Why I hate RLJ, pavement cyclists etc

[RANDOM]

Cab,

I thought they had. Maybe this thread is too long or I am not getting enough sleep (I'm not )

Lets resolve this:

Nethalus, Random, if a bus driver says he has used his bus intentionally to knock a cyclists over, would you condem this action. Yes or no?

Of course i would condem it, as i have said many times i don't not wish to injure any one,cyclist or pedestrian for that matter.But no doubt i will repeat it again and again.

 

[nethalus]

If the policeman is following guidance from the Home Office, then it depends on why the cyclist is on the pavement. In most cases, the cyclist is more likely to get nicked. Don't believe me? Go walk down any back street and count the number of cars driven on the pavement to park so as not to interfere with traffic (often making passage of push chairs and wheelchairs impossible). How many people get nicked for that?

But more importantly, would you care to speculate on the comparative number of casualties caused by bikes and cars to pedestrians on the pavement?

Quoting statistics etc is meaningless to my oringal point though, which was, good cylists are unfortunately let down by bad ones. Just as good motorists get let down by bad ones. But that point got lost somewhere with people taking exception to me suggesting that a car being driven erratically is more noticable than a cycle!!

 

[Cab]

Of course i would condem it, as i have said many times i don't not wish to injure any one,cyclist or pedestrian for that matter.But no doubt i will repeat it again and again.

Then go back to where you're sharing space online with guys who say they're doing precisely that and condemn that behaviour. Really, you need to do that or the claim that you would condemn that kind of behaviour when you encounter is has no credibility whatsoever, because you're not doing so.

 

[Cab]

Quoting statistics etc is meaningless to my oringal point though, which was, good cylists are unfortunately let down by bad ones. Just as good motorists get let down by bad ones. But that point got lost somewhere with people taking exception to me suggesting that a car being driven erratically is more noticable than a cycle!!

No, this discussion stemmed from you saying:

Unfortuntely there is no way of stopping any idiot getting a bike and riding it how they damn well like (I suppose you could argue the same with a car, but a car being driven badly or erratically is easier to spot than a cycle.)

To which I responded that yes, cyclists really are bound by the law too, and that cyclists get nicked for doing stupid things on the road. THEN you came up with the claim that motorists doing dangerous things on the roads are more likely to be stopped by a copper, and thats what I refuted. Further, you claimed that the reason why a bike might be, say, on the pavement doesn't matter, and again it was shown that you were incorrect.

Now you're trying to ignore all of the intervening discussion because you've been shown to be wrong and re-stating a simple starting point that a cyclist breaking the law reinforces the false stereotype that cyclists are law breakers... 'Fraid that I think most of us agreed on that before you posted to the discussion, and it doesn't rub out the other comments in the thread.

Oh, and have you gone back to the bus forum and condemned those who make cracks about nudging bus drivers off the road yet? Or those willing to threaten our members here with sending them home in a box? Or is such condemnation not for their ears?

 

[BentMikey]

Please let it go mate?

 

[Cab]

Please let it go mate?

Happy to, just as soon as the emperor dons some actual clothes.

 

[Jacomus-rides-Gen]

Argh! Are we going to have another bus related thread locked?!?!?!

 

[magnatom]

Cab,

Sure, they should have condemned it at the time, they didn't, but they do agree that it was wrong. There is nothing to be gained for them to go back and say anything to this guy. The guys a twerp and nothing is going to change that.

This really could just go round and round in circles. Be the bigger man and say enough is enough, before this thread needs to be locked.

 

[Tetedelacourse]

I agree in principal with Cab on this one, which is a new feeling for me. But it's not going anywhere is it?

 

[nethalus]

No, this discussion stemmed from you saying:



To which I responded that yes, cyclists really are bound by the law too, and that cyclists get nicked for doing stupid things on the road. THEN you came up with the claim that motorists doing dangerous things on the roads are more likely to be stopped by a copper, and thats what I refuted. Further, you claimed that the reason why a bike might be, say, on the pavement doesn't matter, and again it was shown that you were incorrect.

Now you're trying to ignore all of the intervening discussion because you've been shown to be wrong and re-stating a simple starting point that a cyclist breaking the law reinforces the false stereotype that cyclists are law breakers... 'Fraid that I think most of us agreed on that before you posted to the discussion, and it doesn't rub out the other comments in the thread.

Oh, and have you gone back to the bus forum and condemned those who make cracks about nudging bus drivers off the road yet? Or those willing to threaten our members here with sending them home in a box? Or is such condemnation not for their ears?

I never refuted that cyclists are bound by the law, what I said was that any idiot (ie a ned or dead head) can get a cycle and ride it how and where they like, thus letting down law abiding cyclists who get tarred with the same brush. The same is true with a car, perhaps I should have omitted the "suppose"!
My scenario was not based on an actuall event, it was just a hypothetical one. Yes people park on pavements and yes it's annoying but what I was saying was that if some mad git drove their car on the pavement, and I meant actually driving it, not parking it. One would hope they would get nicked by a copper, as they are far more potentially dangerous than the hypothetical cyclist. Why either of them are on the pavement is unimportant.
You also seemed to have got the wrong end of the stick and seemed to have been under the impression I was having a go at cyclists. Which is clearly not the case. I've been a cyclist in the past so I know what it's like when you are out there. Hope this clears this up and I hope you don't find anymore points to nit pick over!

 

[gambatte]

Argh! Are we going to have another bus related thread locked?!?!?!

Jacomus, you forgot to say "Please"

 

[BentMikey]

Cab, the cycling equivalent of the Taliban?

 

[gambatte]

Cab, the cycling equivalent of the Taliban?

If he starts demanding female cyclists stop the lycra and wear Burqas, there's gonna be trouble!!

 

[Cab]

I never refuted that cyclists are bound by the law, what I said was that any idiot (ie a ned or dead head) can get a cycle and ride it how and where they like, thus letting down law abiding cyclists who get tarred with the same brush. The same is true with a car, perhaps I should have omitted the "suppose"!

Yes, you did say that, and you went on to say all manner of other things in defense of the claim that cyclists get away with more... No one would disagree with the claim that an irresponsible cyclist gets us a bad name, that isn't a contentious claim, the claim you made that makes little sense was that cyclists are somehow less visible when they break the law.

My scenario was not based on an actuall event, it was just a hypothetical one. Yes people park on pavements and yes it's annoying but what I was saying was that if some mad git drove their car on the pavement, and I meant actually driving it, not parking it. One would hope they would get nicked by a copper, as they are far more potentially dangerous than the hypothetical cyclist. Why either of them are on the pavement is unimportant.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Specific guidance for the police from the home secretary, guidance already quoted here, shows quite clearly that the cyclists reason for being on the pavement is of vital importance when a police officer decides whether or not to take action. Said guidance does not apply to cars; driving on to pavements to park there is illegal and can/should be punished accordingly, cycling on the pavement is usually illegal but should very often not be punished, thats the guidance to which the police are meant to operate. As you rightly state, the car on a pavement is far more dangerous than a bicycle (even one just parking); you are not comparing like with like.

As for getting nicked for driving on the pavement... Frankly, no, your chances of getting nicked for it are approaching zero in most places. Same for speeding, same for running red lights on a car. It just isn't the case that motorists breaking the law are more visible, in fact because there are less cyclists around it is usually the case that cyclists infringing are way more visible. Don't believe me? Go to the pub and mention cycling.

You also seemed to have got the wrong end of the stick and seemed to have been under the impression I was having a go at cyclists. Which is clearly not the case. I've been a cyclist in the past so I know what it's like when you are out there. Hope this clears this up and I hope you don't find anymore points to nit pick over!

This isn't nit picking, its correcting you where you're factually incorrect.

 

[Cab]

Sure, they should have condemned it at the time...

And thats the sum of it. If someone was ranting about harming people of a particular race, religion or gender, those comments would be borderline criminal. They're no less shocking because they're about cyclists.

Just laughing along with comments like that and then saying 'I didn't say it, I just went along with it and I would normally condemn it but I didn't' is totally unconvincing. They're not repentent, they're not serious about saying that they condemn that kind of behaviour because they didn't condemn it where it mattered, and they still haven't.

For the record, had those comments been about, say, Christian people, my response would be just as robust. Or if someone had joked about running over black people, I'd have been incensed too. I'm saddened that we're treating comments made about cyclists so very differently.