Assaulted

[glenn forger]

Learn to spell.

 

[TVC]

And that is all he has got..

Enough diverting what is a very serious thread. Apologies BCS

 

[glenn forger]

Stupid argument I call it.

Why? Why are you anxious to hold all cyclists responsible for the actions of the worst, but seem desperate to shy away from doing the same with drivers?

 

[MacB]

It's your argument. One the one hand you claim all cyclists are responsible for the actions of the worst, but you get shrill and defensive when the same argument is applied to you as a driver. Hypocrite, as well as incredibly stupid.

no that is the argument you have attributed to Vernon but it is definitely not one I can find in his posts. His point about us having a collective identity, as perceived by those that don't cycle, is a valid one. We know it's not accurate but that doesn't mean the perception doesn't exist. No-one has become shrill or defensive but people do get weary and short when constantly called upon to defend something they haven't said or are prodded to argue against straw men.

I've struggled with how I feel about this and the nastier elements of the net getting on a roll doesn't help. Fair or not a negative act by a cyclist gets attributed to us all in the minds of a great many - hence statements like all cyclists jump red lights, ride on pavements, mow down and kill little old ladies, etc, etc. If you do a search back you'll find that when I used to join in on commuting I was also critical of collective terms for motorists like 'motons'.

I still stick by my earlier conclusion that to effect real change then things do need to get nasty/extreme. But I'm also very aware that there could be a massive backlash from the general motoring populace against cyclists. I cringe when I read the term 'moton' and seek to distance myself from the connotations such a term suggest to me. But I cringe even more when I see Jeremy Clarkson level idiocy trying to stir up an argument around motorists and the Ripper.

 

[Rob3rt]

Glenn Forger is a plank!

 

[glenn forger]

What rubbish, I have nothing to do with how other people ride and they me. Do you blame / associate every driver with every bad / good one?

Exactly.

 

[glenn forger]

It's equally appalling that self appointed cycling vigilantes are terrorising the assailant and his wife. The cycling community can't claim the moral high ground on this one.

There is no plausible evidence that any threats were made, or that they came from "the cycling community". This is as absurd as saying the "motoring community" refuse to condemn bad driving. It's made up nonsense.

 

[Sara_H]

Read back through then thread.

I can see that they'vr allegedly been getting a bit of internet hassle, but I don't believe there's any suggestion that they're being terrorised. Unlike the OP.
They've got everything they deserve in my opinion.

 

[glenn forger]

The claim that threats were made came from a chap who we already know lied to the cops. It was early on, when the clip was posted on Reddit. lets assume the lying thug was telling the truth and threats were made. How, in the name of left handed Greek buggery, has that got to do with the cycling community? If we all share collective responsibility for whatever some doofus posts on the Internet then the definition of the cycling community seems a bit loose to me.

 

[swee'pea99]

Have to say I also take issue with the notion that it's 'equally appalling'. Can't quite see that. If bloke A makes an unprovoked attack on bloke B, but bloke B turns out to be a karate black belt and gives him a bloody good hiding, I don't call that appalling, much less 'equally' appalling; I call that getting what's coming to you. ('Terrorising' seems a bit OTT too, by the by. A lying thug and his lying missus have - so we hear - received some uncomplimentary messages. Hardly 9/11, is it?)

 

[glenn forger]

After a drunk driver smashed into and killed a cyclist in America, some posters on the Pistonheads forum said:

"Is it wrong that I laughed?"

As far as I can see there are two responses to that. You could say:

"Blimey, there are some idiots on the internet!"

Or:

"This is a black stain on the motoring community!"

Which response makes more sense?

 

[MacB]

After a drunk driver smashed into and killed a cyclist in America, some posters on the Pistonheads forum said.......................Which response makes more sense?

the only one making much sense right now is STFU Glenn Forger...but I guess that's not what you want to hear

 

[glenn forger]

Have to say I also take issue with the notion that it's 'equally appalling'. Can't quite see that. If bloke A makes an unprovoked attack on bloke B, but bloke B turns out to be a karate black belt and gives him a bloody good hiding, I don't call that appalling, much less 'equally' appalling; I call that getting what's coming to you. ('Terrorising' seems a bit OTT too, by the by. A lying thug and his lying missus have - so we hear - received some uncomplimentary messages. Hardly 9/11, is it?)

Easy avoidable too. If someone gets grief because footage is posted of them chucking a cat in a bin then who's at fault? I can avoid getting grief from anonymous internet bods by not flinging cats in bins, easy!

 

[benb]

Easy avoidable too. If someone gets grief because footage is posted of them chucking a cat in a bin then who's at fault? I can avoid getting grief from anonymous internet bods by not flinging cats in bins, easy!

Oh.
[puts cat down carefully]

 

[Kookas]

I'd say that people don't associate stereotypes with the whole motoring community because everyone knows lots of motorists personally, so they can see that the generalisations are wrong for themselves.

I bet that people who know a lot of cyclists personally wouldn't stereotype/generalise cyclists either (unless it happened to always prove true, but the only way that's going to happen is if you make an obvious statement like "all cyclists ride bikes" ).