roads these days. I'd expect to be beaten to death in the middle of the road as people trundle past, or slip as the car suddenly moves and prove a helmet is no match for a Michelin.


----------



## screenman (28 Oct 2012)

the claud? you have me confused, please explain what is a waste of money.


----------



## Marshmallow_Fluff (28 Oct 2012)

Nigel-YZ1 said:


> I'll apologise now for any mucky hands. In fact - let me know as you pass and I'll hand you a sponge and bucket so you can clean a bit while you're there!


 
You're ever so kind! Thank you!


----------



## Boris Bajic (28 Oct 2012)

Fnaar said:


> If I have to stop in traffic at lights, I like to entertain the drivers by lying on their car bonnet, and pouting at them, whilst making suggestive hip movements.


 
Hip movements suggestive of what, precisely?

Also if you are a bicyclist, why do you feel the need to stop at traffic signals?

It is clear from reading my daily newspaper that you scalliwags stop at nothing, least of all red lights.

Whilst I cannot claim to have fought in a war for the likes of you young whippersnappers, I'd like to put it on record here that had i done so I would not be best pleased.

In the least.

Thank you.


----------



## ianrauk (28 Oct 2012)

User13710 said:


> Cyclists take note: If you need to lean on my vehicle I'll be very happy that I was there to help you - it's the one with the Audax and CycleChat stickers on the back. I don't care about the possibility of little scratches being a result, because I have a life.


 

yes, yes, yes.... but is it clean enough to lean a hand on?


----------



## simon.r (28 Oct 2012)

[QUOTE 2123441, member: 9609"]You will not scratch a car by simply touching it - even if it is dirty at the time.[/quote]

OK, I may be exaggerating slightly, but a moving (gloved) hand rubbing small pieces of grit (i.e. road dirt) onto paint will damage it. Not suggesting a cyclist will deliberately rub a car, but there's a very real possibility that the hand will move along the car in the act of leaning on it.



Crackle said:


> If you touch and it's dirty it scratches, maybe. Really? Well keep it clean then if you're so anal.


 
If you thought about this for a second or two you would realise that it is impossible to keep a car free from dirt if it is being used (as indeed it is a bicycle).



I am really struggling to understand why people think it's OK to do this. Surely it's just common courtesy - you don't go around touching and potentially damaging (however small the potential and however small the damage) other people's property?


----------



## ianrauk (28 Oct 2012)

User13710 said:


> What, me? Clean a car? Are you mad?


 

well at least clean the spot where a cyclist would use to lean on..tsk tsk


----------



## 400bhp (28 Oct 2012)

The usual suspects appear from the shadows and descend into a specific General Cycling and Commuting thread don't they.

Then bugger off until someone dares to counter their doctorine.

Like a pack of wolves.

Pathetic really.


----------



## al78 (28 Oct 2012)

simon.r said:


> I am really struggling to understand why people think it's OK to do this. Surely it's just common courtesy - you don't go around touching and potentially damaging (however small the potential and however small the damage) other people's property?


 
The reason is, because if you do a completely objective analysis of the situation, it is insignificant. It is extremely unlikely that touching a car will do anything worse than any other objects that cars are exposed too on a regular basis (e.g. stone chippings).

In the real world, however, people don't operate purely on cold, hard logic. Humans are not emotionally dead robots, they have feelings and instincts. We as a species are still driven by instincts that are optimized for the hunter-gatherer era, not for a modern advanced civilization. With this in mind it is important to try and understand and have respect for other people's feelings, even if it seems irrational or out of proportion. Unfortunately there seems to be a significant minority who don't give a toss and antagonize others in the process and then complain when the inevitable unpleasant retaliation occurs .


----------



## 400bhp (28 Oct 2012)

2123684 said:


> Cyclists expressing a cyclist point of view on a cycling forum, that must be a hell of a surprise to some people.


 
You and your mates creeping round the same threads, sneering at anyone who challenges your orthodoxy.

Your post sums up you and your mates.


----------



## 400bhp (28 Oct 2012)

2123703 said:


> Yes I guess that, to someone who defines them-self in terms of engine power, the opinions of cyclists must be a little hard to comprehend.


 
I don't own a road car.

How many miles do you do on a bike in a year, say?


----------



## 400bhp (28 Oct 2012)

User13710 said:


> Seems pretty sneery to me


 
I agree - got pished off to be honest.

I've never seen those people give a helping forum hand to anyone. Just got a bit fed up.

Life is too short - people are different.


----------



## screenman (28 Oct 2012)

Adrian, are you really a cyclist? or do you just happen to come on a cycling forum. No disrespect meant just an honest question.

Now why not take this a step further and next time you pull up at the lights just lean on another cyclist or even a pedestrian.

Respect, very lacking in today's society it seems.


----------



## 400bhp (28 Oct 2012)

User13710 said:


> @400bhp Have I met you? *Because I've met them, and they're lovely people.* Still, no worries, we all get a bit ****ed off sometimes.


 
I suspect most of us are on here, despite our internet persona.

I'd hope we all come on here because we are passionate about cycling. That's our commonality.

I'm trying to be a better person - sometimes I take 2 steps back.


----------



## screenman (28 Oct 2012)

Tiny, what is the point of pasting that post of mine?

Definitely a cyclist here, have been for over 40 years, kids are cyclist the DIL is a cyclist, I have run events for cyclist, I have been president of vice for a large cycling club. Cut me in half and I would have cyclist written in the middle like a stick of rock. Damn I even got 2 hours in today in the wind and rain, not sure if that makes me a cyclist or a nutter, more likely the latter.

Best of all I smile a lot, even when I am on here. I have over the years met so many eccentric, objectionable cyclist it feels right being here sometimes.


----------



## screenman (28 Oct 2012)

Tiny, you are so wrong I have been in the motor trade for 40 years, we are known for treating them a bit like cobbler's shoes, my 2007 Passat has 129,000 miles and many a mark on the paint. However this does not stop me from treating other peoples objects and space with respect.

Where did I say I do not want my car touched, you seem pretty good with the C&P so could you point it out to me.


----------



## Longshot (28 Oct 2012)

I'm pretty sure that putting a hand on a car won't damage it.

Having said that, lean on my car uninvited and I may lean on your face. Fair's fair.


----------



## Hip Priest (28 Oct 2012)

I wouldn't lean on someone's car for a variety of reasons (all covered elsewhere) but I wouldn't give a toss if someone leant on mine.


----------



## Crackle (28 Oct 2012)

So how do the precious people feel about driving their car on a windy dusty day or over gravelled roads or parking were people might rub against it or a multitude of other circumstances. Do you wait for a certain temperature and humidity before taking it out of it's hermetic seals?


----------



## simon.r (28 Oct 2012)

Crackle said:


> So how do the precious people feel about driving their car on a windy dusty day or over gravelled roads or parking were people might rub against it or a multitude of other circumstances. Do you wait for a certain temperature and humidity before taking it out of it's hermetic seals?


 
I think you're missing the point. Substitute 'sit on someone else's settee while wearing greasy trousers' for 'lean on someone else's dirty car with gloved hands'. You wouldn't do the former (I assume), so why do the latter?


----------



## Dan B (28 Oct 2012)

screenman said:


> You can certainly scratch a bonnet with the dirt that is on it already just by wiping your hand across the panel


if this is true... Do the words "not fit for purpose" come to anyone else's mind? It's supposed to be used in a public place, and one of the features of a public space is that members of the public are present


----------



## Dan B (28 Oct 2012)

simon.r said:


> I think you're missing the point. Substitute 'sit on someone elses settee while wearing greasy trousers' for 'lean on someone elses dirty car with gloved hands'. You wouldn't do the former (I assume), so why do the latter?


Did they leave the settee parked by the kerb?


----------



## simon.r (28 Oct 2012)

Dan B said:


> Did they leave the settee parked by the kerb?


 
Silly argument. Just because something is in an area accessible to the public it doesn't give the public the right to damage it.

Anyway, I'm annoyed with you because you quoted my post before I corrected the grammar!


----------



## Gary E (28 Oct 2012)

I don't see why we're arguing about this, it's a problem with it's own solution.
For anyone who thinks it's OK to lean on someone else's car just continue to do it. In fact why not make a point of doing it all the time?
Sooner or later, right or wrong, over-reaction or otherwise (whatever your position on this issue) you'll come up against someone who'll snap your arm off and shove it up a convenient orifice.
Then you can explain to them how it hasn't marked their paint


----------



## Crackle (28 Oct 2012)

simon.r said:


> I think you're missing the point. Substitute 'sit on someone else's settee while wearing greasy trousers' for 'lean on someone else's dirty car with gloved hands'. You wouldn't do the former (I assume), so why do the latter?


Not equivalent Simon. There are lots of things which can potentially scratch your car and beyond deliberate vandalism, someone touching it has got to be a bit low down the list and is indefensibly precious. Ask my windscreen about the stone chip black eye it's got.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (28 Oct 2012)

You should only touch someone else's property if they give you the right to do so. I don't care if your hands are mild green fairy liquid clean!!.
If a runner came along and decided he needed a rest on your handle bars would you just let him get on with it?? Would that seem pretty normal? 
Yet another example of some cyclists thinking there are differing rules between road users.
Only the rules that suits them mind!


----------



## screenman (28 Oct 2012)

Crackle, if you were a bit nearer Lincoln I would repair that chip, FOC of course. Offer goes out to all forum members for that matter. I will not bill your insurers either.

DanB I was only discussing the technical aspects of how paint can be damaged.


----------



## Crackle (28 Oct 2012)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> You should only touch someone else's property if they give you the right to do so. I don't care if your hands are mild green fairy liquid clean!!.
> If a runner came along and decided he needed a rest on your handle bars would you just let him get on with it?? Would that seem pretty normal?
> Yet another example of some cyclists thinking there are differing rules between road users.
> Only the rules that suits them mind!


 
We're talking about cars, you need to start a separate thread about leaning on bikes.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (28 Oct 2012)

Crackle said:


> We're talking about cars, you need to start a separate thread about leaning on bikes.


We are talking about etiquette. Or the lack of......


----------



## Crackle (28 Oct 2012)

screenman said:


> Crackle, if you were a bit nearer Lincoln I would repair that chip, FOC of course. Offer goes out to all forum members for that matter. I will not bill your insurers either.
> 
> DanB I was only discussing the technical aspects of how paint can be damaged.


 
A Very kind offer Screenman. I did get it filled but I suspect it's still slowly spreading. Such is life.


----------



## Crackle (28 Oct 2012)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> We are talking about etiquette. Or the lack of......


Gawd blimey. That really is thread drift.


----------



## Hip Priest (28 Oct 2012)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> We are talking about etiquette. Or the lack of......


 
Many seem to be talking about enforcing etiquette with violence.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (28 Oct 2012)

Crackle said:


> Gawd blimey. That really is thread drift.


Pretty sure it's directly connected to the OP. 
Probably also worth mentioning that a cyclist should be in front or behind a vehicle in traffic, not parallel to.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (28 Oct 2012)

Hip Priest said:


> Many seem to be talking about enforcing etiquette with violence.


Then the same applies. Start with treating other road users with respect and you will receive a better chance of the same respect being returned.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (28 Oct 2012)

2123945 said:


> Well that's all overtaking me by drivers buggered.


Would you be happy if a motorist over took you within a distance where you could touch him/her with your hand? Also i was referring to the situation at hand, stationary traffic.


----------



## Crackle (28 Oct 2012)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> Then the same applies. Start with treating other road users with respect and you will receive a better chance of the same respect being returned.


 So what you do if some cyclist wobbled up next to you and leant on your car. This is the burning issue?


----------



## theclaud (28 Oct 2012)

User13710 said:


> I knock on your door; I help you on with your coat; I help you up when you fall; I catch your bike when it starts to topple over; I return your wallet after you dropped it; I lift your suitcase onto the train for you; I grab hold of your buggy with your child in it while you try to get off the bus; I put my hand on your sleeve in the supermarket because you are crying and I want to make sure you're all right.
> 
> That's just last week. What kind of world do you live in?


 
That's a lovely post. And I'm not just saying that because of the Fast Show thing. Or the wine.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (28 Oct 2012)

2123965 said:


> Oh right. Sorry I misunderstood you/


No probs


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (28 Oct 2012)

2123969 said:


> OK. Let's start with the respect then and see where it takes us.


It's all you can do to make things on the road as safe as possible. Anything less is downhill from there....


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (28 Oct 2012)

Crackle said:


> So what you do if some cyclist wobbled up next to you and leant on your car. This is the burning issue?


I probably wouldn't mind TBH. That doesn't mean a large portion of drivers out there wouldn't mind. As i said earlier, if it's not yours and you don't have permission then it's not yours to touch. Common sense says chances are you will eventually do it to someone who will not be best pleased. The fix? Don't do it.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (28 Oct 2012)

2123983 said:


> I'm sorry but I really can't see how this trite generality helps.


Adrian, i am not foolish enough to fall in to one of your everlasting debates. Especially when they have no ending, answer or relevance to what is being said.


----------



## Crackle (28 Oct 2012)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> I probably wouldn't mind TBH. That doesn't mean a large portion of drivers out there wouldn't mind. As i said earlier, if it's not yours and you don't have permission then it's not yours to touch. Common sense says chances are you will eventually do it to someone who will not be best pleased. The fix? Don't do it.


 
That's not a fix, it's a patch. Why should it even worry anyone. Beyond thinking it was a bit odd. I feel the world would be a better place if people had a bit of perspective on things, not feigned outrage at something trivial and that's essentially what this thread is about. It's not actually about touching cars, which sounds a bit like horse whispering for petrolheads.


----------



## theclaud (28 Oct 2012)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> I probably wouldn't mind TBH. That doesn't mean a large portion of drivers out there wouldn't mind. As i said earlier,* if it's not yours and you don't have permission then it's not yours to touch.* Common sense says chances are you will eventually do it to someone who will not be best pleased. The fix? Don't do it.


 
Just out of interest, does this advice/prohibition apply to whatever object I decide to place on the public highway, or is it Special Advice About Cars?


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (28 Oct 2012)

Crackle said:


> That's not a fix, it's a patch. Why should it even worry anyone. Beyond thinking it was a bit odd. I feel the world would be a better place if people had a bit of perspective on things, not feigned outrage at something trivial and that's essentially what this thread is about. It's not actually about touching cars, which sounds a bit like horse whispering for petrolheads.


One mans car is another mans bike. Just because it means little to you does not mean the rest of the population will conform. I am pretty sure the same issue being discussed in a "petrolheads" forum would have a different perspective.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (28 Oct 2012)

2123998 said:


> Except I don't do everlasting debates. You might occasionally see me, with huge patience, seeking to enlighten people but I don't do everlasting. None of which detracts from the fact that your post was just as described, trite genarality. Apart from a few psychopaths we all favour safer roads, it's just that many people seek safer roads on unreasonable terms.


Where i view your posts from, including your everlasting debates, i struggle to see any reasonable outcome. Though to be fair it must be hard when fellow CC'ers have to compete with your superior wisdom. "Huge patience, seeking to enlighten people". Wow, thats generous.


----------



## theclaud (28 Oct 2012)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> *One mans car is another mans bike*. Just because it means little to you does not mean the rest of the population will conform. I am pretty sure the same issue being discussed in a "petrolheads" forum would have a different perspective.


 
No it isn't. Or one man would be riding a bike.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (28 Oct 2012)

theclaud said:


> No it isn't. Or one man would be riding a bike.


Jeez, hard to compete with that.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (28 Oct 2012)

2124018 said:


> If you don't want to discuss matters stop.


Someone has to, right? Or it will go on until you are right or i quit.


----------



## Crackle (28 Oct 2012)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> One mans car is another mans bike. Just because it means little to you does not mean the rest of the population will conform. I am pretty sure the same issue being discussed in a "petrolheads" forum would have a different perspective.


 
I feel your missing my point Pedro but I'm not about to fall out with you over it as I don't entirely disagree with you, I just occasionally feel the need to point out the ridiculousness of something trivial. Meanwhile....


----------



## Crackle (28 Oct 2012)

User13710 said:


> Speak to the car gently in _CAR_ - then they will do whatever you want?


If only....


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (28 Oct 2012)

theclaud said:


> Just out of interest, does this advice/prohibition apply to whatever object I decide to place on the public highway, or is it Special Advice About Cars?


Possessions. ANY. You know, as in whats mine and whats yours. It's 9/10th's of the law you know. (Attempt at a joke).


----------



## Marshmallow_Fluff (28 Oct 2012)

ianrauk said:


> yes, yes, yes.... but is it clean enough to lean a hand on?


 


C'mon.. I'm a lady! I can't go around with dirty hands and chipped manicure now can I?


----------



## simon.r (28 Oct 2012)

Crackle said:


> Not equivalent Simon. There are lots of things which can potentially scratch your car and beyond deliberate vandalism, someone touching it has got to be a bit low down the list and is indefensibly precious. Ask my windscreen about the stone chip black eye it's got.


 
I agree it's low down the list and I'm certainly not in the 'scratch my car and I'll scratch you' group, but it's not indefensibly precious. @Pedrosanchezo is articulating the points I've been trying to make.

Anyway, I think we'll have to agree to disagree overall.

I shall leave others to pursue the argunment as I have to be in my (very dirty) car quite early tomorrow morning and bed beckons!


----------



## Crackle (28 Oct 2012)

simon.r said:


> I agree it's low down the list and I'm certainly not in the 'scratch my car and I'll scratch you' group, but it's not indefensibly precious. @Pedrosanchezo is articulating the points I've been trying to make.
> 
> Anyway, I think we'll have to agree to disagree overall.
> 
> I shall leave others to pursue the argunment as I have to be in my (very dirty) car quite early tomorrow morning and bed beckons!


 
Good call and I've used up my trivial thread quota of the month now.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (28 Oct 2012)

Crackle said:


> I feel your missing my point Pedro but I'm not about to fall out with you over it as I don't entirely disagree with you, I just occasionally feel the need to point out the ridiculousness of something trivial. Meanwhile....


I don't fall out with people easily. I am actually very placid in nature. Some things irk me which lead me to respond. Usually politely. I understand the trivialness to some regarding this situation, and i agree. That though has no bearing on how others will feel about it. That's the unknown. For that reason i would not choose to lean on a motor vehicle if i can simply unclip. Some might consider it rude and for that there is no need.


----------



## Robson3022 (28 Oct 2012)

So I filter forward in some lights your already there unclipped waiting so I put my hand on your handle bars and rest there waititng for the lights to change?


Right............


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (28 Oct 2012)

Crackle said:


> Good call and I've used up my trivial thread quota of the month now.


I've now filled my monthly quota in one night. Good night folks.


----------



## Dan B (28 Oct 2012)

simon.r said:


> Silly argument. Just because something is in an area accessible to the public it doesn't give the public the right to damage it.


It wasn't an argument, it was a question. If you come round to my house and scratch my furniture, I'll be pissed off. If I'd left it at the side of the road, I think I have much less justification for flying off the handle


----------



## Gary E (28 Oct 2012)

Just curious and I'm in no way trying to re-open an argument here. But what's so damn hard about un-clipping anyway?


----------



## theclaud (28 Oct 2012)

Robson3022 said:


> So I filter forward in some lights your already there unclipped waiting so I put my hand on your handle bars and rest there waititng for the lights to change?
> 
> 
> Right............



Why would you do that?


----------



## Robson3022 (28 Oct 2012)

I wouldn't in the same way i wouldn't do it to a car. 


Or is this equally acceptable??


----------



## theclaud (28 Oct 2012)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> Possessions. ANY. You know, as in whats mine and whats yours. It's 9/10th's of the law you know. (Attempt at a joke).


 
So I can place anything I like on a public highway and no one may touch it? An anvil? A sofa? A yak? (Just for the sake of argument) a scattering of tacks?


----------



## theclaud (28 Oct 2012)

Robson3022 said:


> I wouldn't in the same way i wouldn't do it to a car.
> 
> 
> Or is this equally acceptable??


 
It's a false equivalence. As in pretending things are The Same when they are obviously Different.


----------



## Robson3022 (28 Oct 2012)

How are they in the grand scheme of things? Both are means of transport/pleasure? Whats the difference saves me unclipping?


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (28 Oct 2012)

Gary E said:


> Just curious and I'm in no way trying to re-open an argument here. But what's so damn hard about un-clipping anyway?


I've been wondering this as well. I spend much of my time on the road trying to avoid physical contact with vehicles and putting a foot down only seems like part and parcel of that independence.


----------



## theclaud (28 Oct 2012)

Robson3022 said:


> How are they in the grand scheme of things? Both are means of transport/pleasure? Whats the difference saves me unclipping?


 
I'm not talking about their transport function - I'm just trying to picture a situation where it would be useful, convenient and safe to rest on another cyclist's handlebars. I can't picture one. And that's because a car provides a large stable surface entirely unlike a bicycle's handlebars. The argument about unclipping is wasted on me - I don't lean on vehicles because it doesn't suit my preferences for road positioning. The thing to grasp, though, is that it is harmless.


----------



## lukesdad (28 Oct 2012)

Pale Rider said:


> Trundling through heavy traffic into York in my car this morning a roadie made his way up the nearside and rested his right hand on my bootlid.
> 
> I'm guessing this was to save him from unclipping his cleats as he knew we would be off again in a few seconds, which we were.
> 
> ...


 
No and No.

10 pages hmm clocks must have just altered.


----------



## Lurpak (28 Oct 2012)

I once leant on a bus window. The woman inside glanced at me and raised her hand to meet mine as a smile lifted her pale soft cheeks and her well massive eyes melted into mine. She was listening to her ipod, Coldplay probably, wanted to 'fix me' no doubt, the meddling harlot. Sod that. I rode on.


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Oct 2012)

Pedrosanchezo said:


> One mans car is another mans bike. Just because it means little to you does not mean the rest of the population will conform.* I am pretty sure the same issue being discussed in a "petrolheads" forum would have a different perspective*.


yes, but they are small people with small brains and small everything else.

I don't put my hand on cars these days but that's because a) the wretched things move off, and, as clipless moments go, that would be the most embarrassing and b) I can't deal with the little volcano of outrage that sometimes ensues. But I do recall leaning my bike against a BMW when I was taking a rest on a country road, and the person who owned the BMW came across the road to remonstrate. Odd.


----------



## Oldspice (29 Oct 2012)

Why put your hands on someone elses property. It's just not the done thing.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (29 Oct 2012)

theclaud said:


> So I can place anything I like on a public highway and no one may touch it? An anvil? A sofa? A yak? (Just for the sake of argument) a scattering of tacks?


Why be so pedantic? I wouldn't want someone coming along and touching my bike so why should any motorist accept the same? Everyone on here is always so concerned with cyclists rights and usually forget to put safety first. In this instance what right does the cyclist have to touch the motorists property?


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (29 Oct 2012)

theclaud said:


> I'm not talking about their transport function - I'm just trying to picture a situation where it would be useful, convenient and safe to rest on another cyclist's handlebars. I can't picture one. And that's because a car provides a large stable surface entirely unlike a bicycle's handlebars. The argument about unclipping is wasted on me - I don't lean on vehicles because it doesn't suit my preferences for road positioning. The thing to grasp, though, is that it is harmless.


It might be harmless to you though you are not the motorist. People don't buy cars to provide a stable platform for cyclists. They are either too lazy to unclip or too ignorant to realise that not every motorist will be okay with it. That's the point! 
I've also mentioned before that if you are in traffic then what are you doing side by side with a motor vehicle? Someone even mentioned doing it with buses because the driver can't see in the blind spot!!


----------



## screenman (29 Oct 2012)

Value! now that is a point, a bike with a scratch in the paint will have less resale value than one without, the same goes for a car.

Can someone tell me why the poster that I cannot find thinks everyone on petrol heads has little bits. Have they checked their information is correct before posting.


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (29 Oct 2012)

2124304 said:


> What is this to do with safety?


That's your thing isn't it. Quote a small part of someones post and take it out of context. I've seen this countless times. Just an FYI that if you continue down this route with me i will simply ignore you. 
Regarding the question. Well you seem to like facts and law, so please do feel free to find any legislation regarding the safe use of a vehicles structure to aid a cyclists balance whilst clipped in. Look forward to that.


----------



## screenman (29 Oct 2012)

P, I have noticed Adrian like's to do that.


----------



## rich p (29 Oct 2012)

ianrauk said:


> I have knowledge and understanding of it as I have a car. It's a *red* one, and quite new one at that. And from my learned knowledge and understanding it has not got scratched from me or someone else touching it, both when it is clean and dirty.


----------



## Longshot (29 Oct 2012)

Sad.

This thread is yet another example of the decline in general standards in society. Effectively, a "F**k everyone else an I'm alright Jack" attitude. No respect for anyone else.


----------



## rich p (29 Oct 2012)

Longshot said:


> Sad.
> 
> This thread is yet another example of the decline in general standards in society. Effectively, a "F**k everyone else an I'm alright Jack" attitude. No respect for anyone else.


 Actually, it's symptom of Sunday of Sunday's weather being pretty crap, and everyone having too much time on their hands.


----------



## Mugshot (29 Oct 2012)

Longshot said:


> Sad.
> 
> This thread is yet another example of the decline in general standards in society. Effectively, a "F**k everyone else an I'm alright Jack" attitude. No respect for anyone else.


I think it's one of the greatest examples of trolling I've seen here, it's beautiful to watch. The victims deserve special mention too of course for playing their parts with such convincing indignation


----------



## Hip Priest (29 Oct 2012)

Longshot said:


> Sad.
> 
> This thread is yet another example of the decline in general standards in society. Effectively, a "F**k everyone else an I'm alright Jack" attitude. No respect for anyone else.


 
Bit of a misleading interpretation. Everyone seems to agree that you probably shouldn't lean on motor vehicles to avoid unclipping, but some people (including myself) believe that drivers need to stop being over-protective of their cars.

As for 'Would you like it if someone touched your bike?' - people touch my bike everyday when moving their own bikes in and out of the narrow bike racks at work. Am I supposed to knock them out?


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Oct 2012)

Oldspice said:


> Why put your hands on someone elses property. It's just not the done thing.


it's not? Never been to a shop and picked up something to look at it? Or lifted a child up to walk along the top of a garden wall? (Preferably a child you've met before, but you know what I mean). Knocked on a door?

What I'm getting at here is that car drivers can be funny items. The car represents the margin between them and what they perceive as a hostile world. It might be that putting a hand on their car might be an educative, uplifting experience for them, inspiring some transcending of this artificial divide. Not just that - bringing the car and the human body together is a reminder of the relationship between the two - the first crude and hard, the second subtle and giving. Frankly any car driver with a brain would be grateful for the attention and the connection.

Feel the love, car drivers!


----------



## Accy cyclist (29 Oct 2012)

Pale Rider said:


> Would this cyclist have been so keen to lean on my car had it been white with a blue light on top?
> I think we all know the answer.


 

If you pay council tax/community charge then you're paying towards the cost of that police car, so technically that bit you're leaning on could be yours.


----------



## Accy cyclist (29 Oct 2012)

This is the trouble with new cars and new bikes. They're so NEW that the worry of scratching them, or getting them scratched overtakes the joy of having them. I bought a new bike 2 weeks ago, ok not overly expensive(£750)but it equates to many hours of hard work to save up and buy it. I'm now obsessed with where i lean it etc and i'm constantly checking for scratches/chips, where if i'd bought a second hand one i'd have accepted the marks on it, polished them up as best as possible and not worried about it so much...just like i've always done with cars!


----------



## Lanzecki (29 Oct 2012)

theclaud said:


> Oh, please. A child touched your car. With his hand. If it's so delicate perhaps you shouldn't take it out of your garage.


 
I know I'm replying to a very early post here, but this is why you should try and stop people touching your car :





Small children with suntan lotion on.. The wife was visiting friends, and came back like this. It took a few days to notice, but the car is covered. Put a price on how much it's devalued from a child touching my delicate car.


----------



## middleagecyclist (29 Oct 2012)

Lanzecki said:


> I know I'm replying to a very early post here, but this is why you should try and stop people touching your car :
> 
> View attachment 14498
> 
> ...


There will be fingerprint evidence of the criminal damage though...


----------



## Mugshot (29 Oct 2012)

Blooming cyclists!!


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Oct 2012)

Lanzecki said:


> I know I'm replying to a very early post here, but this is why you should try and stop people touching your car :
> 
> View attachment 14498
> 
> ...


honestly - if a car is so delicate that it is messed up by suntan lotion...............you may have got the wrong car.


----------



## Lanzecki (29 Oct 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> There will be fingerprint evidence of the criminal damage though...


 
True. You suggest we should try and recover the cost of repairs from my wife's best friend? I never did like her


----------



## green1 (29 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> honestly - if a car is so delicate that it is messed up by suntan lotion...............you may have got the wrong car.


 
Maybe you can suggest a car that has some of this ever so hard 'Rambo' paint? Anything that is acidic eats paint, whether its suntan lotion, bird droppings or dead bugs, in that same way that anything that moves grit across it can scratch it like sandpaper, i.e.drive through car washers, hands on dirty paintwork etc.


----------



## Boris Bajic (29 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> it's not? Never been to a shop and picked up something to look at it? Or lifted a child up to walk along the top of a garden wall? (Preferably a child you've met before, but you know what I mean). Knocked on a door?
> 
> What I'm getting at here is that car drivers can be funny items. *The car represents the margin between them and what they perceive as a hostile world.* It might be that putting a hand on their car might be an educative, uplifting experience for them, inspiring some transcending of this artificial divide. Not just that - bringing the car and the human body together is a reminder of the relationship between the two - the first crude and hard, the second subtle and giving. Frankly any car driver with a brain would be grateful for the attention and the connection.
> 
> Feel the love, car drivers!


 
Yes! That's me! And every other driver I know, apart from Mrs Davies at number 12, but she is over 80 and rarely drives these days.

I have never seen such perceptive and insightful writing, cleverly presented in the style of lazy generalisation. You are probably some sort of social prophet.

I find that when a potentially hostile bicyclist from the scary world outside lays a healing hand on my motor car, it is an uplifting experience and partially lifts the artificial divide between us.

Although I have no brain, I am grateful for those things you said any driver with a brain would be grateful for.

Twice!

Thank you for seeing our pain, joy, anxiety or similar. And thank you for sharing it.


----------



## middleagecyclist (29 Oct 2012)

Lanzecki said:


> True. You suggest we should try and recover the cost of repairs from my wife's best friend? I never did like her


No. Go for the kids. Get the little b****rs locked up. The cycle of disrespect for law and order cannot be broken if you don't target the younger generation. Failing that go for damamges from the parents!


----------



## green1 (29 Oct 2012)

User13710 said:


> We know this, we just don't think it's that important


So because it's not important to you it doesn't matter? Tell you what, I'll come round your house and start throwing stones at your windows because it's not important to me.


----------



## green1 (29 Oct 2012)

2124515 said:


> Do you really mean that?


No of course I don't. I'm just trying to get across the point that just because it isn't important to you doesn't mean it isn't important to someone else.
It all comes down to what I said in my first post in this thread:


green1 said:


> Have respect for other people and that includes their property.


----------



## green1 (29 Oct 2012)

User13710 said:


> Oh do grow up. A window that's been smashed with a stone no longer functions as a window. A scratched car still works fine.


So if someone scratched your pride and joy be it a car, bike, painting, pogo stick, colouring book (quite likely for some on this forum) or child's face, you'd be okay with that because it still functions fine?
One of the best lessons I ever received as a teen was having to repair/or pay for the repair of the damage I did to my mums car with the handlebars of my bike. Seems to me a few here could do with a similar lesson.


----------



## green1 (29 Oct 2012)

2124554 said:


> You are assuming that any of us have actually damaged someone's car.


I'm not just talking just about cars, I'm talking about other peoples property and respecting it isn't yours to do with as you wish.


----------



## green1 (29 Oct 2012)

User13710 said:


> Well yes, as it goes - my beautiful brand new Orbea road bike got badly scratched when *I* fell off on some black ice soon after I got it, then the paint on the forks was damaged again when it was being transported back from John O'Groats, but I haven't lost any sleep over it. It still works, and I still love it.


You did it there is a difference.


----------



## Lanzecki (29 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> honestly - if a car is so delicate that it is messed up by suntan lotion...............you may have got the wrong car.


 
Unfortunately (or fortunately) since H&S, and the environmentalists got involved in car manufacturing, no car is safe.

Modern paints are water based. Older cars used Nitro-cellulose or Isocyanate paints. As Green1 said anything acidic or alkaline will damage paint. Sunscreen, bugs, bird poo even some older car shampoo will over time 'eat' into your nice shiny car.

So I'm not gonna put suntan lotion on my kids  Let 'em burn!



middleagedcyclist said:


> No. Go for the kids. Get the little b****rs locked up. The cycle of disrespect for law and order cannot be broken if you don't target the younger generation. Failing that go for damamges from the parents!


 
It wasn't intentional, If the adults didn't know, how should they. Years ago it wasn't a problem.

This is why I don't wash my car 

My main issue is the cost of repairs or the potential drop in worth of what is, for most, a large investment. Apart from a house it's the largest investment. And I don't go driving my house around the roads 3 inches from other cars. That said I don't live in my car.


----------



## green1 (29 Oct 2012)

2124572 said:


> Right you should have made all this clearer earlier, seeing as everyone else is quite specifically discussing an issue where car drivers hate anyone touching their car because they feel entitled to an extended personal space but dress their concerns up as worrying about the paint.


see page 2:


green1 said:


> If you did that to my car you'd soon have your hand on the road, because I'd get out of my car and put you on your arse. *Have respect for other people and that includes their property.*


I've even increased the font size and put it in bold for you.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (29 Oct 2012)

Mugshot said:


> View attachment 14499


 
So that's what Fnaar looks like!


GC


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Oct 2012)

green1 said:


> So if someone scratched your pride and joy be it a car, bike, painting, pogo stick, colouring book (quite likely for some on this forum) or child's face, you'd be okay with that because it still functions fine?
> One of the best lessons I ever received as a teen was having to repair/or pay for the repair of the damage I did to my mums car with the handlebars of my bike. Seems to me a few here could do with a similar lesson.


I think resting a hand on a car is probably a minor thing. Not worth the worry. Suntan lotion or no suntan lotion. If the suntan lotion makes a mark it's probably best the contemplate the transitory nature of things.

Then again, since the car in front of our house is fifteen years old and hasn't suffered from lotion, poo or bug abuse I'm probably pretty cheery about the whole paint thing.


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Oct 2012)

2124602 said:


> To be fair to the car obsessed here, it probably has but you haven't noticed.


now there's a thought. I should go out and check, and if there's the slightest blemish I should get really, really angry.

Why is it that baby lotion doesn't damage the glaze on my bike?


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Oct 2012)

green1 said:


> If you did that to my car you'd soon have your hand on the road, because I'd get out of my car and put you on your arse. Have respect for other people and that includes their property.


wow! Have you thought about this?


----------



## green1 (29 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> Why is it that baby lotion doesn't damage the glaze on my bike?


Because your bike has probably been powder coated.


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Oct 2012)

2124606 said:


> Although we might suspect that baby oil weakens titanium.


ah! A very interesting thought! Is this yet another reason for sticking with carbon?


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Oct 2012)

green1 said:


> Because your bike has probably been powder coated.


I beg your pardon! What kind of chap do you take me for! Powder (or the talcum variety) is for innertubes and not frames!


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (29 Oct 2012)

2124322 said:


> Yes, it is a serious technique for getting to the nub of the question, and most importantly not out of context at all. Removing everything else from someone's post, other than the immediate point being addressed, makes it much clearer for everyone to read. Ignore me as you will, it's an internet forum just do whatever you want, you think I would care?


 Well, as i guessed, you ignored the question and picked at something else. There is no going forward with this or with you so i will respectfully bow out of the conversation. Adios.


----------



## green1 (29 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> I beg your pardon! What kind of chap do you take me for! Powder (or the talcum variety) is for innertubes and not frames!


Who uses talc on inner tubes these days? Use lard man! but leave enough to do the chips afterwards.


----------



## screenman (29 Oct 2012)

Point to another person who talked about water borne paint on cars, it is laquered over with a laquer a twin pack one containing isocyanate, if it were not it would wash off first time it rained. Unfortunately although quite durable is does scratch, now there are on the market self repairing laquers, anti scratch laquers and many other types of laquer.


----------



## mangaman (29 Oct 2012)

screenman said:


> I have been president of vice for a large cycling club.


 
What does that entail?


----------



## screenman (29 Oct 2012)

Mangaman, that was a late post for me and should have said vice chairman, I just tried to introduce a very small bit of humour to the post. Sorry I failed.


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Oct 2012)

screenman said:


> Point to another person who talked about water borne paint on cars, it is laquered over with a laquer a twin pack one containing isocyanate, if it were not it would wash off first time it rained. Unfortunately although quite durable is does scratch, now there are on the market self repairing laquers, anti scratch laquers and many other types of laquer.


there you go! No need to rip the little horrors' arms off now! Chillax!


----------



## screenman (29 Oct 2012)

Just a thought, if on your ride you see a car a Passat Estate in fact fully sign written with Paintless Dent Repair on it then you are more than welcome to lean on it, and I will not get out and slap you. 

Have a good ride, I know I just have even though it was wet and windy.

dellzeqq, thing about those special laquers is they do not work very well. Most cal laquers scratch quite easily which is why my detailing lads are so busy. Note, detailing not valeting, different thing in our trade.


----------



## srw (29 Oct 2012)

No - your detailing lads are busy because Brits are very precious about their cars and will get the smallest little scratch repaired. Your business model wouldn't last a week in France or Italy!


----------



## Norm (29 Oct 2012)

User13710 said:


> green1 is also equating scratching a child's face with scratching a car - I think this is the point where I decide I can get no further with this person and bow out for a bit.


I thought that was quite a good analogy. The comment was that, if I don't care about something which belongs to someone else, I can do with it as I will as long as it doesn't ruin the other person use. Never mind respect or trespass or whatever, I could daub paint over houses, park on anyone's property, picnic in their gardens, hang flags from their chimney stacks, as long as I don't care what I'm doing or spoil their use of their property.

Just to make it clear, the case was made that...


2124529 said:


> ... the people you are arguing with here really don't care about the paintwork on your car



Although, whilst typing that, the words "(other people's) property is theft" came to mind, which could be the root issue here.


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Oct 2012)

green1 said:


> If you did that to my car you'd soon have your hand on the road, because I'd get out of my car and put you on your arse. Have respect for other people and that includes their property.


I think this sums it up. Car drivers can be touchy (tish-boom). For some of them driving a car is like having a special friend that does as he or she is told. As others have said, garden fences don't have quite the same priority. Whatever we're dealing with in Green1's post it's not about the car as a means of conveyance - it's about the car as identifier, as the significant other in the life of the driver. 

And that's why I don't do it anymore - I rather enjoy life and don't need the disappointment in humanity that this mania brings about.


----------



## Oldspice (29 Oct 2012)

What gives anyone the right to touch someone else's property. It's not like your trying to mark your territory?


----------



## Norm (29 Oct 2012)

I have just one issue with DZ's post... It should be badum-tish, not tish-boom.


----------



## Oldspice (29 Oct 2012)

Just simple manners


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Oct 2012)

Oldspice said:


> What gives anyone the right to touch someone else's property. It's not like your trying to mark your territory?


what gives anybody the right not to have their property touched? The answer is social convention. Thirty years ago cyclists would routinely lean on cars at lights because we had complicated straps around our feet. Now we have clipless pedals. The convention has changed over time, while, at the same time, the car has become the grand consumer fetish item. Now car drivers object. It's a social thing, not a rights thing.


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Oct 2012)

Oldspice said:


> Just simple manners


you can't have it both ways. Is it rights or is it manners? And when were manners simple?


----------



## screenman (29 Oct 2012)

SRW, there is a market for detailing in every country. In fact you might just find a bigger market in Italy than the UK.


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Oct 2012)

screenman said:


> SRW, there is a market for detailing in every country. In fact you might just find a bigger market in Italy than the UK.


are you one of those people who pimp rides?


----------



## screenman (29 Oct 2012)

Not really, part of my business is teaching PDR and WSR many guys who do detailing try and add these to their business. Personally I have no interest in cars other than I make my living from them, I used to be more enthusiastic in my younger years.


----------



## screenman (29 Oct 2012)

Class


----------



## Boris Bajic (29 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> what gives anybody the right not to have their property touched? The answer is social convention. Thirty years ago cyclists would routinely lean on cars at lights because we had complicated straps around our feet. Now we have clipless pedals. The convention has changed over time, while, at the same time, the car has become the grand consumer fetish item. Now car drivers object. It's a social thing, not a rights thing.


 
This is an odd one. I was driving 30 years ago and recall nobody leaning on my car at lights. I had a 2cv then, probably a car that invites hands more than most others.

I was also cycling 30 years ago (with rat cages) and do not recall needing to lean on cars. One might hang back and wobble, but not lean on cars.

I think motor cars have been a _'grand consumer fetish item'_ (your phrase) throughout those thirty years. For some people, but not for most of us.

I believe many car drivers would have objected thirty years ago to cyclists' hands and many still would today. Some might be the same motorists.

The 'road-ragey' aggressive nature of the objection might be a little more fierce these days, but the general ubiquity of objection is probably much as it was.

I agree with you that it's not a 'rights thing'. I'm not sure how it could be. It is a matter of manners. Like holding doors open for people and helping people with prams up steps.

It's not a terrible crime to lean on cars, ignore people following you through a door or let a parent with a pram struggle up steps on the tube.... It's just poor form. 

For me it starts and ends with manners.


----------



## Dan B (29 Oct 2012)

So I have to ask: for the people saying that leaning on cars is wrong but street furniture (signposts, railings etc) are OK, why the distinction? Somebody pays to have that railing maintained


----------



## Crosstrailer (29 Oct 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> This is an odd one. I was driving 30 years ago and recall nobody leaning on my car at lights. I had a 2cv then, probably a car that invites hands more than most others.
> 
> I was also cycling 30 years ago (with rat cages) and do not recall needing to lean on cars. One might hang back and wobble, but not lean on cars.
> 
> ...


 
Well said Boris


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Oct 2012)

Dan B said:


> So I have to ask: for the people saying that leaning on cars is wrong but street furniture (signposts, railings etc) are OK, why the distinction? Somebody pays to have that railing maintained


well, exactly. Our Wallace Arnold correspondent has to come up with an explanation of how manners are formed, not least because manners cover incivility as much as they promote civility.

In the end it depends on the terms of trade within public life. BB may not remember leaning on cars, but I do - it was a matter of course thing on the Sunday morning ride down to Brighton. I suspect that about thirty years ago the terms of trade changed, and that cars became more precious to their owners, and, again, I suspect that this was because life became less certain and less secure. There is, in this country, a gap between the expectations of deference on the part of those who would be deferred to, and the deference (or lack of deference) shown by those who are supposed to defer, and that gap is usually disguised by separation, and the break in that separation (for instance when somebody puts a hand on a car) in public space sometimes gives rise to the paranoid reaction so happily described by Green1.

Although it was a lighthearted post, I do genuinely think that touching a car is an educative thing - for the reasons I set out above. It does the car driver a power of good, if he did but know it.

I have a confession to make. I'm given to rapping lightly on the bodywork of a car if I want it to move away from me - this usually happens when a car is sliding left in a lane coming up to a traffic light, expecting me to somehow dissolve in to nothingness. Occasionally I'll rap on the window. For me it's a functional thing, but for the car driver it's a shocking thing. Sometimes it provokes wrath, but most of the time it's just shock. I think it's because it frightens them. It inverts that 'natural' order of things. But, still and all, it's an educative thing, and I like to think that they benefit from it........

oh - to compare touching a car with not helping someone up the stairs with a pram is a categorical mistake. The two are different things.


----------



## Longshot (29 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> I think this sums it up.


 
It sums something up but not what's being discussed here.


----------



## Gary E (29 Oct 2012)

At a pub stop earlier in the Summer (think summer was on a Saturday?) I leant my bike carefully against an empty chair at our table in a pub garden (there were 5 of us on the ride). I went in to get the drinks and when I came out I found my bike leaning against a hedge (well mostly in the hedge) as the guy at the next table decided he needed an extra seat and all of the other spare ones were much too far away (about 20ft). I was absolutely furious and if it hadn't been for my girlfriend holding me back I honestly think I would have thrown the guy that did it over the hedge.
With hind-sight I can see now that my reaction may well (possibly) have been (ever so) slightly over the top but this was my best (mainly for show) weekend bike FFS  
So it's not just car owners that can get a bit over-possessive


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Oct 2012)

Longshot said:


> I'm pretty sure that putting a hand on a car won't damage it.
> Having said that, lean on my car uninvited and I may lean on your face. Fair's fair.


 actually that's a decent summary as well


----------



## marzjennings (29 Oct 2012)

Longshot said:


> I'm pretty sure that putting a hand on a car won't damage it.
> 
> Having said that, lean on my car uninvited and I may lean on your face. Fair's fair.


+1 for this.


----------



## Hip Priest (29 Oct 2012)

A few years back I watched a documentary about road rage. One of the participants was a furious young egotist, who drove a yellow Fiat Punto and spent his days ranting and raving at anyone who so much as crossed his path.

He was completely unrepentant.

Rather chillingly, he said that if anyone were to touch his car, he'd kill them. At the time I wondered how on earth they'd sourced such a psychopath, but now I realise they probably found him on a cycling forum.


----------



## addictfreak (29 Oct 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> This is an odd one. I was driving 30 years ago and recall nobody leaning on my car at lights. I had a 2cv then, probably a car that invites hands more than most others.
> 
> I was also cycling 30 years ago (with rat cages) and do not recall needing to lean on cars. One might hang back and wobble, but not lean on cars.
> 
> ...




Probably the best post in 14 pages


----------



## marzjennings (29 Oct 2012)

2125293 said:


> You come across as an unhappy and violent lot you motorists.


The object is not important, be it car, bike, house, surfboard, what ever. Ask before and no worries, I'll allow the object to be used, borrowed, lent, shared. Assume and/or intrude without acknowledgment and I will not be a happy bunny.


----------



## marzjennings (29 Oct 2012)

2125311 said:


> Not happy and violent are not quite the same thing though.


True, one's reaction will depend on the initial action and current state of mind.


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Oct 2012)

thus far we've had stones through windows, knocking people on their arse, reversing in to them, hands on faces, scratching baby's faces and all sorts. It's been emotional!


----------



## Norm (29 Oct 2012)

My garden picnic didn't make the list!


----------



## marzjennings (29 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> . It's been emotional!


 
Yes, you were expecting some logical reasons?


----------



## marzjennings (29 Oct 2012)

2125378 said:


> It would be nice if it were possible. I do accept that it probably isn't though.


Sorry, many of us are just toddlers with jobs and grey hair who get upset when some one takes our rattle.

But all of us have a line in the sand past which personal space encroachment will not be tolerated. I guess mine starts at the shell of my car.


----------



## screenman (29 Oct 2012)

Adrian, I am a motorist however I do not fit into the sweeping statement you made earlier.


----------



## middleagecyclist (29 Oct 2012)

2125424 said:


> You are the first person to admit what I have said all along. It is bugger all to do with paint and everything to do with the car as carapace.


We're all Turtles?


----------



## chewy (29 Oct 2012)

2125434 said:


> You are Walnuts?


 

....wel, nuts at least!


----------



## Gary E (29 Oct 2012)

2125424 said:


> You are the first person to admit what I have said all along. It is bugger all to do with paint and everything to do with the car as carapace.


 

...in your opinion!

which, don't get me wrong, is absolutely fine but it's not everyone's opinion.


Life would be pretty boring if we all thought the same, but we don't. That's why we have things such as manners, flexibilty and tolerance so that we can all get along


----------



## middleagecyclist (29 Oct 2012)

2125434 said:


> You are Walnuts?


Does not compute.


----------



## Longshot (29 Oct 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> This is an odd one. I was driving 30 years ago and recall nobody leaning on my car at lights. I had a 2cv then, probably a car that invites hands more than most others.
> 
> I was also cycling 30 years ago (with rat cages) and do not recall needing to lean on cars. One might hang back and wobble, but not lean on cars.
> 
> ...


 

Excellent post, thank you.


----------



## screenman (29 Oct 2012)

I have been giving a lot of thought to this subject.


----------



## 400bhp (29 Oct 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> This is an odd one. I was driving 30 years ago and recall nobody leaning on my car at lights. I had a 2cv then, probably a car that invites hands more than most others.
> 
> I was also cycling 30 years ago (with rat cages) and do not recall needing to lean on cars. One might hang back and wobble, but not lean on cars.
> 
> ...


 
We're with you maaan- [the silent majority]


----------



## middleagecyclist (29 Oct 2012)

2125477 said:


> Sorry. Davy Walnuts stated an intention to do last Fridays ride to Burnham in the guise of a turtle.


...and did he?


----------



## marzjennings (29 Oct 2012)

[QUOTE 2125403, member: 9609"]Coming within the shell of your car - or merely touching the outside of that shell?[/quote]
Touching will be met with words.
Getting in, uninvited, will be met with fist.


----------



## middleagecyclist (29 Oct 2012)

marzjennings said:


> Touching will be met with words.
> Getting in, uninvited, will be met with fist.


I got into the passenger side of my car when my wife was in the driving seat. Trouble was it wasn't my car or my wife. The lady was very surprised but quite understanding. Glad she didn't punch me!


----------



## 400bhp (29 Oct 2012)

2125493 said:


> No, of course not. All mouth and no trousers that one.


 
Was probably worried you would all touch his shell


----------



## SportMonkey (29 Oct 2012)

I was at AlpKit's Big Shakeout the other weekend, we got home and noticed a scratch on my wife's new car. I was a little upset. Obviously (due to the event - where it was parked, etc.) had been knocked by a bike. I'm always precious about possessions, I'm a little OCD. My reaction: "Sod it, I can polish it out."

As for leaning hands on cars, I'd not do it as I get chain skip a lot, and I don't clean my chain. If anyone has seen the black fingerprints along the street furniture of the A56, they will know I like to rest on things. (Really, it's been there for months).

Would I be annoyed about a cyclist leaning on my car? Not really, the pedals would make me nervous though.


----------



## Hitchington (29 Oct 2012)

I wonder if Jimmy Savile touched cars when he was out on his bike? Makes you think, doesn't it?


----------



## lukesdad (29 Oct 2012)

screenman said:


> I have been giving a lot of thought to this subject.


 More fool you


----------



## SportMonkey (29 Oct 2012)

User13710 said:


> Apparently, touching a *** does actually damage it in some way, so I guess we're all probably guilty. Hell, I think I damage my own *** almost every day.


 
This thread would be much more amusing if we had a forum ban on the word car.


----------



## Matthew_T (29 Oct 2012)

I have never touched anyones car. Even when they have been too close when overtaking. I dont know why but I prefer to have both hands on the brakes and just shout at the driver. I think hitting that car would just make things worse as they would accuse me of 'damage'. Just like the cabbie in one of Gaz's videos.


----------



## SportMonkey (29 Oct 2012)

ianrauk said:


> I have lent on a police car for balance with no problems.
> Had a chat with the fuzz inside, she certainly didn't mind.


 
Sexist pig!

And I didn't think that female police officer uniform included skirts...


----------



## lukesdad (29 Oct 2012)

2125625 said:


> Don't knock it, it could be great and you could give it a go some time.


 I' ll leave it up to you Adrian and associated 'nobbers' loony evangelists, looks like you need the practice


----------



## marzjennings (29 Oct 2012)

[QUOTE 2125538, member: 9609"]Are you a violent person in general, or do you only get these feelings when inside your shell car?

Can you shoot someone in texas for touching your car?[/quote]
Confused by your question? 
My words for touching my car may include an 'excuse me' and a 'would you mind, generally not violent terms. Just 'cos I don't like something does not mean I have to leap to abusive language.

And if someone jumps into my car uninvited (and unknown) I'm assuming they have done so for bad reasons and not good ones and therefore I am prepared to act accordingly (violently if required). After 2 attempted car jackings I don't take this sort of thing lightly.

What would you do if someone jumped into your car? Buy 'em a beer?


----------



## lukesdad (29 Oct 2012)

2125674 said:


> Yes probably best to keep with the smilies, no need to commit to an idea that way.


 well I did at least answer the OP s question, before you lot decided to divert it with the usual bollox, driven  by your hatred of cars... what the feck here's another smilie for you


----------



## Dan B (29 Oct 2012)

marzjennings said:


> But all of us have a line in the sand past which personal space encroachment will not be tolerated. I guess mine starts at the shell of my car.


Do you *always* get upset when someone gets within about five feet of you, or is that just when you're in the car? It's a good job we don't all feel that way all the time, or the average city - and the average office - would be basically unworkable.


----------



## Dan B (29 Oct 2012)

I guess we should be grateful you don't drive a bus, though


----------



## lukesdad (29 Oct 2012)

2125710 said:


> Before? You were well late


 I would have been here earlier but had something far more important to attend to, you know how 5 year olds and their noughts and crosses are.... ah perhaps not probably a bit advanced for you.


----------



## Hip Priest (29 Oct 2012)

middleagecyclist said:


> I got into the passenger side of my car when my wife was in the driving seat. Trouble was it wasn't my car or my wife. The lady was very surprised but quite understanding. Glad she didn't punch me!


 
That happened to me once. A middle-aged women climbed into my passenger seat thinking it was her husband's car. It was quite funny for all concerned, until I unloaded my AK47 into her face. Freedom!


----------



## TheLondonCyclist (29 Oct 2012)

gaz said:


> I do it to busses now and then, but in the blind spot of the driver.
> Wouldn't do it to any other vehicle.


I find clips shoes dangerous due to being stuck to the bike if you're gonna crash or something... you can't jump off; not that I would abandon my bike lol


----------



## slowmotion (29 Oct 2012)

It would be quite interesting if pedestrians took the same offence at other people "invading" their personal _4x4 _zone while pootling down the pavement, wouldn't it?


----------



## marzjennings (30 Oct 2012)

Dan B said:


> Do you *always* get upset when someone gets within about five feet of you, or is that just when you're in the car? It's a good job we don't all feel that way all the time, or the average city - and the average office - would be basically unworkable.


Errr, no.


----------



## marzjennings (30 Oct 2012)

[QUOTE 2125819, member: 9609"]OK, fair enough then - "having a word" has other connotations in my neck of the woods
.[/quote]

Ah yes, I wasn't thinking. I've been away from home for too long, Forgetting me own tongue.


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Oct 2012)

lukesdad said:


> well I did at least answer the OP s question, before you lot decided to divert it with the usual bollox, driven  by your hatred of cars... what the feck here's another smilie for you


I think the hatred (along with the threats of violence) are all one way


----------



## Boris Bajic (30 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> I think the hatred (along with the threats of violence) are all one way


 
On this thread and others like it, I think you're quite right and few would question it.

But this is the Internet, where slim Joe from accounts can become a marauding avenger of the streets and fantasize about bashing bad, naughty bicyclists.

Many contributors here are (I imagine) both cyclists and motorists. Most motorists have a benign, live-&-let-live attitude to cyclists and pedestrians.

Similarly, most cyclists have a positive view of motorists. That's as it should be, because most road users are skilled and courteous.

These fun little chats on the harmless and impersonal Internet can whip either side up into an unseemly froth of wasted shaving soap, but the streets are not full of felled cyclists who lie there bashed because they touched a car to keep their balance.

This may be because most (all) cyclists know a thing or two about good manners and most motorists are not road-rage pressure cookers on the verge of spewing the steam of hate all over the kitchen walls.

Most people are lovely and don't have the time or energy to take hatred and threats of violence beyong the Internet. Or waspish quips.

Yesterday I did 38 miles in the p1ssiest of p1ssy, thin, penetrating rain on a newly (and fully) fettled fixed bike. Loads of cars and trucks ran me too close. There was wet, gripless farm mud on many of the faster descents. When not blue, my knuckles were white.

I loved it. My cycling clothes and shoes are still not dry and my beautiful, clean, lubed bike now looks like the detritus of war.

That's what it's all about, not amusing but pointless Internet spats about who hates whom the more.


----------



## green1 (30 Oct 2012)

Dan B said:


> Do you *always* get upset when someone gets within about five feet of you, or is that just when you're in the car? It's a good job we don't all feel that way all the time, or the average city - and the average office - would be basically unworkable.


I don't no, but I do get very pissed of when people when people start messing with my personal possessions which on on my desk at work (3d mouse, calculator, pen (it's an expensive one) etc).


----------



## lukesdad (30 Oct 2012)

2125798 said:


> Get him to explain to you the difference between questioning car obsessed culture and car hating while you are there.


 Its you who is obsessed, you divert to this line every at every opportunity.


----------



## lukesdad (30 Oct 2012)

green1 said:


> I don't no, but I do get very ****ed of when people when people start messing with my personal possessions which on on my desk at work (3d mouse, calculator, pen (it's an expensive one) etc).


 I think you might need to get some help with that


----------



## Boris Bajic (30 Oct 2012)

Many years ago we bought and (had) renovated a gorgeous old house. We'd never started with bare walls before and went a bit silly on the design.

Too many loos, too many showers. Too many tiles, too much antique terracotta and way too many wooden floors.

On his first visit my darling, beloved and slightly-too-Alpha Male brother wandered into our personal en-suite (hard to find on the best day) and dropped a hugely smelly log.

I ground almost 3mm of enamel off my teeth about that duroing the weekend visit. It was tomcat behaviour of the lowest order. He had (figuratively) peed on my favourite tree. He might as well have tried to snog my wife. There were plenty of other loos and he knew it.

That was 20 years ago and it still burns in my soul. Imagine how I'd be if he'd touched my car....

Or touched my 3d mouse. Whatever one of those is....


----------



## Longshot (30 Oct 2012)

You guys just keep on trying to find excuses to cover up your lack of respect and basic manners. I don't blame you, I'd be ashamed too.


----------



## 400bhp (30 Oct 2012)

2126101 said:


> And in return you keep up your unreasonable expectation of the ammount of space you can occupy.


 
In your opinion. And does your opinion need to be enforced on others?

Should we all live in tiny houses too?


----------



## Boris Bajic (30 Oct 2012)

TheLondonCyclist said:


> I find clips shoes dangerous due to being stuck to the bike if you're gonna crash or something... you can't jump off; not that I would abandon my bike lol


 
This is a popular and inaccurate belief.

I've ridden for decades on flats, in rat cages and with various clipless systems (Look, SPD and Crank bros). I am a poor-to-average rider, so I've had many unplanned dismounts at speed. Some funny, some painful, some both.

Not once have I hit the floor with feet still engaged in the pedals. The ankle (it seems) twists to disengage faster than the sphincter can cotract.

It remains a thing of wonder to me that as I fly through the air like Buzz Lightyear (and it* is* flying, whatever you think) I am unburdoned of my bicycle and all that painful mass as if by magic.

Lots of the advances of recent years are nothing but hokum and snale oil, beyond the realm of the pro, the serious racer or the fantasist: carbon bottle cages, energy gels, Garmin sweat-drop-diameter gauges, electronic shifters et al... but the clipless pedal system is neither snake oil nor hokum.

Whichever you go for (we have several loyalties in my family) they are a marvel - in The Smoke, on a rural A-Road or blatting across the Beacons.

Mr (or Miss) London Cyclist, you are doing yourself a great injustice unless and until you go the clipless route.

And remember, I am never wrong. Never. Despite the vitriolic gainsayers who disagree with me on these forums just because they had an unhappy childhood or didn't get that promotion they wanted.


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Oct 2012)

Longshot said:


> You guys just keep on trying to find excuses to cover up your lack of respect and basic manners. I don't blame you, I'd be ashamed too.


sorry - the threats of violence came from who......?


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Oct 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> On this thread and others like it, I think you're quite right and few would question it.
> 
> But this is the Internet, where slim Joe from accounts can become a marauding avenger of the streets and fantasize about bashing bad, naughty bicyclists.


true enough. Real violence against cyclists, as opposed to mouthing off, is a rare thing indeed. (Says the man who was kicked unconscious by prospective bike thieves, but that's another story entirely).


----------



## 400bhp (30 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> sorry - the threats of violence came from who......?


 
Is this a tennis match? Keep batting things back and forth. I can't be arsed to look but I suspect threats of violence came from a small minority. Please don't treat us all with the same brush.


----------



## Crackle (30 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> Is this a tennis match? Keep batting things back and forth. I can't be arsed to look but I suspect threats of violence came from a small minority. Please don't treat us all with the same brush.


 
Unless it's a nice soft chamois one.


----------



## green1 (30 Oct 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> It remains a thing of wonder to me that as I fly through the air like Buzz Lightyear (and it* is* flying, whatever you think)


To quote Tom McRae:

Falling feels like flying 
Until you hit the ground


----------



## middleagecyclist (30 Oct 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> Lots of the advances of recent years are nothing but hokum and snale oil, beyond the realm of the pro, the serious racer or the fantasist: carbon bottle cages, energy gels, Garmin sweat-drop-diameter gauges, electronic shifters et al...


Speak for yourself. I have noted an amazing increase in average and top end speed since making the investment and trading up from a plastic bottle cage to a gorgeous carbon creation (in black).


----------



## 400bhp (30 Oct 2012)

Crackle said:


> Unless it's a nice soft chamois one.


 
Actually, it's microfibre towels and lambswool mitts these days.


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> Is this a tennis match? Keep batting things back and forth. I can't be arsed to look but I suspect threats of violence came from a small minority. Please don't treat us all with the same brush.


I'm not. The threats of violence came from Longshot and Green1. Lukesdad should know that.


----------



## Longshot (30 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> sorry - the threats of violence came from who......?


 
Leaning on someone isn't "violence". I chose my words very carefully.

Still, there you go again, obfuscating and deflecting.


----------



## 400bhp (30 Oct 2012)

2126169 said:


> Is this relevant?


 
We can play the question game all day long.


----------



## 400bhp (30 Oct 2012)

2126171 said:


> Where is ny opinion being enforced here? I have merely expressed it because it is quite clear to me that car drivers do not even begin to see quite how selfish and unreasonable their behavior is.


 
You believe that car drivers take up too much space, or that car drivers shouldn't believe that their space extends around their car.

Many (in a roundabout way) would and have disagreed with this.

By you placing your hands on their cars you are enforcing your opinion on them.

I actually don't believe you do it [hands on cars] anyway and are simply playing devil's advocate (putting it mildly).


----------



## 400bhp (30 Oct 2012)

2126181 said:


> 1. I do do it very occasionally and always conscious of the fact that I am bring rude in response to another rudeness.
> 
> 2. Other than that I am only likely to touch people's cars to deploy a wing mirror for them and that usually by agreement.
> 
> 3. I am not however playing Devil's advocate. I am trying to encourage drivers to think about what they do.


 
1. If I am reading correctly, then you only do it if someone has done a misdemeanor on the road (e.g cut you up, drove aggressively)? My one and only time I have held myself up on a car was at some traffic lights when the offending driver had passed me so close I could have been his passenger, 

2. Fair play.

3. I'm not sure I understand that {encourage drivers to think about what they do}. Do you mean us drivers on CC or drivers in general for example, and how exactly are you encouraging drivers to think?


----------



## green1 (30 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> I'm not. The threats of violence came from Longshot and Green1. Lukesdad should know that.


Where? I said you'd end up on your arse, I didn't say how you'd end up there. I'd do that by leaning on your bike, which if you too lazy to unclip to put your foot on the ground will end up with you on the ground.


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Oct 2012)

the words speak for themselves. Of course, it's not a worry, and, Reiver, you're absolutely right - it does demonstrate precisely that.


----------



## green1 (30 Oct 2012)

[QUOTE 2126218, member: 9609"]In all fairness I think it was more a figure of speech than an outright threat of violence. To me it just demonstrated what a decidedly odd relationship some people have with a lump of metal. respecting other people and their possessions.[/quote]
FTFY


----------



## Boris Bajic (30 Oct 2012)

I say, we're not going to come to blows over this are we?


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Oct 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I say, we're not going to come to blows over this are we?


scarcely - but


green1 said:


> If you did that to my car you'd soon have your hand on the road, because I'd get out of my car and put you on your arse. Have respect for other people and that includes their property.


I think the phrase 'put you on your arse' is going to become a sort of touchstone. Something that comes up in conversation time and time and time and time again.


----------



## gaz (30 Oct 2012)

TheLondonCyclist said:


> I find clips shoes dangerous due to being stuck to the bike if you're gonna crash or something... you can't jump off; not that I would abandon my bike lol


You can easily get out of the pedals if required.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (30 Oct 2012)

Why do leaners get to decide whether the gaining of a benefit from their physical use of another's property is acceptable to that person or not?

Maybe those who don't have the skill to trackstand or the foresight to unclip should put the stabilisers back on.

GC


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (30 Oct 2012)

This thread seriously needs ...







That's better. Carry on


----------



## TheLondonCyclist (30 Oct 2012)

What are you girls arguing about now? LOL


----------



## 400bhp (30 Oct 2012)

2126372 said:


> 1 & 2 it appears we are pretty much in agreement.
> 
> 3 Only here, or anyone I speak with in real life.


 
Thanks.

Number 3. How are you encouraging drivers to think?


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Oct 2012)

If I think back to my balsa-soled Duegi shoe days I think we just took cars as part of the landscape. It wasn't a personal thing but almost the complete opposite. They were simply there. London's modern day leaners tend to be fixed riders who have a bit of a superior air about them, and, looking back, I suppose that in the early seventies we, likewise, did think of ourselves as Gods of the Road, and all that was around us was background music.

I think, as time has gone by, and cycling, the greatest constant in my life, has framed my outlook on the world, I've come to see cars as a bit of a nuisance, an intrusion in to public space, and I've left my leaning days behind me (with the exception of those glorious but frightening SPD-R moments when one discovers what it's really like to be at one with the bike). I'd rather not get involved except where the driver does something silly, or gets too close to the one I adore. Notwithstanding, when I see some trustafarian leaning on a car it does bring back happy memories.

It's not simply about the past though. In London we are the new Gods of the Road, sliding effortlessly through traffic or ambling happily down empty bus lanes while car drivers park and wait. The Fixieboys and girls, tweedybits, dyed hair, 'retro' frames (in reality grotty 80s steel jobs) and messenjah bags do the rest of us a service when they assert the new order of things.

And, yes, having thought about it some more, I do really think that a bit of leaning benefits the driver. It's that margin between human beings and things thing. I may even take it up again, as a kindness to some of our less fortunate citizens.


----------



## 400bhp (30 Oct 2012)

Sensible answer please.


----------



## 400bhp (30 Oct 2012)

Thanks for the explanation.

Perhaps you should have said that in your first post?


----------



## 400bhp (30 Oct 2012)

[QUOTE 2126515, member: 9609"]I should have elaborated more; I wasn't suggesting drivers are not capable of thought, more that their thoughts are seldom on the road in front - most people drive on some sort of autopilot. If drivers concentrated as much on their driving as cyclists do on their cycling then accidents rates would plummet.[/quote]

Are accident rates higher in cars than in cyclists?


----------



## Crosstrailer (30 Oct 2012)

[QUOTE 2126515, member: 9609"]I should have elaborated more; I wasn't suggesting drivers are not capable of thought, more that their thoughts are seldom on the road in front - *most people* drive on some sort of autopilot. If drivers concentrated as much on their driving as cyclists do on their cycling then accidents rates would plummet.[/quote]

Unfortunately this post is suffering from 'sweeping generalisation disease'


----------



## Norm (30 Oct 2012)

Crosstrailer said:


> Unfortunately this post is suffering from 'sweeping generalisation disease'


Sadly, it is not alone.


----------



## SportMonkey (30 Oct 2012)

lukesdad said:


> I think you might need to get some help with that


I'd punch someone for using my pen, by punch we all know this is internet speak for "have a [passive aggressive] word".

That said I use Sheaffer fountain pens, and other people using them ruins the nibs.


----------



## Norm (30 Oct 2012)

SportMonkey said:


> ... and other people using them ruins the nibs.


Oh, dear, that will cause controversy!


----------



## SportMonkey (30 Oct 2012)

2126375 said:


> That's something you don't see on a bike, a good reverse gear.


 
Fixie rider. Obv.


----------



## Crackle (30 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> Actually, it's microfibre towels and lambswool mitts these days.


Really. I've learnt something else then apart from what that hand print is that won't rub off (suntan lotion).


----------



## SportMonkey (30 Oct 2012)

[QUOTE 2126515, member: 9609"]I should have elaborated more; I wasn't suggesting drivers are not capable of thought, more that their thoughts are seldom on the road in front - most people drive on some sort of autopilot. If drivers concentrated as much on their driving as cyclists do on their cycling then accidents rates would plummet.[/quote]

The problem here is generalisation.

I can see your point about auto-pilot, but not all drivers are the same. If I can I will use my car to actively protect other non-car road users. This has increased after being knocked off twice. I'd say my concentration is equal on both.


----------



## srw (30 Oct 2012)

2126445 said:


> Reiver's answer was right though. People who drive cars don't think about it by and large,


 And thank goodness, by and large, they don't. Driving is far too difficult to be done consciously.


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Oct 2012)

Crosstrailer said:


> Unfortunately this post is suffering from 'sweeping generalisation disease'


that's not a generalisation. That's an estimation. If you don't know the difference, get back to me.


----------



## growingvegetables (30 Oct 2012)

[QUOTE 2126515, member: 9609"]I should have elaborated more; I wasn't suggesting drivers are not capable of thought, more that their thoughts are seldom on the road in front - most people drive on some sort of autopilot. If drivers concentrated as much on their driving as cyclists do on their cycling then accidents rates would plummet.[/quote]
Just a cheeky aside - isn't there one other situation where some drivers "forget to think"? Faced with a keyboard?

There's a few too many of "that sort" above, methinks.


----------



## simon.r (30 Oct 2012)

So, have we come to any conclusions?

I have been known to change my opinions on subjects after internet debates, but not this time.

If anything it has made me realise how anti-car some people are, for no sensible reason. I can understand people being anti-bad driving, anti-use of cars in certain circumstances and even, to a point, anti-particular types of cars, but the general 'I don't like cars, they're just part of the space I use, therefore it's OK to treat them as I see fit' point of view is really beyond me.


----------



## screenman (30 Oct 2012)

I doubt Adrian will answer this question as he has a habit of avoiding them, but can someone tell me what sort of car he drives?


----------



## Crosstrailer (30 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> that's not a generalisation. That's an estimation. If you don't know the difference, get back to me.


 
No, that's a sweeping generalisation.

I would suggest in future before trying to pick people up that you are actually correct before you attempt to do so, as a failed attempt does not reflect well on you.


----------



## lukesdad (30 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> I'm not. The threats of violence came from Longshot and Green1. Lukesdad should know that.


 Huh ?


----------



## Longshot (30 Oct 2012)

2126734 said:


> I have never owned a car in my life.


 
That's not what he asked


----------



## screenman (30 Oct 2012)

In that case Adrian, I see. Shame.


----------



## screenman (30 Oct 2012)

I thought that may have been the case.


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Oct 2012)

Crosstrailer said:


> No, that's a sweeping generalisation.
> 
> I would suggest in future before trying to pick people up that you are actually correct before you attempt to do so, as a failed attempt does not reflect well on you.


if he had said 'drivers are whatever' that would be a generalisation. But he didn't. He said 'most drivers are whatever' which is to say something over 50%. He may be right, he may be wrong, but it's an estimation


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Oct 2012)

simon.r said:


> So, have we come to any conclusions?
> 
> I have been known to change my opinions on subjects after internet debates, but not this time.
> 
> If anything it has made me realise how anti-car some people are, for no sensible reason. I can understand people being anti-bad driving, anti-use of cars in certain circumstances and even, to a point, anti-particular types of cars, but the general 'I don't like cars, they're just part of the space I use, therefore it's OK to treat them as I see fit' point of view is really beyond me.


let's go back a bit. Who said they would get out of their car and put whom 'on their arse'? Was it a) a driver or b) a cyclist. The clue is in the question. For the bonus who said they might scratch a child's face or throw stones through a window? And, for the chesterfield, who would lean on whose face?


----------



## 400bhp (30 Oct 2012)

[QUOTE 2126760, member: 9609"]I have no idea, but at a guess 73.8% of cyclists concentrate on average 27.9% more than drivers on the road in front of them.[/quote]

If you don't know then why quote something that isn't necessarily obvious (higher accident rate for car drivers than cyclists), in particular your belief appears to be based on something you don't know?

Be faecitious as you like - gets you nowhere.


----------



## screenman (30 Oct 2012)

Nope! give us a clue.

Adrian if you have never owned something how can you know what it feels like to do so, could be a cucumber or a pair of thigh length boots, but to never own is to not know the experience.

Now the thigh leather boots I have only worn once and that was whilst playing Dick Turpin in yep, you guessed it Dick Turpin in third year of primary. Could be said that was a good role for somebody who went on to become a car dealer for 15 years before selling up and moving north.


----------



## Boris Bajic (30 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> let's go back a bit. Who said they would get out of their car and put whom 'on their arse'? Was it a) a driver or b) a cyclist. The clue is in the question. For the bonus who said they might scratch a child's face or throw stones through a window? And, for the *chesterfield*, who would lean on whose face?


 
I am a man of peace, but for a Chesterfield I would lean (benignly) on someone's face.

Please contact me with dimensions and colour as we are boringly staid in our interior design and I'd be reluctant to accept a prize that didn't fit in with the look we have tried to achieve.


----------



## screenman (30 Oct 2012)

Adrian, any chance of stopping your bad habit of turning posts into echo's.


----------



## screenman (30 Oct 2012)

Adrian, I very much doubt it.

I felt I asked quite politely.

I must admit I find most of your replies amusing as of course they are meant to be, yourself, Reiver, Dellzeqq a good bunch of wind up merchants, brilliant, keep at it as it makes for a busy forum.


----------



## screenman (30 Oct 2012)

Brilliant!


----------



## 400bhp (30 Oct 2012)

2127021 said:


> Wind up merchants? I am outraged. I have been, as I often do, encouraging people to challenge their entrenched viewpoint and find some enlightenment.


 
really?


----------



## 400bhp (30 Oct 2012)

You get outraged easily and I can't take people like that seriously.

Are we talking about the enlightenment that cars are not an extension of ones personal space?


----------



## screenman (30 Oct 2012)

Adrian. Really, no way. Definitely trolling you must be, go on tell us we can keep a secret.


----------



## Norm (30 Oct 2012)

'tis a shame that you can't hold a mirror to such lofty aspirations.


----------



## 400bhp (30 Oct 2012)

2127071 said:


> 1.
> 1.You can't take me seriously yet you ask yet another question? Interesting dichotomy.
> 
> 2. I have the modest aspiration that some of you car drivers might come to view your personal space issues as a touch unreasonable.
> ...


 
1.You never ask questions of people you don't take seriously? Interesting life you mustn't lead.

2. You're a car driver too....

3. Go on then, enlighten us with why you belive the whole [important word you've used there] driving thing is unreasonable.


----------



## 400bhp (30 Oct 2012)

2127107 said:


> 1. That would depend on what I am looking for. Evidence that they cannot be taken seriously. To take the ****. To help them see why they cannot be taken seriously. All possible.
> 
> 2 I am also a bit of a hypocrite.
> 
> 3. Where to start?.The worldwide death toll, the wanton use of scarce resources, the dehumanizing effect of travelling in isolated compartments, the ludicrous inefficiency of all that dead time. I really don't know.


 
That's better 

#3. the WHOLE thing though? Are you sure? That's a very extreme view, not dissimilar to some fanatics wouldn't you say.


----------



## simon.r (30 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> let's go back a bit. Who said they would get out of their car and put whom 'on their arse'? Was it a) a driver or b) a cyclist. The clue is in the question. For the bonus who said they might scratch a child's face or throw stones through a window? And, for the chesterfield, who would lean on whose face?


 
Erm...was it a car driver? Of course any of these actions would be abhorrent (though I think the 'child's face' and 'stones through a window' were being used as analogies - possibly poor ones - but no-one got anywhere near actually threatening to carry them out).

But that doesn't make it right for a cyclist to treat a car as a piece of street furniture. Neither does it make it right for a car driver to treat a cyclist as a second class citizen, or a pedestrian to treat a wheelchair user with contempt.

All I'm saying (as are quite a few others) is that we should ALL show respect for each other and each others belongings.


----------



## Dan B (30 Oct 2012)

simon.r said:


> But that doesn't make it right for a cyclist to treat a car as a piece of street furniture.


So, just to make sure I've got this straight: it's not OK to treat cars as though they were street furniture, nor is it OK to treat furniture (I think Chesterfields were mentioned) as street furniture, even when it's on the street, but there's no problem treating street furniture as street furniture? I want to make quite sure I understand the distinction, because it seems to me quite arbitrary


----------



## simon.r (30 Oct 2012)

Dan B said:


> So, just to make sure I've got this straight: it's not OK to treat cars as though they were street furniture, nor is it OK to treat furniture (I think Chesterfields were mentioned) as street furniture, even when it's on the street, but there's no problem treating street furniture as street furniture? I want to make quite sure I understand the distinction, because it seems to me quite arbitrary


 
Not arbitary at all. Street furniture is a widely used and recognised term, '...for objects and pieces of equipment installed on streets and roads for various purposes. It includes benches, traffic barriers, bollards, post boxes, phone boxes, streetlamps, traffic lights, traffic signs, bus stops, tram stops, taxi stands, public lavatories, fountains, watering troughs, memorials, public sculptures, and waste receptacles'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_furniture


----------



## Dan B (30 Oct 2012)

So, just to be clear, it's OK to treat all that stuff with disrespect?


----------



## 400bhp (30 Oct 2012)

2127125 said:


> The whole unthinking and entrenched car dependant culture. Do you think we are
> Better off continuing with that
> 
> Or
> ...


 
Nothing with what you are suggesting, but that's a long way from saying we need to view the *whole* car driving thing as unreasonable


----------



## simon.r (30 Oct 2012)

Dan B said:


> So, just to be clear, it's OK to treat all that stuff with disrespect?


 
Tell you what, as an intelligent adult, you decide if it's OK to treat a waste receptacle with a degree of disrepect. Then decide if it's OK to treat a memorial the same way.


----------



## lukesdad (30 Oct 2012)

Oh my Adrian you are floundering.... don't think the Chuckle brothers are going to be able to dig you out of this one


----------



## 400bhp (30 Oct 2012)

I don't believe we need to view the *whole* car driving thing as unreasonable, no

Can you confirm you are still saying we need to view the *whole* car driving thing as unreasonable, or was that a bit melodramatic on your part?


----------



## Dan B (30 Oct 2012)

simon.r said:


> Tell you what, as an intelligent adult, you decide if it's OK to treat a waste receptacle with a degree of disrepect. Then decide if it's OK to treat a memorial the same way.


Oh, so now it's *not* OK to treat street furniture as if it were street furniture? There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of consistency in your position here


----------



## simon.r (30 Oct 2012)

Dan B said:


> Oh, so now it's *not* OK to treat street furniture as if it were street furniture? There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of consistency in your position here


 
Oh, come on. You're being deliberately obtuse now.


----------



## lukesdad (30 Oct 2012)

2127196 said:


> Do feel free to contribute, should you actually have anything to contribute.


 Don't you recognise the tactic ? Shame on you.
Not quite so humorous when the boots on the other foot is it ?
I was quite willing to leave this thread at 2 posts, but you just couldn't help yourself could you.


----------



## 400bhp (30 Oct 2012)

2127226 said:


> Seeing as you insist on an analysis of every word used, of itself a slightly worrying thing, in that context the word "whole" is possibly a little extreme. I really ought to tone it down to "overwhelming majority" to allow some wriggle room for those people who really cannot manage without their cars.


 
We're getting there.

I'm going to be a tad critical of you here, hope you don't take offence.

What you are saying (society needs to take a long hard look at car ownership) makes a lot of sense, but If you are going to enlighten people and you want people to listen and take on board your comments, the first thing you need to do is get them on your side. Start by posting your belief at the start of the thread, not at the end. Don't make snide insinuations throughout the thread on the premise that we should know what your true belief is.

When I view your posts they give an air of superiority. You're no better or no worse than any one of us here. I hope I am wrong here and I have personally mis-read you. Another poster has vouched for your offline personality and I'll take that at face value.


----------



## lukesdad (30 Oct 2012)

2127264 said:


> Oh sorry, forgot a bit. When you do have an opinion about something, cover it up with a load of smilies so that it is obscured.


 As Ive said Adrian go back to my first post on the thread and the answer to the OP its there in 3 small words even you could understand.


----------



## lukesdad (30 Oct 2012)

Are you going to start ranting about smilies next ?


----------



## lukesdad (30 Oct 2012)

2127288 said:


> Yes I have read your initial answer but it offers nothing of any substance, that is the problem.


 The OP asked 2 simple questions remember ?


----------



## Dan B (30 Oct 2012)

simon.r said:


> Oh, come on. You're being deliberately obtuse now.


First you say that its bad to treat cars as street furniture, now you say its bad to treat street furniture with disrespect (except for _ some_ street furniture...) - so what exactly did you mean by the comparison? 

As an intelligent adult (sic) I have my own views on this matter, but I also respect yours (whatever they in fact turn out to be) which is why I'm trying to get to the bottom of them


----------



## lukesdad (30 Oct 2012)

Oh now I see, dont answer any questions just spout off your own personal propaganda.


----------



## Dan B (30 Oct 2012)

The yellow ones are tangerine-flavored

[edit: sorry, mt bad. Thought we were playing the non-sequitur game there]


----------



## Norm (31 Oct 2012)

[QUOTE 2127428, member: 9609"]I genuinely don't get this obsession people have with their cars, I really do not see what is so special about them at all and I am utterly perplexed why people spend so much money on them.[/quote]
I have no obsession about cars, which is why I suggested the analogy of having a picnic in someone's garden, to try and get those who are obsessed with the things to consider their viewpoint without the emotional baggage. Unfortunately, some who do have an obsession keep bringing the discussion back to cars, which doesn't allow them to see past their blinkers.

I would have an issue with people leaning on my stuff, whether that was my garden fence, my front door or my car. For instance, we often get people turning round in our driveway. Other than a few gouges in the paving, it causes little disruption to us but the few times that I've been out there when it has happened, I've left the driver concerned in no doubt what his future brings if he does it again.

I am willing to lend things to almost anyone, if they ask first, even my bikes. Park on my drive, picnic in my garden, sit on my bike or rest on my car without asking first is presumptuous and rude and I'll have no qualms from pointing that out.



Dan B said:


> First you say that its bad to treat cars as street furniture, now you say its bad to treat street furniture with disrespect...


I can't answer for others and I wouldn't do anything to street furniture which might cause any damage, but I can see that there could be a distinction because cars (and gardens and houses) are someone's personal property and there is a pride of ownership and of keeping them looking good. Street furniture is 'public' property which no individual can take personal pride in possessing or maintaining.

My old Land Rover was beaten to a pulp and there was nothing which could be done to make it look good so I had no issues with people leaning on it... or even standing on it when it was handy as a viewing platform. My newer Renault, however, has many plastic panels which deform easily and I'd be a tad concerned that someone leaning on it would be surprised when the panel moved under their lambskin gloved fingers and fell off in shock.

By the same token, I'd have no issue with someone taking a picnic in the local park, whereas I'd be vexed if someone tried it in my front garden, not least because it is mostly slate and limestone shale and you could never get your rug to lie flat.


----------



## theclaud (31 Oct 2012)

Norm said:


> Unfortunately, some who do have an obsession keep bringing the discussion back to cars,


 
Madness, in a thread entitled "He touched my car"!


----------



## dellzeqq (31 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> That's better
> 
> #3. the WHOLE thing though? Are you sure? That's a very extreme view, not dissimilar to some fanatics wouldn't you say.


it's an entirely reasonable view, and entirely at one with Adrian's emollient personality


----------



## dellzeqq (31 Oct 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Don't you recognise the tactic ? Shame on you.
> Not quite so humorous when the boots on the other foot is it ?
> I was quite willing to leave this thread at 2 posts, but you just couldn't help yourself could you.


back with your boots on?


----------



## dellzeqq (31 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> I don't believe we need to view the *whole* car driving thing as unreasonable, no
> 
> Can you confirm you are still saying we need to view the *whole* car driving thing as unreasonable, or was that a bit melodramatic on your part?


it's not a question of the whole car. It's a question of the car in our street, the fumes in our lungs, the noise in our living rooms, the forward projection of the car that means that if I want to talk to my neighbour I must do it on the footpath and not in the centre of the street that connects our houses.............it really is difficult to know where to start other than to say that 'your property' is not indivisible, is not, at a time when it occupies, obstructs, holds sway over, disfigures, commands, and privatises public space, entirely yours, and there are a million accommodations to be made some of which may not be entirely to your liking, but you should console yourself with the knowledge that cars hold sway in our towns to an inordinate extent and a bit of leaning is a very, very small price to pay when the more rational, equitable and enjoyable settlement would be to put the lot of them up on bricks and turn them over to homeless people, cats and itinerant sculptors.

Next you'll be telling us you don't want kids playing football in the street if your car is parked there. You lot are entirely responsible for the national football team being crap and you should be ashamed of yourselves.


----------



## dellzeqq (31 Oct 2012)

simon.r said:


> Erm...was it a car driver?


correct. And when I put my hand on your car that's an analogy as well

(this is a bit like taking candy from a baby)

Next!


----------



## dellzeqq (31 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> We're getting there.
> 
> I'm going to be a tad critical of you here, hope you don't take offence.
> 
> ...


see Gods of the Road above. We are the new aristocracy of London's streets. If we feel superior, then, frankly, it's because we are. While others fret in tin cans we swan by, head in air, whistling arias from Carmen or Rigoletto, picking our teeth with one hand and scratching our arses with the other - in fact it's a wonder that we have the time (or the hands) to lean on cars. You should be so lucky!


----------



## dellzeqq (31 Oct 2012)

Norm said:


> I have no obsession about cars, which is why I suggested the analogy of having a picnic in someone's garden, to try and get those who are obsessed with the things to consider their viewpoint without the emotional baggage. Unfortunately, some who do have an obsession keep bringing the discussion back to cars, which doesn't allow them to see past their blinkers.
> 
> I would have an issue with people leaning on my stuff, whether that was my garden fence, my front door or my car. For instance, we often get people turning round in our driveway. Other than a few gouges in the paving, it causes little disruption to us but the few times that I've been out there when it has happened, I've left the driver concerned in no doubt what his future brings if he does it again.
> 
> ...


Norm - you've been spending too much time with the Windsors. I think you need to take a breath and calm down. And, you're in luck, because I have the perfect recipe for calmness.

Abstain from analogies. They're rubbish, and the rubbishness causes occlusions in your bonce. This is not 'as' that. That is not 'like' this. All those boundaries you have around things, whether they be physical things or ideas, are not continuous lines of even colour and thickness. Life is one long mess of shared and shifting meanings, understandings and accommodations. If you can say anything about it, it's that society is a series of arrangements, none of which are fixed and none of which are permanent, but all of which are designed, in a temporary, partial kind of way to allow people to get on...........albeit that the getting on is often much more to the advantage of some people than others.


----------



## lukesdad (31 Oct 2012)

2127307 said:


> Apart from them being the refuge of people who can't write in English? No.


 Here we go !


----------



## lukesdad (31 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> see Gods of the Road above. We are the new aristocracy of London's streets. If we feel superior, then, frankly, it's because we are. While others fret in tin cans we swan by, head in air, whistling arias from Carmen or Rigoletto, picking our teeth with one hand and scratching our arses with the other - in fact it's a wonder that we have the time (or the hands) to lean on cars. You should be so lucky!


----------



## screenman (31 Oct 2012)

I have never felt superior to anyone whilst cycling, I might feel content, happy, relaxed and often in pain, but never superior.

"To feel superior you have to make other people feel inferior – and this is always accomplished by making them suffer at your expense."


----------



## dellzeqq (31 Oct 2012)

screenman said:


> I have never felt superior to anyone whilst cycling, I might feel content, happy, relaxed and often in pain, but never superior.


while I'm struck by your humility, I'm bound to tell you that you're missing out.

In fairness you do need carbon fibre forks for the full effect

(the addition to your post is a non-sequitur, by the way)


----------



## lukesdad (31 Oct 2012)

Remind us all again Adrian why you bothered to engage with me in the first place, it was your choice and why you continue to do so. After all you seem to regard me not worthy of your superior wit and interllect. Could it of been because you and your chums were about to launch into your usual tirade aimed at motorists and nobody was going to spoil your fun. Then you had to continue because you must have the last word .......

So the floor is yours....... are you happy now ?

( I'd take a leaf out of Del boy s book and hit the ignore button if I were you)


----------



## dellzeqq (31 Oct 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Remind us all again Adrian why you bothered to engage with me in the first place, it was your choice and why you continue to do so. After all you seem to regard me not worthy of your superior wit and interllect. Could it of been because you and your chums were about to launch into your usual tirade aimed at motorists and nobody was going to spoil your fun. Then you had to continue because you must have the last word .......
> 
> So the floor is yours....... are you happy now ?
> 
> ( I'd take a leaf out of Del boy s and hit the ignore button if I were you)


as Adrian is currently cycling through Streatham (or posting on Informal Rides), it falls to me to tell you that we're each of us here for our own amusement. It's just that Adrian's amusements are more subtle and long-lasting than most.

Talking of which........if you think this is fun, you really should get about a bit more. There are other bits of the forum that are a laugh a second.


----------



## screenman (31 Oct 2012)

D, I have the carbon forks. Maybe no enough smugness was fitted when I was made.


----------



## 400bhp (31 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> it's not a question of the whole car. It's a question of the car in our street, the fumes in our lungs, the noise in our living rooms, the forward projection of the car that means that if I want to talk to my neighbour I must do it on the footpath and not in the centre of the street that connects our houses.............it really is difficult to know where to start other than to say that 'your property' is not indivisible, is not, at a time when it occupies, obstructs, holds sway over, disfigures, commands, and privatises public space, entirely yours, and there are a million accommodations to be made some of which may not be entirely to your liking, but you should console yourself with the knowledge that cars hold sway in our towns to an inordinate extent and a bit of leaning is a very, very small price to pay when the more rational, equitable and enjoyable settlement would be to put the lot of them up on bricks and turn them over to homeless people, cats and itinerant sculptors.
> 
> *Next you'll be telling us you don't want kids playing football in the street if your car is parked there. You lot are entirely responsible for the national football team being crap and you should be ashamed of yourselves*.


 
It was a question of the *whole* car because that's the words he posted. He then backed down from this extreme view, Fine

[the highlighted part] Let's clear one thing up. Just because I don't agree with some views here, does not mean I have a diametrically opposed view.


----------



## dellzeqq (31 Oct 2012)

400bhp. I'm doing you a favour here, setting out considerations that seem to have escaped your notice. The least you could do is thank me.


----------



## 400bhp (31 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> see Gods of the Road above. We are the new aristocracy of London's streets. If we feel superior, then, frankly, it's because we are. While others fret in tin cans we swan by, head in air, whistling arias from Carmen or Rigoletto, picking our teeth with one hand and scratching our arses with the other - in fact it's a wonder that we have the time (or the hands) to lean on cars. You should be so lucky!


 
Is this the royal we?

I don't see myself, other cyclists, or anyone else for that matter, being superior to anyone else. We could have another thread of the UK culture on this. I see it not just in this thread but in all manner of things. It's ugly.


----------



## 400bhp (31 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> 400bhp. I'm doing you a favour here, setting out considerations that seem to have escaped your notice. The least you could do is thank me.


 
Thanks.

It irks/annoys/saddens me (choose the particular word) that we can't have a reasoned debate on things. 

[edit] apologies, not been able to read your posts intently. You generally have something interesting to say and (importantly) do so without malice. Will try to later


----------



## dellzeqq (31 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> *Is this the royal we?*
> 
> I don't see myself, other cyclists, or anyone else for that matter, being superior to anyone else. We could have another thread of the UK culture on this. I see it not just in this thread but in all manner of things. It's ugly.


too kind.


----------



## dellzeqq (31 Oct 2012)

I'll own up to this. It's a really difficult thing to get people to look beyond simple entities. It's easier to undercut the entities than it is to set out a reasoned proposal for new relationships between people and things, or people and property, or people and each other because the historical pre-amble would be 10,000 words, contain more references to Engels than you could shake a stick at and I'd get bored typing it.

If (and that's a big if) somebody like Green1 starts to wonder about the complex relationship between his car and the outside world because I launch some smartypants diatribe in the direction of wholeness or analogies, then that, for me, is job done. If not then I've wasted my time, but not a lot of it, and I've had fun the while.


----------



## simon.r (31 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> correct. And when I put my hand on your car that's an analogy as well
> 
> (this is a bit like taking candy from a baby)
> 
> Next!


 
I thought we were talking about cyclists actually putting hands on cars, not using it as an analogy? Certainly the OP was.

I agree entirely with the points made about questioning the whole car culture. I agree that some (a small minority of) drivers have a peculiar relationship with their car. I get irritated when I can't cross a busy junction safely (on foot) near my girlfriend's house because everything is geared towards drivers.

I do not agree that it is OK for people to do things that may damage others property.

I also wonder if some of the points made here are London-centric? I'm told that Nottingham is the 3rd most conjested city in the UK (a recent local radio item, don't ask me to back it up), yet I can still drive across / through / round the city in 40 minutes at rush hour - a distance of 13 miles for a journey I make regularly. Alternatively I can cycle approximately the same route in an hour.

Children play football and other games in the street that I live on quite happily. There are many streets where this isn't the case, but, I suspect, a lower proportion of streets are 'unsafe' for children than they are in London.

The volume of cars on the road can be a problem, but it ain't that much of a problem most of the time.

I now have to tear myself away from this debate to go and do some work and I will not be returning for at least 36 hours!


----------



## Boris Bajic (31 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> it's not a question of the whole car. It's a question of the car in our street, the fumes in our lungs, the noise in our living rooms, the forward projection of the car that means that if I want to talk to my neighbour I must do it on the footpath and not in the centre of the street that connects our houses.............it really is difficult to know where to start other than to say that 'your property' is not indivisible, is not, at a time when it occupies, obstructs, holds sway over, disfigures, commands, and privatises public space, entirely yours, and there are a million accommodations to be made some of which may not be entirely to your liking, but you should console yourself with the knowledge that cars hold sway in our towns to an inordinate extent and a bit of leaning is a very, very small price to pay when the more rational, equitable and enjoyable settlement would be to put the lot of them up on bricks and turn them over to homeless people, cats and itinerant sculptors.
> 
> Next you'll be telling us you don't want kids playing football in the street if your car is parked there. You lot are entirely responsible for the national football team being crap and you should be ashamed of yourselves.


 
This is a very reasonable post. It echoes much of what many of us think, but little of what drives our behaviour.

To use a fairly hateful phrase of the 20th century, there may be a case here for some critical cost-benefit analysis.

I spent much of my young adult life in rural and semi-rural parts of the Western Balkans. A more beautiful landscape it is hard to imagine outside Fairy Tales. To this day I think I'm about to meet a giant or a river imp when I'm in the mountains north of Albania.

In the simple houses of the region, wood stoves heated rooms and most people used animal-powered haulage and buses to get to town. Cars were a rarity. In some places they still are. Life was (by our standards) hard. In many ways it still is.

Children played in the street or the hard Macadam that ran between rows of cottages. In many of those towns and villages they still do.

What do (or did) the adults want? A car or access to a car. The kids? they'd rather have a car than the freedom to play in the street.

The pregnant, the elderly, the disabled (particularly numerous after all the recent beastliness), the mothers of young children... They all hanker after the personal mobility offered by cars. It isn't like Balham everywhere on the planet. Which may be a good thing.

I'm not saying they're right or wrong to hanker as they do. I'm not saying I don't howl in despair when visiting my old Central London neighbourhoods and seeing twelve cars where there is room for three along every kerb...

But there is much good that can be (and is) derived from the presence of the motor car and its smoke-belching cousins in our civilisation.

We may (in some metropolitan areas) have tipped the scales slightly too far in one direction. That will always be a matter of opinion.

But (going back to the OP) manners are manners. It is poor form to lean on a car in the street. It should also be quite unnecessary.

If one has an issue with the invasion of roadspace by beastly motor vehicles, it may be a better idea to exorcise any ire through an online cyclists' forum than to lean on cars in traffic to express one's political frustration about the hegemony of the internal-combustion motor.

Meanwhile, I'll just keep riding my bicycle and putting my foot down. If I had any sense of balance I'd trackstand... But I don't.


----------



## dellzeqq (31 Oct 2012)

you were doing fine until you got to the manners bit. Manners are not manners. They are the a means by which social exchanges are managed, and not always in a good way - sometimes in a very bad way.


----------



## Norm (31 Oct 2012)

theclaud said:


> Madness, in a thread entitled "He touched my car"!


I'd like to think that I covered that in my post. The bit where I said that I was trying to get to the underlying concepts of property and ownership without the emotion that the car-deprived-but-obsessed seem to feel obliged to bring with them and without their prejudiced blinkers from restricting their views.

Given the obvious lack of respect some, including one who might or might not be cycling around Streatham, show to the property of others, I'm not surprised that the simple question of allowing strangers to picnic in your garden has gone without response.

This thread, after all, comes about because a cyclist who is too lazy to unclip feels they should be free to touch someone else's property, whether a car, bus or street furniture, just because the action of twisting their right heel is beyond them.


----------



## Longshot (31 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> Manners are not manners


 
Genius


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (31 Oct 2012)

Are we ready for another kitten picture yet?


----------



## Boris Bajic (31 Oct 2012)

2128208 said:


> I conducted a small survey of motorists in Streatham on the subject of how the feel about the consequences of their choosing to drive through the peaceful urban village. The noise, reduction in air quality, the way that the A23 is a serious barrier to people and divides the place in two, that sort of thing The major message I picked up was that they don't really give a f***. I draw the conclusion that, as is usually the way here, the major lack of respect lies with the car users who, and I repeat it yet again, just don't even consider the issues.
> 
> There us a simple and practical issue about the unclipping. My aim is to hit every light on green. If it is currently red then my aim is to slow down and time my arrival as the light changes. What I don't want to do is wait with my foot down in front of an impatient driver.


 
As a Londoner for many years I lived with (and contributed to) that metropolitan choke. I cycled there too (a lot) and quite liked being in amongst it.

Old Street Roundabout (previous layout), St Giles' Circus and Trafalgar Square were among my favourites. Also the car barrier from Russell Square into Senate House car park, which could be taken flat out if you got a leg over the saddle and hung onto the side of the bike like a Navajo behind the neck of his steed.

But I digress.... Yes, cars do make an unholy stink and they do clog it all up rather. But I moved away from that and live among the mud-strewn lanes of Farmershire. Saint Wreatham (A23 in particular) has been a traffic nightmare since my childhood (60s and 70s). i do not recall it being otherwise.

I am not as old as all that, but an urban village in Streatham I do not recall. Strand on the Green, yes. Barnes, yes. Streatham, no. It was always a south London urban mess doing the best it could and (by the time I had money) hanging onto the skirt tails of the outer-urban property speculators with lirttle hope and less ambition. I think your urban village reference may have been tongue-in-cheek. It had a ice rink, but I'm not sure where that fits into my narrative.

Still, best not lean on cars. Even south of the river it's pretty poor form. I think you've got it right by trying to match your approach to the sequencing of the lights. I can't imagine how nobody else ever thought of that!

I'm sorry the motorists you encounter are so horrid, selfish and unaware of their wider impact. I shall try doubly hard to be lovely to everybody in an attempt to even things up. My smile (on a good day) is like ground zero in the nevada desert. It always wows them.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (31 Oct 2012)

[QUOTE 2128124, member: 9609"]or even a movie
[/quote]

Not sure about that. It's not a kitten


----------



## screenman (31 Oct 2012)

I used to have a car site in Balham, well a petrol site and car sales to be exact. I think that Balham is smaller than Streatham so I imagine Balham could be called a hamlet. Must admit I hated the place, now I do live in a proper rural village with very poor transport services, but if you ever do need to stop when out for a ride there is not likely to be a car to lean on or a bus for that matter.


----------



## screenman (31 Oct 2012)

They only a come out a few weeks of the year. Useless for drafting (not that I would) as they go too slow. Nice thing is I can have 20 mile plus ride any time I want without even seeing a car.

Despite the fact I have spent 40 years making a living from cars, I do not like the things, certainly do not cherish the things nor desire a big expensive one, anymore. Been there done that and got the T shirt, much rather a bike than a car, however needs must.


----------



## theclaud (31 Oct 2012)

Norm said:


> I'd like to think that I covered that in my post. The bit where I said that I was trying to get to the underlying concepts of property and ownership without the emotion that the car-deprived-but-obsessed seem to feel obliged to bring with them and without their prejudiced blinkers from restricting their views.
> 
> Given the obvious lack of respect some, including one who might or might not be cycling around Streatham, show to the property of others, I'm not surprised that the simple question of allowing strangers to picnic in your garden has gone without response.
> 
> *This thread, after all, comes about because a cyclist who is too lazy to unclip feels they should be free to touch someone else's property, whether a car, bus or street furniture, just because the action of twisting their right heel is beyond them.*


 
No it doesn't. It comes about because the peculiar symbolic meaning of the car in our culture confers a disproportionate significance on what would otherwise be an entirely unremarkable act. It is impossible to imagine anyone getting similarly exercised over someone else laying an insouciant glove on their wheelbarrow.


----------



## screenman (31 Oct 2012)

It comes about because somebody was doing something that was maybe not safe.


----------



## theclaud (31 Oct 2012)

screenman said:


> It comes about because somebody was doing something that was maybe not safe.


 
Oh it's about safety now, is it? Are you Tony Blair?


----------



## screenman (31 Oct 2012)

No I do not think so, nope just checked definitely not him.

Where is the connection? I am confused as usual.


----------



## theclaud (31 Oct 2012)

screenman said:


> No I do not think so, nope just checked definitely not him.
> 
> *Where is the connection?* I am confused as usual.


 
When one argument becomes insupportable, simply switch to another. Think Iraq War.


----------



## theclaud (31 Oct 2012)

@screenman - it is possible that I am conflating you and @green1 in my head into a single entity called greenman. Sorry. Avatars would help me though. Perhaps you did mention safety initially - but I thought you had said it was about the vulnerability of water-based paints. Or respect. Or manners. Or something.


----------



## Dan B (31 Oct 2012)

theclaud said:


> . Perhaps you did mention safety initially - but I thought you had said it was about the vulnerability of water-based paints. Or respect. Or manners. Or something.


The Devil is, as they say, in the detailing


----------



## screenman (31 Oct 2012)

The Claud,Not me! you must have me mixed up with another poster, maybe there is two of us. Hold on I did explain Water-borne paints not water based though. Not sure I talked about respect or manners, I did say you are welcome to lean on my car whenever you wanted to as is anybody. I also said I do not like cars and had no desire to own an expensive one again, my 2006 Passat is a fine and dandy old banger that just works fine.

DanB, clever that one, must say detailing is not a way I would like to make my living, although I do have a detailer in for dent training tomorrow.


----------



## screenman (31 Oct 2012)

Yes it certainly does overcome this, first you have to read the dent and find the pressure point that is holding it in and then work to release that point, A smallish dent say a golf ball size can take upwards of 200 very small pushes in exactly the right spots (notice spots with an S) to correct the dent and place the metal back to its original place. we can shrink the metal and also stretch the metal, as long as the paint is not damaged chances are we can do something with it.

Very few cars come off of the production line without some PDR being carried out, for instance Vauxhall who buy lights off of me have over 20 PDR guys working on new cars.

I do a lot of largish dents and some guys prefer to rush around doing lots of small one's, mind you I had one of the car in last week that had been caught in that storm in the midlands last week with over 60 dents in the roof.

A motto of mine, most of my work goes unnoticed.

There is a bit more information on www.dentex-pdr.co.uk. I will fully understand if the mods want to take that down. It is not meant as advertising but just giving a bit more information.


----------



## screenman (31 Oct 2012)

Adrian I have far more interests than the two you list.

Is this still in Balham, I had it in the very early eighties. Looked a bit different then with grass out the front and I had it mainly for car sales. I remember the grocers shop opposite getting robbed almost daily. Brilliant little gym around the corner that I used to go to full of top lifters. Memories.


----------



## theclaud (31 Oct 2012)

2128857 said:


> I'm sure you do, *I was just giving Claud a simple way to distinguish you.*
> I tend more to navigate by pubs and police stations rather than petrol stations but I could pass that way.


 
So there is no greenman?


----------



## Canrider (31 Oct 2012)

Norm said:


> For instance, we often get people turning round in our driveway. Other than a few gouges in the paving, it causes little disruption to us but the few times that I've been out there when it has happened, I've left the driver concerned in no doubt what his future brings if he does it again.


This is entirely cultural, given that it happens without any comment across the vast swathe of gun-toting, car-fetishising NAmerica.


> By the same token, I'd have no issue with someone taking a picnic in the local park, whereas I'd be vexed if someone tried it in my front garden, not least because it is mostly slate and limestone shale and you could never get your rug to lie flat.


What about a dog (on a lead) crossing over part of it?
What about kids at play running across it?
What about kids at play running through your backyard?

Now there's something that's changed in the past 30-odd years..


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Nov 2012)

Screenman - are you not tempted to do custom bike paint jobs?


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Nov 2012)

Canrider said:


> This is entirely cultural, given that it happens without any comment across the vast swathe of gun-toting, car-fetishising NAmerica.
> .


indeed. And in some of the Midwest (and maybe other parts as well) there's no garden fences between front or back gardens. It's all terribly un-English


----------



## screenman (1 Nov 2012)

Dellzeqq, no way would I want to do paintwork on bikes, least of all I have no interest in painting and I would certainly not want a drop in income, £ per hour for that sort of thing tends to be not that high. Also all that dust and fumes plays havoc with your cycling.

Reiver, Are you always short tempered or just when things are not going your way? There are many times that you should leave a job to an expert and dent removal is one of them. You could always drop it in and I will have a look at it for you. There is a common misconception that dents will just pop out, I had a call yesterday from a guy wanting a dent removed on an old Mondeo, he did not like my quote and told me the dent would just push out if he put his hand behind it, so I asked him why he called me.


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Nov 2012)

screenman said:


> Adrian I have far more interests than the two you list.
> 
> Is this still in Balham, I had it in the very early eighties. Looked a bit different then with grass out the front and I had it mainly for car sales. I remember the grocers shop opposite getting robbed almost daily. Brilliant little gym around the corner that I used to go to full of top lifters. Memories.


east side, between Balham and Tooting Bec? If so it's still there


----------



## screenman (1 Nov 2012)

That is the place, must pay a visit sometime. Thanks.


----------



## asterix (1 Nov 2012)

green1 said:


> No, I'm the sort of road user who respects others on the road. I have one more than one occasion had drivers beeping at me for not overtaking cyclists when I have been behind one because I felt there wasn't enough room without it being a close pass.


 
There, that's better. You had me worried at first.


----------



## Norm (1 Nov 2012)

Canrider said:


> What about a dog (on a lead) crossing over part of it?
> What about kids at play running across it?
> What about kids at play running through your backyard?
> 
> Now there's something that's changed in the past 30-odd years..


Are you now not even waiting for me to answer before throwing your prejudices out there.


----------



## screenman (1 Nov 2012)

Reiver, your bit about myself and green houses gases, take a look at what I have been doing the last 25 years to negate that.

I have kept 25,000 windscreens possible a lot more from going to landfill, I have carried out thousands of PDR jobs that would otherwise have needed bodyshop work, big ovens etc. I am happy that my business is slightly green.


----------



## Canrider (1 Nov 2012)

Norm said:


> Are you now not even waiting for me to answer before throwing your prejudices out there.


Hey, you're the one claiming someone putting a hand on a car is in some way comparable to setting up a picnic on their front lawn...


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (2 Nov 2012)

Well, I wouldn't do it. And I'd think that anyone doing so on my car was being presumptious and rude - I'm not precious about my car, I carry strange dogs around that fill the thing with hair, sometimes fleas if from the pound, might have an accident #1 or #2 and almost always scratch the door sills or bumper scrabbling in and out.But I CHOOSE to use my car that way, simple thing is it's not a decision for someone else to make for me.

Why I don't do it:
1) I would feel rude doing so
2) I might slip and cause damage to the car, myself or my bike
3) The driver may be sitting in gear with the clutch down. The clutch pedal could slip, the clutch cable snap or the slave cylinder seal pop
4) With trucks, I may be putting loose clothing too near to securing straps or rope hooks that could snag


----------



## Longshot (2 Nov 2012)

2132340 said:


> Quick check with all you car lovers, you wouldn't mind if it was a Prius would you?


 
Mind what?


----------



## simon.r (2 Nov 2012)

2132340 said:


> Quick check with all you car lovers, you wouldn't mind if it was a Prius would you?


 
As an ex-Prius owner I'd mind more. The Prius seemed to have particularly 'soft' paintwork which scratched very easily.


----------



## green1 (2 Nov 2012)

simon.r said:


> As an ex-Prius owner I'd mind more. The Prius seemed to have particularly 'soft' paintwork which scratched very easily.


All jap cars have soft paint.


----------



## addictfreak (2 Nov 2012)

27 pages! FFs get a grip


----------



## ianrauk (2 Nov 2012)

addictfreak said:


> 27 pages! FFs get a grip


 

People have been getting a grip.... on cars


----------



## growingvegetables (3 Nov 2012)

And the sum total of the 27 pages? If so much as touching their cars really does wind the ****-****s up so much, then I am now sorely tempted.

After years and years and years of dingbats winding me up with their shockingly cavalier, dangerous, ignorant, and arrogant behaviour on the road which has endangered my and my kids lives, I kinda like the idea that something so minor in the grand scheme of things may induce terminal apoplexy in the terminally stupid.

Come on lads and lasses - you know it makes sense!


----------



## Boris Bajic (3 Nov 2012)

2132340 said:


> Quick check with all you car lovers, you wouldn't mind if it was a Prius would you?


 
I think there may be a tendency in some posters who are not in any way smitten by cars or open to their possible merits, to tar all motorists with the same brush.

I'm having a guess that the above quote was connected in some way to the notion that 'true car lovers' have disdain for the Prius and other hybrids.

Most CC members are drivers too. Most drivers have relatively little interest cars as extensions of the ego or mobile advertisements of net worth.

They get us from A to B, often with our families and luggage on board... dry, comfortable and relaxed.

Most of us can't tell a Prius from an Avensis from most angles. My wife (a keen driver) can't tell a Prius from an Avensis at any angle. She is also a keen cyclist and in good weather drives a hugely pampered but not-very-valuable 1961 roadster.

The broad disdain for hybrid and 'non-macho' cars is often a figment of the fertile imagination of those who choose to see all (or most) motorists as some sort of cult worshipping the camshaft.

We do not worship camshafts.

Far from it. 

The camshaft is only a minor prophet. The true and only deity is a Citroen M35 experimental rotary car. All other gods are false.


----------



## screenman (3 Nov 2012)

Green! I dispute the fact about Jap laquer, what proof can you supply me with. By the way I have been working with the stuff on various Jap cars all day.


----------



## growingvegetables (3 Nov 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I think there may be a tendency in some posters who are not in any way *smitten* by cars.........


That may be in infelicitous choice of phrase?

Given the (I'll grant you, small) proportion of drivers who have raised the Old Testament art of smiting one's enemies to the level of a serious art form?


----------



## theclaud (4 Nov 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> They get us from A to B, often with our families and luggage on board... dry, comfortable and *relaxed*.


 
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!


----------



## Boris Bajic (4 Nov 2012)

theclaud said:


> Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!


 
Really, I enjoy travelling by car. Most people I know enjoy it too.

I'm a keen cyclist, but I find cars relaxing too, in a different way.

My eldest is also a keen cyclist and has just passed her driving test. I dare say my younger (keen cyclist) children will have a pop at driving when they reach the age. It really is a lovely thing to do - and can be quite relaxing.

I love to drive and I love to be driven. The latter is more relaxing than the former, but both are rather lovely.

I imagine most contributors to these pages are drivers and most of them enjoy driving and find it pleasantly relaxing in the right conditions.

I admire your Hahahahahahahaha at the thought of a relaxing drive, but I wonder why you feel the need to Hahahahahahahahaha at it.

What is it about driving that you find unrelaxing?


----------



## Pat "5mph" (4 Nov 2012)

I hate driving, but I love being driven on a long trip, reading the map, looking out for the street signs: I'm a great co-pilot, was told once


----------



## screenman (5 Nov 2012)

Must admit I was confused by theclaud reply. Maybe he will come back and enlighten us.

Still waiting for Green1 to reply to a question I asked earlier, why do people not back up their post when somebody questions it.


----------



## youngoldbloke (5 Nov 2012)

growingvegetables said:


> And the sum total of the 27 pages? If so much as touching their cars really does wind the ****-****s up so much, then I am now sorely tempted.
> 
> After years and years and years of dingbats winding me up with their shockingly cavalier, dangerous, ignorant, and arrogant behaviour on the road which has endangered my and my kids lives, I kinda like the idea that something so minor in the grand scheme of things may induce terminal apoplexy in the terminally stupid.
> 
> Come on lads and lasses - you know it makes sense!


I ride a bike, belong to a cycling club. I drive a car. Am I a ****-**** ? Am I terminally stupid too? Be intelligent. Chill out. Your attitude is not helpful. I live 10 miles from the nearest small town. Minimal public transport. Assist a wheelchair user. Car use is essential for us, and for many. Education for drivers around cycling is essential too.


----------



## Boris Bajic (5 Nov 2012)

growingvegetables said:


> That may be in infelicitous choice of phrase?
> 
> Given the (I'll grant you, small) proportion of drivers who have raised the Old Testament art of smiting one's enemies to the level of a serious art form?


 
I am utterly smitten by the thought of anyone posting online being comfortable using the word 'infelicitous'. My faith in mankind is partially restored.

You are quite right of course. At one level it is inflict.... enfilla.... unphalla... that thing you said.

But to me the word 'smitten' brings images only of that dreamy feeling of seeing one's sweetheart bathed in a slightly brighter light than those around her as she emerges from the tube station in the midst of a throng of commuters on a cold November evening.

Since the Bible ended (March 1473, I think) smiting has morphed in the Lexicon of Common Usage to slaughter and collateral damage. I am not smitten with either term. I would be interested (not is a good way) to hear Huw Edwards of the BBC telling us that UK Forces in some dusty Hell we are democratising have smitten twelve of the infidel foe, but I do not think that day will come soon. 

Sorry for straying OT* but I was utterly smitten by the word 'infelicitous'.

*Off Topic, not Old Testament


----------



## theclaud (5 Nov 2012)

screenman said:


> Must admit I was confused by theclaud reply. Maybe he will come back and enlighten us.
> 
> Still waiting for Green1 to reply to a question I asked earlier, why do people not back up their post when somebody questions it.


 
Boris is peddling a fantasy. Anyone who thinks driving (that's _actual_ driving that people do every day rather the stuff pictured in car ads) relaxes people should have a glass of prosecco with us atop Ditchling Beacon and study the faces of the drivers as they pass.

Edit: And as for your last point, maybe they simply have other things to do...


----------



## dellzeqq (5 Nov 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I am utterly smitten by the thought of anyone posting online being comfortable using the word 'infelicitous'. My faith in mankind is partially restored.


not humankind? What with people referring to a woman poster as 'he'........


----------



## 400bhp (5 Nov 2012)

theclaud said:


> Boris is peddling a fantasy. Anyone who thinks driving (that's _actual_ driving that people do every day rather the stuff pictured in car ads) relaxes people should have a glass of prosecco with us atop Ditchling Beacon and study the faces of the drivers as they pass.
> 
> Edit: And as for your last point, maybe they simply have other things to do...


 
Relaxing is probably the wrong word if talked about in absolute terms. Relatively speaking it can be, granted it is becoming increasingly difficult to do that in the UK.

I used to enjoy driving, had my performance cars in the past, still have a race car, but I increasingly dislike driving in the UK. I find it is stressful most of the time, mostly due to the traffic volume.

Yesterday afternoon - main arterial route in Manchester. Ridiculously busy. I was thankfully walking but is that what weekends are about for most people. No thanks.


----------



## simon.r (5 Nov 2012)

@screenman - My comment about the Prius paint being 'soft' (by which I mean susceptible to scratching) is based solely on my experience of owning one for 3 years (from 2007). I've been in the fortunate position of having been 'given' a new car every 3 years or so for the last 25 years. I've looked after them all equally well, but not obsessively - I clean them every month or two and try to avoid hitting things in them

After 3 years the Prius was noticeably scratched where it had brushed against vegetation (pulling to one side on very narrow roads) and had scratches on the bonnet where I had dragged an air-line across it. I appreciate that neither of these would be considered good practice, but I've done similar or worse to loads of other cars, including a different Toyota, and not scratched them. I'm sure a professional could have polished out the scratches - they were only superficial - but they were definitely there.


----------



## green1 (5 Nov 2012)

screenman said:


> Green! I dispute the fact about Jap laquer, what proof can you supply me with. By the way I have been working with the stuff on various Jap cars all day.


The fact I own or have owned 4 Jap cars in the last 5 years, all with paint far softer than other cars I have owned in the 13 years I've been driving.


----------



## green1 (5 Nov 2012)

screenman said:


> Must admit I was confused by theclaud reply. Maybe he will come back and enlighten us.
> 
> Still waiting for Green1 to reply to a question I asked earlier, why do people not back up their post when somebody questions it.


Because I was away for the weekend.


----------



## Boris Bajic (5 Nov 2012)

theclaud said:


> *Boris is peddling a fantasy*. Anyone who thinks driving (that's _actual_ driving that people do every day rather the stuff pictured in car ads) relaxes people should have a glass of prosecco with us atop Ditchling Beacon and study the faces of the drivers as they pass.
> 
> Edit: And as for your last point, maybe they simply have other things to do...


 
I'm off for a ride into the Malvern Hills very shortly. It is cold, bracing and slightly slippery underfoot. Wet leaves everywhere. I'm looking forward to it. I expect it to be relaxing and pleasurable, if slightly breathless in parts and terrifying in others. No fantasy there.

Last night I took some of my family plus boyfriends and similar to the cinema. We drove. It was a lovely drive, there and back. No fanntasy there.

Earlier I took elder boy to a 5-a-side match. We collected team-mates on the way. Lovely drive both ways.

On Thursday I took him to his Turbo session at the local club and we picked up littl'un from his band practice on the way home.

All lovely drives in good company on smooth, largely empty tarmac. No fantasy.

Some drives are dull, some frustrating; like some bicycle rides. Broadly, driving and cycling are fun, relaxing and enjoyable. Of course some drives are not relaxing. Some wine is corked, but that doesn't mean it's fantasy to promote the taking pleasure from a glass of wine. Some eggs are rotten, but I still quite like an egg.

If this really is a fantasy I'm peddling, I'd have been glad when still young enough to enjoy them if one or two of my more teenage fantasies had more easily become a commonplace part of everyday life.

I do not drive a Maserati (never have) and do not imagine that every trip to the shops is a blast across some Alpine pass. No fantasy being peddled here. It's just a car. I'm just a slightly overweight middle-aged father who likes to drive and likes to ride a bicycle. I've done both for as long as I've been able - indeed my ban for riding a motorcycle under-age suggests l started rather younger than I ought to have done.

Oddly (or not), most people I know enjoy driving. There are journeys better made on foot, by bicycle, by bus, by train or by tube... but where the motor car fits the bill it is sublime.

I applaud your continued determination to paint the enjoyment of motoring as fantasy. Those of us who drive and enjoy it will probably continue to do so whether you think we are dreaming or not.


----------



## User482 (5 Nov 2012)

theclaud said:


> Boris is peddling a fantasy. Anyone who thinks driving (that's _actual_ driving that people do every day rather the stuff pictured in car ads) relaxes people should have a glass of prosecco with us atop Ditchling Beacon and study the faces of the drivers as they pass.
> 
> Edit: And as for your last point, maybe they simply have other things to do...


 
To borrow a Danish phrase, they do rather look like a moose with the mumps. It must have been because they were delayed by ten seconds or so, from whatever terribly important business they needed to attend to.

I, fortified by an excellent single malt, was enjoying the sunrise.


----------



## screenman (5 Nov 2012)

Let me say there are very few paint suppliers to manufacturers in the world, and saying one laquer is softer than another is a myth. Try machine polishing it and you will find out. For sure there are differences in the amount of laquer applied, but hardness stays much the same.


----------



## green1 (5 Nov 2012)

Paint hardness (or more properly clearcoat hardness in the case of most modern paint systems) can be readily divided into three categories; soft, intermediate and hard. Soft paint is usually found on Japanese cars, some Italian cars.
The paint on my current car is ~65-70 microns on average. So not only is it soft, it's also thin.


----------



## screenman (5 Nov 2012)

I would appreciatethe source of that information please, as it goes against what we in the trade find.


----------



## green1 (5 Nov 2012)

screenman said:


> I would appreciatethe source of that information please, as it goes against what we in the trade find.


http://www.polishedbliss.co.uk/acatalog/what-polish-should-i-use.html


----------



## screenman (5 Nov 2012)

I was hoping for something a bit more technical and not by someone selling polish. Either way Jap car laquer is very hard and is certainly not noticeable different from anything else.

Now shall we start talking about Nissans self repairing laquer?

I am not trying to sell anything, just talking from day to day experience.


----------



## 400bhp (5 Nov 2012)

An internet fight over paint hardness.


----------



## green1 (5 Nov 2012)

screenman said:


> I was hoping for something a bit more technical and* not by someone selling polish*. Either way Jap car laquer is very hard and is certainly not noticeable different from anything else.
> 
> Now shall we start talking about Nissans self repairing laquer?
> 
> I am not trying to sell anything, just talking from day to day experience.


Yeah they just sell polish, that's why they have are 3 month waiting list for details (which are superb).

Not noticeable? you better go tell every owner of a Jap car then because we all seem to notice it.

Yeah can talk about what ever you like, it's not my area of expertise, I'm only relaying my experience and what I've been told by professionals in that field. If you want to talk about mechanical design then fire away.


----------



## green1 (5 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> An internet fight over paint hardness.


Almost as funny as the internet fight with people in SW2 and Cambridge saying that Aberdeen doesn't need a bypass...


----------



## screenman (5 Nov 2012)

3 month wait to a car detailed, now that is one motor you would want to lean on.

See anything common between Mazda and Ford?


----------



## Boris Bajic (5 Nov 2012)

green1 said:


> Almost as funny as the internet fight with people in SW2 and Cambridge saying that Aberdeen doesn't need a bypass...


 
It doesn't!

Where is Aberdeen?

Where is Cambridge....?

More cake, anyone?


----------



## green1 (5 Nov 2012)

screenman said:


> See anything common between Mazda and Ford?


Nope why would I. My car was built in Hiroshima and last time I checked Ford don't have a factory there.


----------



## EltonFrog (5 Nov 2012)

This thread is very very dull. Duller than paintwork on an old land rover.


----------



## srw (5 Nov 2012)

green1 said:


> Almost as funny as the internet fight with people in SW2 and Cambridge saying that Aberdeen doesn't need a bypass...


It wasn't that Aberdeen doesn't need a bypass, it was that it already has two, that the claims made by supporters for traffic reduction are unrealistic and that the money could be much better spent.


----------



## User482 (5 Nov 2012)

Good news! An Audi tt is an excellent aid for a poorly executed track stand.


----------



## growingvegetables (6 Nov 2012)

youngoldbloke said:


> I ride a bike, belong to a cycling club. I drive a car. Am I a ****-**** ? Am I terminally stupid too? Be intelligent. Chill out. Your attitude is not helpful. I live 10 miles from the nearest small town. Minimal public transport. Assist a wheelchair user. Car use is essential for us, and for many. Education for drivers around cycling is essential too.


Oh for goodness' sake, another driver with a humourectomy.

Now - your turn to chill out. Bearing in mind what you've said of yourself, and how you've reacted ....... hmmm, I think you may just have backed up my tongue-in-cheek smiley-ed suggestion. There *are* dingbats out there, and there *are* terminally stupid people in possession of driving licences.

I'm guessing not you - and certainly not me. Cos I drive too


----------



## srw (6 Nov 2012)

theclaud said:


> Boris is peddling a fantasy. Anyone who thinks driving (that's _actual_ driving that people do every day rather the stuff pictured in car ads) relaxes people should have a glass of prosecco with us atop Ditchling Beacon and study the faces of the drivers as they pass.


 With apologies for citing an insurance company press release in evidence (and please don't mention the English or the numeracy), 76% of drivers report that they're bored while driving, and 55% believe boredom affects their concentration.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/are-we-there-yet-ask-britains-bored-drivers-2012-11-05


----------



## screenman (6 Nov 2012)

That leaves a lot of drivers who are not bored.


----------



## 400bhp (6 Nov 2012)

And, does bored <> relaxed?


----------



## theclaud (6 Nov 2012)

screenman said:


> That leaves a lot of drivers who are not bored.


Desperate stuff, screenman!


----------



## theclaud (6 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> And, does bored <> relaxed?


Drivers do not usually cite boredom as an advantage of driving. "Let's get the car out - I love to arrive at my destination bored within an inch of my life."


----------



## 400bhp (6 Nov 2012)

theclaud said:


> Drivers do not usually cite boredom as an advantage of driving. "Let's get the car out - I love to arrive at my destination bored within an inch of my life."


 
That's not what I asked.


----------



## Boris Bajic (6 Nov 2012)

theclaud said:


> Drivers do not usually cite boredom as an advantage of driving. "Let's get the car out - I love to arrive at my destination bored within an inch of my life."


 
This is unusual stuff. One might get the impression that you (and perhaps others) are bent on proving how utterly dull, frustrating and vexing it is to use a mode of transport you do not favour, do not enjoy and appear to disapprove of. 

I don't enjoy watching cricket. Many of my friends do. I do not tell them how utterly dull it is and how much more fun they'd have watching (or playing) football. They would, of course, but I might start to sound eccentric.

One of the lovely things about our society is that we have the option not to use these modes of transport of which we disapprove. I'm not sure, though, why there is a need to tell others who seem to enjoy motoring that it is dull, frustrating and quite the opposite of relaxing.

It is clear that you do not find motoring exciting. You might even find it dull. I'm sorry that it's been like that for you, but only as far as my friends are sorry that I find no pleasure in cricket. 

I've cycled for forty years or more and have loved most of it. I've raised my children to have the opportunity to cycle and all have grasped the opportunity. .

I've also driven quite happily (for the most part) for well over thirty years. Most (but not all) of my drives are a pleasure. My wife and I both go for the keys if we're going to her mother's the Valleys - it is such a lovely drive. I imagine the children will all also drive when old enough. The eldest already does

I cycle for the Hell of it sometimes... It can be such distilled joy. It is quite unlike driving.

I do not drive for the Hell of it. I'm not sure I ever have, outside track use and blats in the desert when I was younger. But that does not make driving dull, boring, frustrating or infuriating.

I'm sorry it is so for you, but for many of us, most of the time, it is rather fun.


----------



## srw (6 Nov 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I'm sorry it is so for you, but for many of us, most of the time, it is rather fun.


My statistics prove you wrong.


----------



## dellzeqq (6 Nov 2012)

The fact is that driving betrays an inability to engage with the world. It's not a grown-up thing to do. As the waffle two posts up amply demonstrates. There are people who find themselves in positions that make it the least worst alternative, but driving as a choice, or, heaven help us, an expression of individual liberty is a poor thing indeed.

I'll tell you this. If I pass you on the road, you in your car, me on my bike, I know I am the better person. There's nothing you can do by way of leather-backed driving gloves, tweed caps, shinier hubcaps or car stereos that can convince me otherwise.


----------



## 400bhp (6 Nov 2012)

Depends on how you define many. 

Plus it's unclear whether the 76% are always bored whilst driving.


----------



## 400bhp (6 Nov 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> The fact is that driving betrays an inability to engage with the world. It's not a grown-up thing to do. As the waffle two posts up amply demonstrates. There are people who find themselves in positions that make it the least worst alternative, but driving as a choice, or, heaven help us, an expression of individual liberty is a poor thing indeed.
> 
> I'll tell you this. If I pass you on the road, you in your car, me on my bike, I know I am the better person. There's nothing you can do by way of leather-backed driving gloves, tweed caps, shinier hubcaps or car stereos that can convince me otherwise.


 
I'm struggling with the second paragraph.


----------



## dellzeqq (6 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> I'm struggling with the second paragraph.


fair enough - it's not meant to be easy on the eye


----------



## theclaud (6 Nov 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> This is unusual stuff. One might get the impression that you (and perhaps others) are bent on proving how utterly dull, frustrating and vexing it is to use a mode of transport you do not favour, do not enjoy and appear to disapprove of... continued page 94


 
The elaborate beating-about-the-bush-and-using-up-the-internet thing is wasted on me, BB. The private car is a social menace, and my hostility to it is entirely open. Cricket, on the other hand, is really rather nice. And even if I hated it, it wouldn't threaten to run me over. See DZ's thing about analogies. The thing you have decided not to understand is that for most purposes that it is discussed, there is nothing - but _nothing_ - in the real world that is comparable to the private car in function, reach or dominance. It's a hegemony thang, and it has you in its spell. I'm here to demystify it for you, to break the spell. To make the stone stony, as that Shklovsky fellow used to say. None of this has anything to do with any putative pleasure that might be derived from driving in fictional conditions, about which I am not arguing.


----------



## 400bhp (6 Nov 2012)

Care to explain that paragraph in more detail?


----------



## dellzeqq (6 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> Care to explain that paragraph in more detail?


mine?


----------



## youngoldbloke (6 Nov 2012)

srw said:


> My statistics prove you wrong.


All your statistics actusally say is that 760 of 1000 drivers polled are bored (and yes, all of the time?) - thats 0.0026723% of the '37,420,530 drivers in the UK with a full GB driving licence'. I'm very much with Boris on this - cricket and all.


----------



## srw (6 Nov 2012)

youngoldbloke said:


> All your statistics actusally say is that 760 of 1000 drivers polled are bored (and yes, all of the time?) - thats 0.0026723% of the '37,420,530 drivers in the UK with a full GB driving licence'. I'm very much with Boris on this - cricket and all.


 You don't understand statistics and the concept of samples representing a population, do you?


----------



## 400bhp (6 Nov 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> mine?


 
Yes, sorry I was typing whilst theclaud got in before me.


----------



## theclaud (6 Nov 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> mine?


You can explain mine if you like. I'm pretty relaxed about the authorship thang...


----------



## dellzeqq (6 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> Yes, sorry I was typing whilst theclaud got in before me.


I'll try.

Very little of our modern lives can be considered healthful and virtuous. Even less can be considered healthful, virtuous and fun. Having the opportunity to do something that is all three seems to me to be a fantastic privilege. Every day (or night, ahem) that fate or God or whatever puts my way that affords an opportunity to travel by bicycle is a blessing. I ride because it makes my lungs feel good, because it exacts next to no price on the rest of the world, because it is pleasurable in a sensual way and because (this above all) it brings me in to contact with the physical world and with people in a way that being in a car cannot come anywhere close to...............(long sentence, catches breath)

Now......when I look at people in their cars (and I sometimes travel by car as a passenger) and I compare the choice they've made with the choice I've made, well, I'm sorry, but I think to myself 'dohhhhhhh - why would you do that?' Not that there aren't reasons - the journey might be long, or awkward or involve transporting something heavy, or it may be very cold, but, taken overall, the decision to drive is not a smart one. In other words most people who are, at any one moment, behind the wheel of a car, are there because they haven't thought it through, haven't got the gumption, haven't planned ahead or haven't considered the price that they exact and, moreover, (this is the killer item) simply haven't clocked that sitting inside a car puts you at an entirely unnecessary remove from the joy that is the world and the people in it.

Bet you wish you hadn't asked, now............

(later edit) and don't ask me to explain STRAVA which may, for all I know, be even sillier than driving!


----------



## User482 (6 Nov 2012)

youngoldbloke said:


> All your statistics actusally say is that 760 of 1000 drivers polled are bored (and yes, all of the time?) - thats 0.0026723% of the '37,420,530 drivers in the UK with a full GB driving licence'. I'm very much with Boris on this - cricket and all.


 
Had you studied statistics at school, you would know that a sample of 760/ 1,000 for a population of ~37 million gives a margin of error of less than +/- 3%.

In other words, we can be very confident that the sample is accurate.


----------



## dellzeqq (6 Nov 2012)

theclaud said:


> You can explain mine if you like. I'm pretty relaxed about the authorship thang...


 
 well, if you will leave computers lying around...............


----------



## 400bhp (6 Nov 2012)

@delzeqq - long post above: Thought so, nice answer.


----------



## 400bhp (6 Nov 2012)

theclaud said:


> You can explain mine if you like. I'm pretty relaxed about the authorship thang...


 
Relaxed or bored?


----------



## youngoldbloke (6 Nov 2012)

srw said:


> You don't understand statistics and the concept of samples representing a population, do you?


- obviously not - I bow to your superior knowledge - the sample may well be accurate - but can you give me the actual question that was asked? If it was of the nature 'are you ever bored when driving?' , what would you expect?


----------



## theclaud (6 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> Relaxed or bored?


Definitely not bored.


----------



## Brandane (6 Nov 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> Now......when I look at people in their cars (and I sometimes travel by car as a passenger) and I compare the choice they've made with the choice I've made, well, I'm sorry, but I think to myself 'dohhhhhhh - why would you do that?'


 
The other side of the coin is that there are plenty of car drivers looking at people on bicycles thinking to themselves - why would you do that?

I can see where they are coming from. There are many downsides to cycling, most of which you have listed. I am happy to be able to say that I enjoy BOTH cycling and driving . Sometimes there is nothing better than just turning the ignition key and listening to the engine purring away. Put your favourite sounds on the stereo, turn up the heater in this cold weather and then head off to find a nice quiet route somewhere and have a blast *. Admire the scenery from the comfort and effortless ease of your car. If it starts to rain, no problem, flick a switch and it will clear your view. In fact the protection from the elements will make it feel even more pleasurable. 

I find cycling is also a pleasure, and granted - fitness is a useful bi-product; but it has many more restrictions.

* Admittedly, this factor probably does not apply to residents of London or other major population centres where even I would find car ownership more hassle than it is worth - but around here it remains a necessity for most working people.


----------



## dellzeqq (6 Nov 2012)

Brandane said:


> The other side of the coin is that there are plenty of car drivers looking at people on bicycles thinking to themselves - why would you do that?


They might, but, in a general way, they'd be better off thinking 'what needs to change in order for me to do that?' To return in a roundabout way to the beginning of the thread, the number one reason for outrage from drivers to cyclists, whether it be caused by leaning or not, is the irruption of the human in to the closed bubble of the car. It's the challenge offered by the dissolving of their removal from the world.

Ayrshire (a part of the world I've never had the pleasure of visiting) is a different kettle of fish from London, but there is one common consideration. The great fantasy of the bourgeois era is the individual. People remove themselves, seeking space, or isolation, or quiet in order, so they think, to become truly themselves. It's a great inspiration to artistic endeavour, but as a platform for managing our society and our ecology it's a complete failure. As a way to finding the best in humanity it's utterly hopeless. 

Great art, though....


----------



## Boris Bajic (6 Nov 2012)

theclaud said:


> The elaborate beating-about-the-bush-and-using-up-the-internet thing is wasted on me, BB. The private car is a social menace, and my hostility to it is entirely open. Cricket, on the other hand, is really rather nice. And even if I hated it, it wouldn't threaten to run me over. See DZ's thing about analogies. The thing you have decided not to understand is that for most purposes that it is discussed, there is nothing - but _nothing_ - in the real world that is comparable to the private car in function, reach or dominance. It's a hegemony thang, and it has you in its spell. I'm here to demystify it for you, to break the spell. To make the stone stony, as that Shklovsky fellow used to say. None of this has anything to do with any putative pleasure that might be derived from driving in fictional conditions, about which I am not arguing.


 
I know you disapprove of my filling the Internet, but it is a fault I live with.

You and I disagree about the private car being a social menace. I may be wrong, but I hold it to be a good thing. I agree with you that it has extraordinary levels of reach and dominance in the real world. I agree too about nothing being comparable in terms of function; I think that is part of the attraction for me. 

I accept the difference between cricket and motoring in terms of running things and people over. The analogy was a poor one, although in mitigation it was made with reference to your words about drivers being bored rather than any explicit mention of social menace.

I would be careful telling people (as you tell me) what they have or have not decided not to understand. I absolutely accept your view (the commonly held view) that it is a hegemony thing. On the public highway the motor vehicle holds sway. It does not have me 'in its spell' as you say it does. It is thoughtful of you to take the trouble to break the spell, but there is no spell to break. I am reminded of a religious friend who tried to persuade me that Christ loved me. It was lovely of him to try, but religion did not and does not fit my pistol. Nor does the 'Evil hegemony of the car' thing, but it is equally lovely of you to try.

I have never driven in fictional conditions, so I cannot argue about that either.

I have driven and continue to drive in the real world. I rather like it most of the time. I quite like it some of the time and there is the odd, rare instance when it is horrid.

People bringing up three children in rural market towns are welcome to eschew the motor car if they choose. I choose not to. I have found cars helpful. And often fun. 

When (years ago) I was bringing up toddlers and babies in Central London, we travelled by bicycle, tube and bus. I didn't think the car wicked, just inappropriate in those conditions. In sat on the street, but was driven rarely.

I enjoy cycling too. And train travel. And aeroplanes. And sailing boats and ferries. And walking. Helicopters frighten me. I wish they didn't.


----------



## Fasta Asloth (6 Nov 2012)

User482 said:


> Had you studied statistics at school, you would know that a sample of 760/ 1,000 for a population of ~37 million gives a margin of error of less than +/- 3%.
> 
> In other words, we can be very confident that the sample is accurate.


 
Having studied statistics I was taught that the polled data is only accurate if it does truely represent the population at large that you wish to extrapolate your sample result onto. Do we know that this is the case here? If so, then can be more confident of the result..


----------



## User482 (6 Nov 2012)

Fasta Asloth said:


> Having studied statistics I was taught that the polled data is only accurate if it does truely represent the population at large that you wish to extrapolate your sample result onto. Do we know that this is the case here? If so, then can be more confident of the result..


 
The calculation of < +/-3% was at 95% confidence.


----------



## Boris Bajic (6 Nov 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> The fact is that driving betrays an inability to engage with the world. It's not a grown-up thing to do. As the waffle two posts up amply demonstrates. There are people who find themselves in positions that make it the least worst alternative, but driving as a choice, or, heaven help us, an expression of individual liberty is a poor thing indeed.
> 
> I'll tell you this. If I pass you on the road, you in your car, me on my bike, I know I am the better person. There's nothing you can do by way of leather-backed driving gloves, tweed caps, shinier hubcaps or car stereos that can convince me otherwise.


 
The waffle was mine. I do not advocate driving as an expression of individual liberty. I'm not even sure how that would work. I drive as a choice, not as a least-worst option.

I disagree about driving betraying an inability to engage with the world. That seems a fairly sweeping statement to label a fact. Similarly your position that driving is not a grown-up thing to do. I'm not sure it helps to divide activities into 'grown-up' and 'not grown-up'. I do not. If I did, I wonder where I'd place nebulous Internet discussions with people I've never met.

On occasions when I'm driving in traffic and cyclist passes me, I do get little pangs of envy. It is quite natural. I'm not sure the cyclist is a better person, although he or she may be.

I frequently pass cyclists when driving and I frequently pass motorists when cycling. The reverse is also true in both scenarios.

I've never found myself thinking as I pass someone (or am passed) who is the better person. I'm not sure how I'd judge.

There is a huge (and doubtless valuable) debate to be had about whether cars are wicked and naughty and whether drivers are unable to engage with the world, rendered so by a cage of steel and glass. Until a jury has come to some sort of conclusion on that, I hold that it is poor form for cyclists to lean on a car in traffic.


----------



## Fasta Asloth (6 Nov 2012)

User482 said:


> The calculation of < +/-3% was at 95% confidence.


 
I wasn't referring to the CI, but the actual sample demographics....for example if I were to poll 1000 drivers in the nice scenic quiet roads of NW scotland, then perhaps there would be a lesser proportion who are bored when driving vs a sample of a 1000 drivers who routinely drive the M25 at rush hour..... it's that kind of demographic data in the actual sample that is also required to then know how well this extrapolates to the whole UK...


----------



## Norm (6 Nov 2012)

User482 said:


> The calculation of < +/-3% was at 95% confidence.


Nicely but completely avoiding the question.

I love driving, I find it fun even if I'm queuing up to pass the local school gates and being overtaken by cyclists. I am neither jealous of nor righteous towards people who chose other modes of transport because I am largely content with my decision to use something which I consider to be appropriate for my journey whilst not bothering myself about the decisions of others.

I can heartily recommend it, it is very relaxing.


----------



## User482 (6 Nov 2012)

Fasta Asloth said:


> I wasn't referring to the CI, but the actual sample demographics....for example if I were to poll 1000 drivers in the nice scenic quiet roads of NW scotland, then perhaps there would be a lesser proportion who are bored when driving vs a sample of a 1000 drivers who routinely drive the M25 at rush hour..... it's that kind of demographic data in the actual sample that is also required to then know how well this extrapolates to the whole UK...


 
The only people who can answer that are Allianz. But it's irrelevant - the vast majority of people live in or near densely populated areas.


----------



## User482 (6 Nov 2012)

Norm said:


> I can heartily recommend it, it is very relaxing.


 
I very occasionally commute by car, which never fails to remind me why I usually cycle.


----------



## Fasta Asloth (6 Nov 2012)

User482 said:


> The only people who can answer that are Allianz. But it's irrelevant - the vast majority of people live in or near densely populated areas.


 
If we dont know how Allianz set-up the sample demographics then no, not irrelevant.....


----------



## User482 (6 Nov 2012)

User482 said:


> The only people who can answer that are Allianz. But it's irrelevant - the vast majority of people live in or near densely populated areas.


 
Edited to add: the entire population of the Scottish highlands is (depending on what you count) around 300,000, which is 0.5% of the UK population. In a randomised poll, that would mean of the 1,000 people asked, 5 would be from the Highlands.


----------



## srw (6 Nov 2012)

Fasta Asloth said:


> I wasn't referring to the CI, but the actual sample demographics....for example if I were to poll 1000 drivers in the nice scenic quiet roads of NW scotland, then perhaps there would be a lesser proportion who are bored when driving vs a sample of a 1000 drivers who routinely drive the M25 at rush hour..... it's that kind of demographic data in the actual sample that is also required to then know how well this extrapolates to the whole UK...


Market research companies know this and are extremely likely to take it into account - it's not in their interest to provide duff data to their clients.

Edited to add... Since the report said that the M25 was people's least favourite motorway, I think we can take it for granted that quite a lot of people in the sample drive on the M25.


----------



## User482 (6 Nov 2012)

Fasta Asloth said:


> If we dont know how Allianz set-up the sample demographics then no, not irrelevant.....


 
You've failed to understand my point. See previous post.


----------



## Fasta Asloth (6 Nov 2012)

User482 said:


> You've failed to understand my point. See previous post.


Not at all, read your post and understood it completely...


----------



## Fasta Asloth (6 Nov 2012)

srw said:


> Market research companies know this and are extremely likely to take it into account - it's not in their interest to provide duff data to their clients.
> 
> Edited to add... Since the report said that the M25 was people's least favourite motorway, I think we can take it for granted that quite a lot of people in the sample drive on the M25.


hence the problem of then using that sample to extrapolate to a whole country of diverse population densities, terrain etc.... IF it was the case that the vast majority sampled drove the M25 routinely then, for me, this says that 760/1000 who mostly drive on the M25 are bored (that was all i was referring to when saying you need to know the demographics of the sample population)...such data probably tells me little about the probability that Fergus in Ullapool is bored when he drives, or Hugh in Llanberris....


----------



## 400bhp (6 Nov 2012)

Just assume it's a random sample. That's reasonable enough isn't it.

There's of course reasons why the random sample isn't representative of the underlying population, but that is explained in the mathematical confidence interval.


----------



## Fasta Asloth (6 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> Just assume it's a random sample. That's reasonable enough isn't it.
> 
> There's of course reasons why the random sample isn't representative of the underlying population, but that is explained in the mathematical confidence interval.


 
Feel free to assume...many a study, in my field of work at least, has subsequently been 'shot down' due to assumptions.... Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the study was not designed properly, just that from the information given that I, at least, can not be certain of how the study was put together and therefore what conclusions can be taken away from it....Don't think that is a wholely inaccurate position to have?


----------



## 400bhp (6 Nov 2012)

Fasta Asloth said:


> Feel free to assume...many a study, in my field of work at least, has subsequently then 'shot down' due to assumptions.... Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the study was not designed properly, just that from the information given that I, at least, can not be certain of how the study was put together and therefore what conclusions can be taken away from it....Don't think that is a wholely inaccurate position to have?


 
Of course not, but the study has some truisms doesn't it? That a large proportion of people have (at some time) been bored whilst driving.

But this study is a red herring anyway isn't it? It was put forward to suggest that people don't find driving relaxing. Can you be relaxed AND bored? I believe you can.


----------



## 400bhp (6 Nov 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> , I hold that it is poor form for cyclists to lean on a car in traffic.


 
Aye.


----------



## Fasta Asloth (6 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> Of course not, but the study has some truisms doesn't it? That a large proportion of people have (at some time) been bored whilst driving.
> 
> But this study is a red herring anyway isn't it? It was put forward to suggest that people don't find driving relaxing. Can you be relaxed AND bored? I believe you can.


 
Agree with you on the relaxed and bored, and on that note time for a few circuits (on the bike of course..) of Richmond to relax


----------



## User482 (6 Nov 2012)

Fasta Asloth said:


> Not at all, read your post and understood it completely...


 
In which case you're just plain wrong. The study could be biased exclusively to densely populated areas and the point would still stand for the UK as a whole. The clue is in where people actually live.


----------



## Fasta Asloth (6 Nov 2012)

User482 said:


> In which case you're just plain wrong. The study could be biased exclusively to densely populated areas and the point would still stand for the UK as a whole. The clue is in where people actually live.


 
I bow to your superior knowledge....Just glad you are not involved in setting up the sample demographics for any of our clinical trials we put together then...


----------



## srw (6 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> Of course not, but the study has some truisms doesn't it? That a large proportion of people have (at some time) been bored whilst driving.
> 
> But this study is a red herring anyway isn't it? It was put forward to suggest that people don't find driving relaxing. Can you be relaxed AND bored? I believe you can.





> About a third of drivers fall into the second category, according to a survey conducted by researchers at Newcastle University in the UK. And if you think aggressive drivers are the most dangerous on the road, you might consider the hazards posed by bored ones. Led by Jane Harvey, the scientists found that boredom in their study subjects translated into riskier driving to make the on-road experience more exciting, leading them to have one and a half times more accidents than other drivers.​​“We found four clusters of drivers – those who we called nervous, dangerous, young and bored, those who were enthusiastic, those who disliked driving, and those who were slow and safe,” says Harvey. The young and bored drivers were more likely to report feeling rushed when driving, and generally more anxious behind the wheel. That nervous energy translated into a need to match their heightened sense of excitement and stimulation while on the road, something that they seem only able to do by speeding or driving recklessly. These drivers reported not only making more mistakes, such as driving with the parking brake on or taking off in the wrong manual gear, but also being in more accidents. In order to stimulate themselves, they also tended to speed in urban areas and adopt other accident-prone behaviors.​​​Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2011/01/04/bored-drivers-most-likely-to-have-accidents/#ixzz2BRvrEHWJ​


----------



## 400bhp (6 Nov 2012)

User482 said:


> In which case you're just plain wrong. The study could be biased exclusively to densely populated areas and the point would still stand for the UK as a whole. The clue is in where people actually live.


 
Perhaps not - you're concentrating on traffic density. There are other factors at play as to what determines whether someone is bored or not. Boredom thresholds, intelligence etc.


----------



## dellzeqq (6 Nov 2012)

Fasta Asloth said:


> hence the problem of then using that sample to extrapolate to a whole country of diverse population densities, terrain etc.... IF it was the case that the vast majority sampled drove the M25 routinely then, for me, this says that 760/1000 who mostly drive on the M25 are bored (that was all i was referring to when saying you need to know the demographics of the sample population)...such data probably tells me little about the probability that Fergus in Ullapool is bored when he drives, or Hugh in Llanberris....








(by the way, the standard of driving and the KSI ratios in the North of Scotland suggests that all they're bored with is life)


----------



## 400bhp (6 Nov 2012)

Thanks



> The other group that tended to drive fast included the enthusiastic drivers, who, Harvey says, unlike the bored and dangerous drivers found driving to be the perfect balance between excitement and relaxation. For these people, operating a vehicle was both challenge and pleasure, and while they tended to speed, they did so on freeways and were involved in the least number of accidents among the four groups.
> ​


​


----------



## User482 (6 Nov 2012)

Fasta Asloth said:


> I bow to your superior knowledge....Just glad you are not involved in setting up the sample demographics for any of our clinical trials we put together then...


 
It's simply a matter of understanding the numbers. 89% of the UK population live in urban areas.


----------



## User482 (6 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> Perhaps not - you're concentrating on traffic density. There are other factors at play as to what determines whether someone is bored or not. Boredom thresholds, intelligence etc.


 
No, I'm telling you where people live, which is why worrying about the inclusion of drivers in northern Scotland in the sample is largely moot.


----------



## 400bhp (6 Nov 2012)

Agree, about worrying where people live, but you seem to be assuming people get bored because of where they live. This may or may not be the case. From my 5 min skim reading of the study it suggests, in part, that the level of boredom is dependent upon other characteristics.


----------



## Fasta Asloth (6 Nov 2012)

Perhaps you have misunderstood my posts? I have never said there wasn't a clear population density skew for urban vs rural. All I pointed out is that, as far as the information I have to hand in this thread, we don't know how Allianz set-up the study. Without knowing this then basing conculsions on their subsequent analysis MAY be erroneous. As I said to 400bp, it may well be the case that their sampling was indeed perfect and therefore we can have more confidence in their data and their conclusions. Without knowing their sampling I, at least, cant be as confident in their data. So what is unreasonable with my position there?

Defo time for a bike ride now...


----------



## Fasta Asloth (6 Nov 2012)

User482 said:


> No, I'm telling you where people live, which is why worrying about the inclusion of drivers in northern Scotland in the sample is largely moot.


 
You may be telling us, but is Allianz? If they are, then of course that adds more parameters to investigate when analysing their data and conclusions....


----------



## 400bhp (6 Nov 2012)

Fasta Asloth said:


> Perhaps you have misunderstood my posts? I have never said there wasn't a clear population density skew for urban vs rural. All I pointed out is that, as far as the information I have to hand in this thread, we don't know how Allianz set-up the study. Without knowing this then basing conculsions on their subsequent analysis MAY be erroneous. As I said to 400bp, it may well be the case that their sampling was indeed perfect and therefore we can have more confidence in their data and their conclusions. Without knowing their sampling I, at least, cant be as confident in their data. So what is unreasonable with my position there?
> 
> *Defo time for a bike ride now*...


 
Now, don't be touching people's cars will you.


----------



## srw (6 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> Thanks
> 
> ​


 
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press.office/p...rists-seeks-driving-thrills-to-combat-boredom


> The largest group, making up 35% of the driving population, are described as “enthusiastic”. The Newcastle University researchers found that they were less likely to have a crash because they find driving more challenging or intrinsically interesting. This kind of motorist enjoys driving, is calmer and is therefore less likely to have an accident.


If you can reliably find a way to ensure that only the one-third of the population who enjoys driving (a proportion not much higher, incidentally, than the third of the population that the insurance survey found were not bored by driving) drive at speed - be my guest. My best guess is that this group are in fact less likely to speed because they don't need the stimulation. And that most people who think they're in this group in fact aren't.


----------



## User482 (6 Nov 2012)

Fasta Asloth said:


> Perhaps you have misunderstood my posts? I have never said there wasn't a clear population density skew for urban vs rural. All I pointed out is that, as far as the information I have to hand in this thread, we don't know how Allianz set-up the study. Without knowing this then basing conculsions on their subsequent analysis MAY be erroneous. As I said to 400bp, it may well be the case that their sampling was indeed perfect and therefore we can have more confidence in their data and their conclusions. Without knowing their sampling I, at least, cant be as confident in their data. So what is unreasonable with my position there?
> 
> Defo time for a bike ride now...


 
Your proposition is that people driving in busy areas may give a different answer to people driving in rural areas, and that the sample result would be too high if it excluded people driving in rural areas.

The unreasonableness of your position is that even if you're right, it makes sod all difference to the result. Because 89% of us live in busy areas.


----------



## 400bhp (6 Nov 2012)

You might be right, I actually quoted it as some evidence that driving is (perceived to be) relaxing for some.


----------



## screenman (6 Nov 2012)

I would hate to be part of the 89%


----------



## User482 (6 Nov 2012)

screenman said:


> I would hate to be part of the 89%


 
I would be bored stiff if I were one of the 11%.


----------



## screenman (6 Nov 2012)

Have you been one of the 11% because for 34 years I was one of the 89% Each to their own.


----------



## User482 (6 Nov 2012)

screenman said:


> Have you been one of the 11% because for 34 years I was one of the 89% Each to their own.


 
Yes. It was boring.


----------



## screenman (6 Nov 2012)

May have been to you, but the cycling is better that is for sure. Anyway Bristol is hardly that big and busy compared with our major cities, even though it is quite large by South West.

Can I ask what you have in Bristol that say I do not have in rural Lincolnshire, just for comparison sakes. Apart from traffic that is.


----------



## Hip Priest (6 Nov 2012)

99% of people are bored of this thread.


----------



## User482 (6 Nov 2012)

screenman said:


> May have been to you, but the cycling is better that is for sure. Anyway Bristol is hardly that big and busy compared with our major cities, even though it is quite large by South West.
> 
> Can I ask what you have in Bristol that say I do not have in rural Lincolnshire, just for comparison sakes. Apart from traffic that is.


Largest city in the SW and I think the 10th largest in the UK. So it's one of our major cities.

I have all of the facilities a large city offers, including museums, libraries, theatres, restaurants, galleries and family attractions. I have thriving high streets with independent shops. I can get to anything I want quickly and easily by bicycle. Should I want to explore the countryside, I can be in the Somerset hills within 20 minutes. I went mountain biking last night and was on the trail within 15 minutes of leaving work.

So the question is what do you have that I don't?


----------



## screenman (6 Nov 2012)

Everything.


----------



## Fasta Asloth (6 Nov 2012)

User482 said:


> Your proposition is that people driving in busy areas may give a different answer to people driving in rural areas, and that the sample result would be too high if it excluded people driving in rural areas.
> 
> The unreasonableness of your position is that even if you're right, it makes sod all difference to the result. Because 89% of us live in busy areas.


 
As hip priest noted, this thread is getting boring for most people, but happy to correct your misconceptions on what my proposition actually is and your subsequent position with regards to that via p.m. . So p.m. me if you wish..........


----------



## Fasta Asloth (6 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> Now, don't be touching people's cars will you.


 
Only to relieve their boredom when they see the "red mist..."


----------



## User482 (6 Nov 2012)

screenman said:


> Everything.


I've been to Lincolnshire...


----------



## screenman (6 Nov 2012)

And I have been to Bristol.


----------



## 400bhp (6 Nov 2012)

I've been to those two places. Is that a good thing?


----------



## 400bhp (6 Nov 2012)

What is the connection?

Sausages?

I've been to Northumberland too.


----------



## Dan B (6 Nov 2012)

400bhp said:


> I've been to those two places. Is that a good thing?


But have you ever been to you?


----------



## 400bhp (6 Nov 2012)

eh?


----------



## Brandane (7 Nov 2012)

Dan B said:


> But have you ever been to you?


 
I've been to paradise, but I've never been to me .


----------



## screenman (7 Nov 2012)

Why do people click on a post they are bored with? Just going out for a 60 minute ride and will not see a car within 400 yards at all. If I lean on a tree will that offend it, maybe I should avoid the Ash one's.


----------



## Boris Bajic (7 Nov 2012)

screenman said:


> And I have been to Bristol.


 
I find both places pleasant. Unremarkable, but pleasant.

But Lincolnshire has Cadwell Park. Bristol does not.

4-4 AET. Lincolnshire wins 7-6 on penalties.

Close, but Cadwell is the difference.


----------



## User482 (7 Nov 2012)

The sole purpose of Lincolnshire is to stop Yorkshire sliding into the sea.


----------



## Poacher (7 Nov 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I find both places pleasant. Unremarkable, but pleasant.
> 
> But Lincolnshire has Cadwell Park. Bristol does not.
> 
> ...


 
Cadwell's OK, but the Bluestone Heath road which passes within a mile of it swings the vote for me.
(Oh, and the fact that I'm originally from Lincolnshire)


----------



## theclaud (7 Nov 2012)

y


Boris Bajic said:


> I know you disapprove of my filling the Internet, but it is a fault I live with.
> 
> You and I disagree about the private car being a social menace. I may be wrong, but I hold it to be a good thing. I agree with you that it has extraordinary levels of reach and dominance in the real world. I agree too about nothing being comparable in terms of function; I think that is part of the attraction for me.
> 
> ...


 
Luckily I have no such qualms. And to be fair to your religious friend, _if_ Christ loves you then I daresay he loves you whether you are persuaded of it or not. But it's a good job I'm so tirelessly devoted to putting you straight, because you persist in giving me occasion to do so. The whole point of hegemony is that its operation is largely invisible - to suggest that it is "the commonly held view" that the dominance of the car culture is a hegemony thing is self-evidently absurd. Like so many other things about which I am right and you are wrong, it is _your_ view that is commonly held, and mine that is relatively unusual. Which is why you need to bang on irrelevantly about babies and market-towns. You also make the mistake of imagining that your enjoyment of driving matters to me, or to anything much. It's that bourgeois individualism again. Your car appropriates the same amount of space and makes the same demands on everyone else whether you are utterly miserable in it or on the very brink of ecstasy. I would, of course, gladly make drivers even more miserable than most of them seem to be already, but not out of any desire to spoil your fun.


----------



## VamP (7 Nov 2012)

Boris Bajic said:


> I find both places pleasant. Unremarkable, but pleasant.
> 
> But Lincolnshire has Cadwell Park. Bristol does not.
> 
> ...


 

Oh yeah? I think you might have forgotten Clifton Suspension Bridge!


----------



## Brandane (7 Nov 2012)

theclaud said:


> I would, of course, gladly make drivers even more miserable than most of them seem to be already, but not out of any desire to spoil your fun.


 
It is statements such as this which make me embarrassed to be considered part of the "cycling community". Arrogant and selfish; the very traits which you probably tar car drivers as having. Just as well 99.9% of car drivers do not share your attitude, as I suspect it would be much easier for them to spoil cyclists fun, rather than the other way round .


----------



## theclaud (7 Nov 2012)

Brandane said:


> *It is statements such as this which make me embarrassed to be considered part of the "cycling community"*. Arrogant and selfish; the very traits which you probably tar car drivers as having. Just as well 99.9% of car drivers do not share your attitude, as I suspect it would be much easier for them to spoil cyclists fun, rather than the other way round .


 
Oh do give over with the stupid sad faces and the wounded thing, and try reading things in the context in which they are presented. I like to go overboard on the adversarial stuff for Boris, just as he likes to fill up the internet for my benefit. What I am saying is a simple thing, and the very opposite of selfish. It is driving which is selfish. Drivers want to get around quicker, and unhindered, but it's better for everyone else if they are slowed down and hindered. This _tends_ to make them miserable, and I can live with that.


----------



## Brandane (7 Nov 2012)

theclaud said:


> Oh do give over with the stupid sad faces and the wounded thing, and try reading things in the context in which they are presented.


 
The "stupid sad faces" are there to be used as a way of demonstrating the context in which messages are intended to be presented, as clearly that is sometimes not possible in simple text   .


----------



## theclaud (7 Nov 2012)

Brandane said:


> The "stupid sad faces" are there to be used as a way of demonstrating the context in which messages are intended to be presented, as clearly that is sometimes not possible in simple text   .



I know what they're for. I even use them myself on occasion, although that's mainly for Adrian's benefit. But why on earth would my post make you sad? It's just cheap emoting.


----------



## User482 (7 Nov 2012)

theclaud said:


> Oh do give over with the stupid sad faces and the wounded thing, and try reading things in the context in which they are presented. I like to go overboard on the adversarial stuff for Boris, just as he likes to fill up the internet for my benefit. What I am saying is a simple thing, and the very opposite of selfish. It is driving which is selfish. Drivers want to get around quicker, and unhindered, but it's better for everyone else if they are slowed down and hindered. This _tends_ to make them miserable, and I can live with that.


 
Well, quite. We've allowed ourselves to get into a situation where our roads, junctions and pavements are designed to minimise impediments to the progress of motorists. A sensible transport hierarchy should prioritise the needs of pedestrians, cyclists, public transport and goods traffic. Private motorists will just have to wait their turn.


----------



## Mugshot (7 Nov 2012)




----------



## screenman (7 Nov 2012)

I have no desire to travel on a flea ridden bus, and yes they are just that.


----------



## theclaud (7 Nov 2012)

screenman said:


> I have no desire to travel on a flea ridden bus, and yes they are just that.


 
What on earth are you on about?


----------



## theclaud (7 Nov 2012)

Mugshot said:


> View attachment 14836


 
You misunderstand me - I'm not asking Boris to stop liking cars - just wondering aloud why we should indulge, subsidize or encourage driving as a hobby.


----------



## screenman (7 Nov 2012)

Some of my work is for a major bus company, I know what the trimmers and cleaners have to put up with.

*Human Fleas* - Most folks will tell you people do not become infested with or get fleas! This is not true at all, in fact there is a species of flea called the: Human Flea. It looks very similar to any other flea, except under a microscope. This type of flea likes to infest the hair of humans, it easily finds a host by hiding on the backs of seats of buses and other vehicles, and hitching rides in the hair of new passengers. These fleas love to infest hairy areas of people such as the heads, under the arms and other areas. They live quite well on people, and gorge themselves off the blood. Human Fleas are not that common anymore, thanks to better hygiene and cleaning methods, but they are still out there. 

Rentokil warned that infestations on public transport were are at an all-time high. "The average commuter will always be close to cockroaches, bedbugs and fleas," said Savvas Othon of Rentokil.

Adrian once again you are wrong, stick to what you know about and I will do the same.


----------



## screenman (7 Nov 2012)

Would you like to come with me to a bus trim shop, just wear your shorts and see what happens. No of course you would not as it would mean coming out from behind a keyboard.


----------



## theclaud (7 Nov 2012)

screenman said:


> Would you like to come with me to a bus trim shop, just wear your shorts and see what happens.


 
I say! That's an offer Adrian couldn't very well refuse!


----------



## User482 (7 Nov 2012)

2140545 said:


> So in conclusion, scared of a few fleas? No.


 
What about Lincolnshire?


----------



## User482 (7 Nov 2012)

2140560 said:


> Lincolnshire per se or the people thereof?


 
Admittedly, our small sample may not be representative, but it doesn't seem especially welcoming, does it?


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Nov 2012)

screenman said:


> Some of my work is for a major bus company, I know what the trimmers and cleaners have to put up with.
> .


strange that I've never been bitten by a flea on a bus. Then again, I go on TfL buses. They're probably a little more hygienic than your common or garden Lincoldnshire bus.

As it goes Lincolnshire was one of the very few counties of England, perhaps the only one that I'd not been to up until recently. Then......we organised a ride from York to Cleethorpes, and I got to go through the northeastern part of the county for the recce rides, and that was very pleasant. And, after the ride itself the trains were messed up (somebody had stolen the copper cable from beside the track) so I decided to ride to Lincoln. And.......it was beautiful. Quite stunning.


----------



## screenman (7 Nov 2012)

Adrian please accept my apologies, my last post was over the top. It has been a bad day but that is no excuse for how rude I was.

I may now live in Lincolnshire, however a local I am not.


----------



## screenman (7 Nov 2012)

Thank you.


----------



## screenman (7 Nov 2012)

And I would happily pay.


----------



## lukesdad (7 Nov 2012)

2140678 said:


> Not at all. Of the people I routinely disagree with, I reckon I could stick coming out from behind a keyboard and having a beer with you.


 Too much for me to hope for an invite I suppose ? <note no smiley>


----------



## lukesdad (7 Nov 2012)

2140721 said:


> Oh go on then.


One day hopefully ......couldn't help myself


----------



## lukesdad (7 Nov 2012)

You would be a welcome asset.


----------



## G2EWS (7 Nov 2012)

Whereabouts in West Wales Lukesdad?

Chris


----------



## theclaud (7 Nov 2012)

Aw! A love-in! Sweet!


----------



## theclaud (7 Nov 2012)

2140830 said:


> Bollocks


 
I'm the sentimental sort, Adrian. I can't help it.


----------



## gilespargiter (16 Nov 2012)

Well, well, seems people get so emotional about such a simple innocent thing. 
Seems to me, many seem to mistake respect for people, with respect for mammon.
Obviously some do not understand - I would never be behind or in front of them while doing this thing - so it would be absolutely hilarious if they suddenly accelerated - into the vehicle in front or behind as a reaction.  of course the only reason why this would happen to them would be because - they had not ensured the safe passage of an overtaking vehicle or; had not eased to one side when lane width allows, in order to facilitate the passage of motorcycles and bicycles.

Absolutely ludicrous to claim a couple of fingers scarcely touching their precious paint would cause damage.Which incidentally is usually a door top or gutter - boots and bonnets are the wrong height, as cyclists would know.

As for the people that express their criminal intent to commit assault - well that also would be hilarious - to see them bash their door against the adjacent vehicle (causing criminal damage) and then not be able to get out their car anyway....

BTW I don't use clips (or much other cycle specific clothing come to that) - it is now and again a convenient way to be able to sit up in order to survey a traffic situation and work out a way round it and see what pedestrians are doing what, before continuing.

I have done it to a motorcycle with a blue light - due to a traffic incident that occurred- I was waved on with a big smile as soon as conditions allowed.

So I shall just continue in my usual way.


----------



## davida (18 Nov 2012)

gilespargiter said:


> Well, well, seems people get so emotional about such a simple innocent thing.
> Seems to me, many seem to mistake respect for people, with respect for mammon.
> Obviously some do not understand - I would never be behind or in front of them while doing this thing - so it would be absolutely hilarious if they suddenly accelerated - into the vehicle in front or behind as a reaction.  of course the only reason why this would happen to them would be because - they had not ensured the safe passage of an overtaking vehicle or; had not eased to one side when lane width allows, in order to facilitate the passage of motorcycles and bicycles.
> 
> ...



Fool


----------

