Shouting at RLJers Part 2

DonDaddyD

Paulie W wrote:

It generally isnt worth shouting I agree but I strongly diasgree with the view that a cyclist's actions dont have an impact on how other road users view cyclists.

Should watching a drunken football fan shape how we view all football fans?

I could go on.

(The rest of my point can be read in my post above).

Paulie W

DonDaddyD wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

It generally isnt worth shouting I agree but I strongly diasgree with the view that a cyclist's actions dont have an impact on how other road users view cyclists.

Should watching a drunken football fan shape how we view all football fans?

I could go on.

(The rest of my point can be read in my post above).

What does 'should' have to do with it? We're not talking about how people should ideally behave but how they actually behave.

Eau Rouge

DonDaddyD wrote:

Personally I don't think that because a person RLJs it should be or is assumed that all cyclists RLJ.

It's not quite so direct an association. Car drivers know that not every cyclist jumps red lights. It's more subtle than that.

This country can't decide if cyclists are traffic or pedestrians. In law, and in best practice, we know we are traffic, and much better off for it. Alas, in the minds of the general population (the vast majority of whom aren't "cyclists" even if they do ride bikes now than then) and reinforced by the council and national road planners, cyclists are pedestrians, to be treated as pedestrians (Exhibit A always being the 'Shared Use Path', the single greatest threat to cycling in this country)

Every RLJ reinforces the idea to the genral public that yes, cyclists really are pedestrians as many of them, along with pedestrians, pay no attention to traffic rules or lights. A cyclist acting like traffic is only as influential in this stereotyping as a pedestrian standing waiting for a green man to cross a junction.

King Donut

I think good on ya for shouting at them. And if an RLJer wants to starts a fight then so be it. I would quite happily give one a slap.

il_principe

DonDaddyD wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

It generally isnt worth shouting I agree but I strongly diasgree with the view that a cyclist's actions dont have an impact on how other road users view cyclists.

Should watching a drunken football fan shape how we view all football fans?

I could go on.

(The rest of my point can be read in my post above).

DDD I take your point, but (anecdotally) I've had a lot of comments from friends, colleagues, strangers etc along the lines of "bloody cyclists, always jumping red lights, blather blather blather" IME the behaviour of some cyclists does tar many of us with the same brush. I bet a lot of posters on here have had similar comments made to them...

Also:

Should watching a drunken football fan shape how we view all football fans?

Well for years it pretty much did. In fact my GF who is not from the UK holds the opinion that 90% of UK football fans are violent, drunken thugs. Clearly this isn't the case but that's the opinion she's formed having seen their behaviour in Germnay and Turkey. It is very possible for the few to give the many a bad name, regardless of the truth.

lost_in_thought

Il Principe wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

It generally isnt worth shouting I agree but I strongly diasgree with the view that a cyclist's actions dont have an impact on how other road users view cyclists.

Should watching a drunken football fan shape how we view all football fans?

I could go on.

(The rest of my point can be read in my post above).

DDD I take your point, but (anecdotally) I've had a lot of comments from friends, colleagues, strangers etc along the lines of "bloody cyclists, always jumping red lights, blather blather blather" IME the behaviour of some cyclists does tar many of us with the same brush. I bet a lot of posters on here have had similar comments made to them..

Yeah, I certainly have.

Also, DDD, to own up to a prejudice of my own in reference to your post above, I flatly refuse to a) go to football matches or b) go into pubs where football matches are playing because of the loutish behaviour of football fans. I know it's not every football fan, but to people like me the behaviour of what is probably a minority gives the majority a bad name.

I'm not a football fan, and I know I'm generalising and being a bit prejudicial, but I still do it.

I bet you a lot of other people do the same regarding cyclists. It's not right, but I think it's realistic.

DonDaddyD

OK so what you guys are saying is that prejudice is OK. Forming an opinion on an individual based on an unproven generalistion is alright and acceptable.

Furthermore you can all categorically say that motorists treat you badly on the road or have a bad view of cyclists, not because of their own poor driving skills, lack of knowledge and experience around cycling but because they see cyclists breaking the law and this irritates them.

r.i.g.h.t. :roll:

Paulie W

Il Principe wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Should watching a drunken football fan shape how we view all football fans?

Well for years it pretty much did. In fact my GF who is not from the UK holds the opinion that 90% of UK football fans are violent, drunken thugs. Clearly this isn't the case but that's the opinion she's formed having seen their behaviour in Germnay and Turkey. It is very possible for the few to give the many a bad name, regardless of the truth.

Bingo. It is 'bad' behaviour that we remember much more readily than good or neutral behaviour. Most of us on here must be passed by hundreds of buses, white vans, taxis, etc in a week without incident but we remeber and pass comment on the tiny number that put us at risk, anger us, etc with their behaviour,

_Brun_

Yeah but those same people also blather on about the whole 'road tax' thing all the time which isn't even true. Motorists just don't like cyclists, and regardless of our behaviour will carry on pulling reasons for feeling like that out of their arses indefinitely.

I've had more grief from motorists while setting off from lights than I ever have jumping them. How does that in any way suggest that drivers will respect cyclists who obey the law?

Paulie W

DonDaddyD wrote:

OK so what you guys are saying is that prejudice is OK. Forming an opinion on an individual based on an unproven generalistion is alright and acceptable.

Furthermore you can all categorically say that motorists treat you badly on the road or have a bad view of cyclists, not because of their own poor driving skills, lack of knowledge and experience around cycling but because they see cyclists breaking the law and this irritates them.

r.i.g.h.t. :roll:

Where has anybody said its OK? You seem to be deliberately missing the point.

On the second point, I cant categorically say that since I'm basing it on my own experience and on anecdotal evidence but I personally think it is a reasonable conclusion and struggle to see why it is so 'irritating'.

lost_in_thought

DonDaddyD wrote:

OK so what you guys are saying is that prejudice is OK. Forming an opinion on an individual based on an unproven generalistion is alright and acceptable.

Furthermore you can all categorically say that motorists treat you badly on the road or have a bad view of cyclists, not because of their own poor driving skills, lack of knowledge and experience around cycling but because they see cyclists breaking the law and this irritates them.

r.i.g.h.t. :roll:

Nope, not saying it's OK, saying that it happens, irrespective of whether or not it's OK.

DonDaddyD

Prince wrote:

DDD I take your point, but (anecdotally) I've had a lot of comments from friends, colleagues, strangers etc along the lines of "bloody cyclists, always jumping red lights, blather blather blather" IME the behaviour of some cyclists does tar many of us with the same brush. I bet a lot of posters on here have had similar comments made to them...

In my experience its the opposite, many drivers, friends, family would prefer a cyclist to pass through the lights and get further up the road so its easier for the car to accelerate and go around them. - At a crossing, not a junction.

Prince wrote:

Well for years it pretty much did. In fact my GF who is not from the UK holds the opinion that 90% of UK football fans are violent, drunken thugs. Clearly this isn't the case but that's the opinion she's formed having seen their behaviour in Germnay and Turkey. It is very possible for the few to give the many a bad name, regardless of the truth.

But having that view forming that opinion is not right.

You see a group of kids messing about on the road, they have hoods and baseball caps on. If you walk pass them it doesn't mean that they're automatically going to attack you.

Also, DDD, to own up to a prejudice of my own in reference to your post above, I flatly refuse to a) go to football matches or b) go into pubs where football matches are playing because of the loutish behaviour of football fans. I know it's not every football fan, but to people like me the behaviour of what is probably a minority gives the majority a bad name.

Yes and that's just naive, shortsighted and such pre-judgemental views only serve to limit a persons experiences to what they immediately are familiar and therefore comfortable with.

I'm not a football fan, and I know I'm generalising and being a bit prejudicial, but I still do it.

I bet you a lot of other people do the same regarding cyclists. It's not right, but I think it's realistic.

No, its not right. Its wrong. History has proven to use that prejudices are a precursor for worse judgements enforced on groups of people.

il_principe

DonDaddyD wrote:

OK so what you guys are saying is that prejudice is OK. Forming an opinion on an individual based on an unproven generalistion is alright and acceptable.

Furthermore you can all categorically say that motorists treat you badly on the road or have a bad view of cyclists, not because of their own poor driving skills, lack of knowledge and experience around cycling but because they see cyclists breaking the law and this irritates them.

r.i.g.h.t. :roll:

I'm sorry DDD but where did i say that "prejudice is OK" I didn't and it's not. Neither did I say that motorists treat me badly on the road. I'm simply making the point that cyclists do tend to get tarred with the same brush. Are you seriously telling me that you've never heard any non cyclists express their irritation at RLJ'ers?

Soul Boy

Rarely shout, doesn't do much good. Shake my head a lot.

Nearly rear ended at lights 3 times in past couple of years. Drivers excue? "I thought you were going to go through the lights". RLJers do endanger my life, twunts.

Yesterday, a motorbike followed 2 x cyclists through a red coming into Brixton, I was waiting. I've seen more examples, even one in the City of London on Poultry. This is the trickle down effect. Keep this up you selfish RLJers and none of us will feel safe despite the colour of the lights.

DonDaddyD

_Brun_ wrote:

Yeah but those same people also blather on about the whole 'road tax' thing all the time which isn't even true. Motorists just don't like cyclists, and regardless of our behaviour will carry on pulling reasons for feeling like that out of their arses indefinitely.

I've had more grief from motorists while setting off from lights than I ever have jumping them. How does that in any way suggest that drivers will respect cyclists who obey the law?

+1

Cyclist are often used as an excuse for other deep rooted frustrations.

Person in a rush, accelerates past a cyclist and clips them. Its not because they saw a cyclist RLJ five mins ago and that irritated them. It was because they were in a rush and their judgements were poor.

Kieran_Burns

DonDaddyD wrote:

OK so what you guys are saying is that prejudice is OK. Forming an opinion on an individual based on an unproven generalistion is alright and acceptable.

Furthermore you can all categorically say that motorists treat you badly on the road or have a bad view of cyclists, not because of their own poor driving skills, lack of knowledge and experience around cycling but because they see cyclists breaking the law and this irritates them.

r.i.g.h.t. :roll:

No mate they're not.

It's not okay, but it happens. Fair or not, deserved or not, it's there.

You're working in absolutes though DDD - and this is not fair comparison. What is being said is that people DO make broad generalisations based upon limited evidence. I could start waffling on about perceived risk and real risk based upon what is in the news -

Okay I won't waffle, but here's an example: The Global War on Terror (yeesh) there are HUGE and expensive security measures in place for perceived dangers that actually are extremely UNlikely to happen; but because it is so high profile the PERCEPTION of danger is magnified. Just like people are more scared to fly right after a major air crash - the chances of crashing are the same before and after but people are more frightened right after.

lost_in_thought

DonDaddyD wrote:

<snip.

No, its not right. Its wrong. History has proven to use that prejudices are a precursor for worse judgements enforced on groups of people.

Agreed. However, you can jump up and down and shout it all you like, but it won't remove the fact that prejudice exists.

teagar

Roastie wrote:

Yeah teagar. Much better to just meekly sit by and watch.

As for the rest, Greg has put it far more succinctly than I ever would have.

As for this thread, I regret starting it; despite intentions (whatever they were, I forget) it inevitably descends into the usual pointless argument. I am simply tired of people (and being associated with people) who willfully break the law, and cause an annoyance to a significant section society, just because they can or because they think they know better.

That is all.

Since when was not shouting at someone being meek? If you seem to think shouting at someone is standard practice, and not doing so is "meek", perhaps you should wonder why you actually shout at people. To prove you're not meek? After all, meek means "easily imposed on, submissive". Do you have problems with submissiveness? At best meek means showing patience and humility - something to aim to achieve. With that meaning what is wrong with being "meek"?

The notion that a red light jumper in any way endangers you indirectly simply doesn't stand up. Surely for every red lgiht jumper a driver sees they see another standing at the lights? Then again, when they see that man at the lights shouting at people, perhaps someone in a car will think "see, all cyclists have rage problems" or something along those lines.

Most people understand that not all people on bicycles are the same, despite being too lazy to articulate it properly.

Those who want to abuse people who cycle will do so regardless. For those who get aggrovated by watching cyclists jump lights, surely watching you not jump a red light is probably enough to deter them from abusing you, don't you think?

Then again, maybe they see an man shouting at people and think "what a...."

I know I think that when someone driving shouts at me.

Then again, thoguh you hate people "knowing better", by shouting at them, you're telling them that you think you know better.

:roll:

I really hope you find some other obscure traffic offence and shout at me for it one day. I'd really love that. Really really really.

DVV

We see threads on this every week. Someone posts a web article about cycling, and the comments section gets filled up with pro/anti cycling messages. Most of the anti-cycling messages seem to repeat the anti cycling gospel:

1) 'All' cyclists RLJ
2) 'All' cyclist ride on the pavement
3) Cyclists don't pay 'Road Tax'
4) In light of 1,2 and 3 cyclists should be banned and/or I have the right to treat them like dirt.

Most of the people that write this stuff do not come across as very bright or tolerant, but I don't think anyone can argue against the fact that it happens, and that cycling on the pavement and RLJ make these people think negatively about cyclists as a whole.

It really does happen DDD, i'm not prejudiced because it does, and it's not going to go stop in a hurry either.

DonDaddyD

Il Principe wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

OK so what you guys are saying is that prejudice is OK. Forming an opinion on an individual based on an unproven generalistion is alright and acceptable.

Furthermore you can all categorically say that motorists treat you badly on the road or have a bad view of cyclists, not because of their own poor driving skills, lack of knowledge and experience around cycling but because they see cyclists breaking the law and this irritates them.

r.i.g.h.t. :roll:

I'm sorry DDD but where did i say that "prejudice is OK" I didn't and it's not. Neither did I say that motorists treat me badly on the road. I'm simply making the point that cyclists do tend to get tarred with the same brush. Are you seriously telling me that you've never heard any non cyclists express their irritation at RLJ'ers?

You didn't. I'm just trying to highlight a seperate issue here and deliberately said you guys as to enforce the generalisation point. Think about it. How uncomfortable did you feel to be painted with one negative brush?

In any case.

RLJing is against the law and therefore in this country, wrong.

Thinking that all cyclists RLJ because some do, is equally wrong. I would argue that it is that prejudice (the assumption that all cyclists are bad) that is the greater danger to cyclists than the RLJer themself. History has proven this and society (specifically British society) has well documented its achievements of many forms of prejudice being more dangerous than the supposed root of the cause.

_Brun_

DonDaddyD wrote:

[b]_Brun_[/b] wrote:

I've had more grief from motorists while setting off from lights than I ever have jumping them. How does that in any way suggest that drivers will respect cyclists who obey the law?

+1

WTF, how on earth did this happen? :shock:

In other news, hell reports much cooler weather than is typical at this time of year.

il_principe

DonDaddyD wrote:

Prince wrote:

DDD I take your point, but (anecdotally) I've had a lot of comments from friends, colleagues, strangers etc along the lines of "bloody cyclists, always jumping red lights, blather blather blather" IME the behaviour of some cyclists does tar many of us with the same brush. I bet a lot of posters on here have had similar comments made to them...

In my experience its the opposite, many drivers, friends, family would prefer a cyclist to pass through the lights and get further up the road so its easier for the car to accelerate and go around them. - At a crossing, not a junction.

Prince wrote:

Well for years it pretty much did. In fact my GF who is not from the UK holds the opinion that 90% of UK football fans are violent, drunken thugs. Clearly this isn't the case but that's the opinion she's formed having seen their behaviour in Germnay and Turkey. It is very possible for the few to give the many a bad name, regardless of the truth.

But having that view forming that opinion is not right.

You see a group of kids messing about on the road, they have hoods and baseball caps on. If you walk pass them it doesn't mean that they're automatically going to attack you.

Of course it's not right! but that's almost irrelevant. There are vast swathes of middle class people in this country that are convinced "hoodies" are all thugs. Of course they're not but sadly that doesn't change people's opinion, again the actions of a few knife wielding nutters has been enough to tar the image of a generation of kids, and as ever the media don't help.

DonDaddyD

lost_in_thought wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

<snip.

No, its not right. Its wrong. History has proven to use that prejudices are a precursor for worse judgements enforced on groups of people.

Agreed. However, you can jump up and down and shout it all you like, but it won't remove the fact that prejudice exists.

it does exist. I know it exists. I've experienced first hand on many many many occasions. Just because it exists, doesn't make it right, OK or acceptible. It doesn't mean I have to tollerate it either.

lost_in_thought

DonDaddyD wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

<snip.

No, its not right. Its wrong. History has proven to use that prejudices are a precursor for worse judgements enforced on groups of people.

Agreed. However, you can jump up and down and shout it all you like, but it won't remove the fact that prejudice exists.

it does exist. I know it exists. I've experienced first hand on many many many occasions. Just because it exists, doesn't make it right. OK. It doesn't mean I have to tollerate it either.

Good, you and I agree.

DonDaddyD

Il Principe wrote:

Of course it's not right! but that's almost irrelevant. There are vast swathes of middle class people in this country that are convinced "hoodies" are all thugs. Of course they're not but sadly that doesn't change people's opinion, again the actions of a few knife wielding nutters has been enough to tar the image of a generation of kids, and as ever the media don't help.

I'm glad you bought this up because I can run with it and paint you a picture.

Firstly, the middle class people so quickly to write of a generation as thugs (mostly because they cannot indentify with youth culture) are themselves fools and are not aiding society through their dismissal.

Secondly dismissing all hoodies as thugs, gives them little chance or choice to be anything more than the brush they're painted with. I've experienced this first hand.

So, if a cyclists RLJ's and that means motorist think all cyclists RLJ. If the prejudice applied to me is unjust but you're all saying there is nothing I can do about it. Shouldn't I just RLJ in anycase? I mean if people already think I'm a criminal and won't give me a chance o benefit of the doubt I may as well join'em.

On a sperate note:
Do you know what T.H.U.G L.I.F.E across Tupac's belly means? It's an acronym, beautiful to those who've taken the time to look past the surface.

Dudu

DonDaddyD wrote:

OK so what you guys are saying is that prejudice is OK. Forming an opinion on an individual based on an unproven generalistion is alright and acceptable.:

No, we're not saying it's OK. We're saying it happens and has to be taken into account and opposed by proving the prejudice untrue by our actions.

I used to live in a country where black people were treated as second-class citizens, by law.

My white family disapproved of this and thought it was wrong. So we treated black people like normal human beings, and made sure everyone else knew we thought that was the right thing to do.

This didn't go down too well with our white neighbours or the authorities, but that didn't stop us because we were right and they were wrong.

DonDaddyD

Why oh why, in every discussion I'm in must it come to an example involving race. :roll:

There are many examples of prejudice in my life and in others that far outwiegh any racial abuse I've experienced.

Dudu, your example isn't about prejudice its about racism. I still would argue that the prejudice/racism was in and of itself far worse than the root of said prejudice/racism.

A prejudice attitude towards cyclists is far more dangerous than any RLJers could ever hope to be. An RLJer, doesn't justify and isn't always (or even often) the cause for a guy to pass me an inch from ymy bars going 35mph. The motorist may use it as an excuse but it wasn't the cause it was his prejudice.

DVV

So, if a cyclists RLJ's and that means motorist think all cyclists RLJ. If the prejudice applied to me is unjust but you're all saying there is nothing I can do about it. Shouldn't I just RLJ in anycase? I mean if people already think I'm a criminal and won't give me a chance o benefit of the doubt I may as well join'em.

I think the sentiment is that you can't do anything about human nature, i.e. the fact that many people are easily prejudiced. To say that this means you should then RLJ is a bit defeatist. If enough people DONT RLJ then it means that less motorists will be prejudiced against cyclists. You can't stop people being prejudiced, but you can fight that prejudice.

I have no idea how this thread turned into such a 'healthy debate'.

always_tyred

Oh for God's sake. How on earth did this get political?

Did we ever find out if Biondino was the pinkest person on the forum?

il_principe

DonDaddyD wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

Of course it's not right! but that's almost irrelevant. There are vast swathes of middle class people in this country that are convinced "hoodies" are all thugs. Of course they're not but sadly that doesn't change people's opinion, again the actions of a few knife wielding nutters has been enough to tar the image of a generation of kids, and as ever the media don't help.

I'm glad you bought this up because I can run with it and paint you a picture.

Firstly, the middle class people so quickly to write of a generation as thugs are themselves fools.

Agreed. I never said they weren't, in fact I said that they're wrong in their assumption. Just like motorists that think all cyclists are RLJ'ing twunts are wrong in there's, that's kind of my point...

DonDaddyD wrote:

Secondly dismissing all hoodies as thugs, gives them little chance to be anything more than the brush they're painted with. I've experienced this first hand.

Again, I agree.

DonDaddyD wrote:

So, if a cyclists RLJ's and that means all cyclists RLJ, if the prejudice applied to mean is unjust but you're all saying there is nothing I can do about said prejudice. Shouldn't I just RLJ in anycase? I mean if people already think I'm a criminal and won't give me a chance o benefit of the doubt I may as well join'em.

No, and this is where you are missing my point. All cyclists can help to reduce the "prejudice" against them by following the rules of the road and respecting other road users - although this can be hard sometimes when a mini cab has nearly killed you! Of course there is a massive onus on other motorists to do their part and respect us. I prefer to take the stance of riding within the law and by and large being respectful to other road users - although i freely admit that my temper can get the better of me when someone cuts me up dangerously etc.

As for the comparison with "hoodies" it goes both ways as well. But I hope that the more respect/chances/education etc they are given by society the better things will become. Of course there is an onus in the minority that do carry knives etc to modify their behaviour and they must take some responsibility for that.

Apathy of the "I mean if people already think I'm a criminal and won't give me a chance o benefit of the doubt I may as well join'em" sentiment you expressed is the most dangerous reaction possible.

DonDaddyD wrote:

On a sperate note:
Do you know what T.H.U.G L.I.F.E across Tupac's belly means? It's an acronym, beautiful to those who've taken the time to look past the surface.

I'm not really into religion so I'll leave this point well alone.