Forum home Commuter cycling forum Commuting chat

A new term in the TImes - Psycolist

davmaggsdavmaggs Posts: 1,008
edited September 2009 in Commuting chat
Which one of you is going around with pockets full of gravel?


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/carol_midgley/article6846227.ece</url>
«1

Posts

  • Article started out as if it was totally anti cyclist, but actually then had many valid points. Quite well thought and does have a fair arguement.
    "Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"
  • i think it's a fairly balanced article. Makes a change! It suckers the cycle-haters in by starting out as if it's a just a story about a lycra lout, then talks a load of sense, ending with an exhortation for more tolerance on the road.

    In fairness, I think a small majority of cyclists [in ipswich, at least] are guilty of RLJ, pavement cycling etc... I think they don't think they're doing anything wrong. And the majority of drivers and pedestrians aren't really all that bothered by it - hence the lack of response by the understaffed police, who are doubtless going to get flak of the "why aren't you chasing _real_ criminals" kind if they do.

    I can well believe the situation is completely different in London, mine is a view-from-the-sticks.

    Jehannum.
    Reduce your carbon footprint - ride a metal bike!
  • secretsamsecretsam Posts: 4,948
    "the type that demands cycle lanes then ignores them and rides in the middle of the road"

    Disagree, the article is bo77ox about nothing in particular...she probably wrote it on the throne

    It's just a hill. Get over it.
  • ...she probably wrote it on the throne

    Ha, ha! It wouldn't surprise me!

    I think she's trying to illustrate [in the limited column space she has] how each side sees the other. To many motorists, that's probably what it looks like, and if the cyclists in question are pootling along slowly and wobbling about, it's entirely understandable. Like all types of road user, cycling has it's numpties. It probably doesn't occur to the average motorist that the cyclists who wanted cycle paths aren't necessarily the same ones who aren't using those cycle paths.

    Jehannum.
    Reduce your carbon footprint - ride a metal bike!
  • Eau RougeEau Rouge Posts: 1,118
    SecretSam wrote:
    "the type that demands cycle lanes then ignores them and rides in the middle of the road"

    Disagree, the article is bo77ox about nothing in particular...she probably wrote it on the throne

    That quote about "cycle paths" is one of the reasons I don't badger my council to provide more, infact I'd rather my council didn't bother with them at all, actually. Almost invariably, they don't build cycle paths (part of the road but seperated from traffic but still allowing me to turn right at any point) and instead build footpaths with a picture of a bike on it, which is unsuitable for cycling on at anything more than walking pace. Not unreasonably, motorists could imagine that a cyclists would be better off on a cycle path and so should be there, and hence not appreciate that they are better off on the road.

    The neighbouring council has spent the last 6 months building a shared use footpath/cyclepath over a railway bridge next to a narrow road bridge. 6 months of 3-way temporary traffic lights. It's the usual "walking pace" layout that makes it next to useless to an actual cyclist, but how do you think the motorists who's spent 6 months queueing at those lights will feel about pausing behind a cyclist staying on the road over the bridge rather than using the very obvious engineering next to it?
  • sarajoysarajoy Posts: 1,675
    It read rather like a more official and confident version of my little article from a few weeks back.

    I agree - the way I see it is that we all seem to end up disliking each other for some reason - but I just hope that eventually we'll get to a state where cyclists aren't in the slightest bit unusual and drivers just pay attention as a matter of course.

    Maybe a pipe dream, but meh. Optimism++
    4537512329_a78cc710e6_o.gif4537512331_ec1ef42fea_o.gif
  • kurakokurako Posts: 1,098
    Seems there is a point here in that we really should be able to sieze the moral high ground but some people are ruining it by behaving like selfish dicks.

    In terms of the odd RLJ I think everyone here has been guilty at some point of thinking 'F it there's no traffic and not a pedestrian for miles so I'll just ignore this one'. However, I'm starting to think there are people who really think it's ok to go flying through red lights without even bothering to slow down and have a look for hazards.

    This is just fuelling the arguments of the Daily Mail brigade when they are so clearly in the wrong. Its all well and good saying the cops should enforce the rules but even though people on this site seem like well behaved law abiding individuals we must know people who could do with a good telling. We need some sort of 'name and shame' scheme!
  • Personally I think she's got it completely wrong.

    Drivers who cycle tend to be a lot more patient with cyclists. They understand why we don't always use cycle lanes and paths, why we sometimes ride in the centre of the road. Basically they understand that we're not doing it to be obnoxious - we just want to be safe.

    The same can be said of cyclists who drive - they also understand that if it safe to let traffic past then we should try to do so and that it annoys other road users when cyclists jump red etc.

    I honestly think that if all drivers were to cycle to work for a week once a year, there would be much more tolerance on the roads as a lot of the ill-feeling is mainly down to ignorance. In the same way, a lot of bad cycling is down to naivity. I shudder when I think of my first few commutes into central London and how many wretched mistakes I made! I'm sure I had more than one driver shake his fist at me in frustration!

    Seems to me that good cyclists make better drivers and good drivers make better cyclists.
  • jedsterjedster Posts: 1,717
    Seems to me that good cyclists make better drivers and good drivers make better cyclists.

    Totally agree. A lot of the problems on the roads are because of a failure of empathy, an inability to put oneself in another's shoes. If you drive, cycle and walk then you have more chance of being able to do this.

    I think some of the most obnoxious driving around cyclists is only done bcause the drivers dont realise how threatening they are being.

    J
  • ketka82 wrote:
    Personally I think she's got it completely wrong.

    Drivers who cycle tend to be a lot more patient with cyclists. They understand why we don't always use cycle lanes and paths, why we sometimes ride in the centre of the road. Basically they understand that we're not doing it to be obnoxious - we just want to be safe.

    The same can be said of cyclists who drive - they also understand that if it safe to let traffic past then we should try to do so and that it annoys other road users when cyclists jump red etc.

    I honestly think that if all drivers were to cycle to work for a week once a year, there would be much more tolerance on the roads as a lot of the ill-feeling is mainly down to ignorance. In the same way, a lot of bad cycling is down to naivity. I shudder when I think of my first few commutes into central London and how many wretched mistakes I made! I'm sure I had more than one driver shake his fist at me in frustration!

    Seems to me that good cyclists make better drivers and good drivers make better cyclists.

    I think she got it perfecty right. When i drive i often see deplorable cycling, and these really pi55 me off. When I am cycling, I don't really notice bad cyclists, as 1. I don't pass that many and 2. I am more bothered about cars.

    Anyway on here you are unlikely to find the real hard core Pavement Pansies, RLJ'rs, cares not a jot cyclists, so most peoples opinions here are coloured by how they behave, and it will be pretty good in the main. So remember, any negative comments are more than likely aimed at people not on here, and who would never look at this. It is all well and good taling the moral high ground, but it is "the others" that let us down.
    "Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"
  • How can I see this article? All I get is "404 Error" when I click that link...
    Do not write below this line. Office use only.
  • In her initial story she seems to think the cyclist banged on the cab and just started an argument with the cabby for the sake of it. I doubt that somehow.
    <a>road</a>
  • How can I see this article? All I get is "404 Error" when I click that link...

    For those that cannot take off the wrong wee end bit:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/carol_midgley/article6846227.ece
    "Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"
  • Today I was a cyclist getting pi55ed off at all (OK, some of) the other cyclists. I left about 15 minutes later than usual, and the number of idiot cyclists I had to avoid was unbeleivable! Dawdling along at 4 miles an hour, weaving all over the place, never looking around them, taking seemingly random paths at junctions, cycling straight through red lights as if they're indestructible, ignoring the pedestrians on zebra and pelican crossings and apparently trusting to fate that they won't hit anyone... etc.

    We've all seen these stupid things, but there were loads this morning, armies of them behaving like brain-dead twunts, and some who really did seem to have a death-wish. I've never felt like this even when driving.

    I'm currently reversing some of my previously held opinions and starting to think maybe there should be some kind of compulsory training. There's just so many people taking up cycling now who don't have the first clue how to cycle safely.
    FCN 6 in the week on the shiny new single speed.

    FCN 3 at the weekend - struggling to do it justice!
  • How can I see this article? All I get is "404 Error" when I click that link...

    For those that cannot take off the wrong wee end bit:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/carol_midgley/article6846227.ece

    Thanks but I wouldn't know a "wrong wee end bit" if it came up and slapped me on the @rse. I'm just not that computer literate...
    Do not write below this line. Office use only.
  • Stuey01Stuey01 Posts: 1,273
    unscarred wrote:
    cycling straight through red lights as if they're indestructible, ignoring the pedestrians on zebra and pelican crossings and apparently trusting to fate that they won't hit anyone.

    This is what annoys me the most. Selfish pricks.
    Not climber, not sprinter, not rouleur

  • Thanks but I wouldn't know a "wrong wee end bit" if it came up and slapped me on the @rse....

    The mind boggles.... Certainly not a quote from Oscar Wilde....
    "Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"
  • kurakokurako Posts: 1,098
    Wallace1492 is developing something of an obsession with Oscar Wilde.

    Is there something you want to get off your chest?
  • maybe there should be some kind of compulsory training. There's just so many people taking up cycling now who don't have the first clue how to cycle safely.

    +1

    When I was a kid we had to do the cycling proficiency test. Has this died out?
    Reduce your carbon footprint - ride a metal bike!
  • Kurako wrote:
    Wallace1492 is developing something of an obsession with Oscar Wilde.

    Is there something you want to get off your chest?

    Not at all sir!! See you in court.
    "Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"
  • kurakokurako Posts: 1,098
    How do you get the quotey thing to work?

    Anyay back to more serious matters. Some cyclists are complete chunts and we're all being tarred with the same brush. Seems like we're all like minded individuals on here so a bit like preaching to the converted.

    What we need is education for the unwashed masses!
  • rich_erich_e Posts: 389
    Stuey01 wrote:
    unscarred wrote:
    cycling straight through red lights as if they're indestructible, ignoring the pedestrians on zebra and pelican crossings and apparently trusting to fate that they won't hit anyone.

    It amazes me sometimes the way that people do RLJ, especially at speed. Sure enough, you are most likely to get away with it fine, or perhaps have a near miss with a car or ped, but eventually you could be the one who jumps a light and has an accident, or hurts somebody else.

    Are you ever in that much of a rush somewhere that it's really worth that risk?
  • snookssnooks Posts: 1,521
    Rich_E wrote:
    Are you ever in that much of a rush somewhere that it's really worth that risk?

    A bit like the biker that passed very close to me yesterday, went speeding towards an amber light, and through it when it was red, turned left over Southwark Bridge.

    I saw him pulled up beside where I work having a censored and a can of red bull! Nicotine and caffeine addiction must be really bad :( I really wanted to say something, but he was too close to my work, and you never know who I might be having a go at! :shock:

    I look on it that I'm in no hurry to get to work, and I'm not going to take risks to get home 1 min earlier.

    Better late than never
    FCN:5, 8 & 9
    If I'm not riding I'm shooting http://grahamsnook.com
    THE Game
    Watch out for HGVs
  • biondinobiondino Posts: 5,990
    I think she got it perfecty right. When i drive i often see deplorable cycling, and these really pi55 me off. When I am cycling, I don't really notice bad cyclists, as 1. I don't pass that many and 2. I am more bothered about cars.


    You think she's right and justify that with a demonstration of how blinkered you are? Dude, that makes you both wrong!

    There are decent points in the article, albeit, for the most part, confusingly worded. Tolerance and empathy are great things, I agree, but making fundamental, misleading errors isn't the way of getting this across (the last thing a lycra cyclist wants more of is cycle paths; and the whole point of the assume-driver's-guilty concept is that if the cyclists ARE guilty that will be provable and punishable, right?).

    She also doesn't mention whether the cyclist was right to be pissed off with the cabbie. And is it just me or is the cabbie wistfully wishing he could murder the cyclist?
  • The other day, I was out in the car, on sprog transport duty, and came up behind a cyclist who seemed to have no idea whether he was a car, a ped, or what. He virtually straightlined a roundabout, then mounted the kerb as he exited and carried on down the pavement. I drove past, shaking my head. Next thing, as I waited at the lights, he came barrelling up the pavement towards the junction, and without looking, launched himself through the narrow gap between the barriers (you know, the gap to allow peds to cross), and headed off down the road at full tilt. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your POV), no one was coming the other way, and he made it through the junction alive.

    Twunts like that give us all a bad rep, and it's fair enough for the article to point out faults on both sides, but the basic errors don't help. Her description of the "presumption of fault" proposal was wide of the mark and sensationalist, and if she thinks the cyclists who take primary are the same as the people who want more crappy, dangerous cycle lanes in the wrong place, she clearly isn't paying attention.

    I can't decide whether to file the article under "well-meant but badly executed" or "dangerous and disingenuous".
    N00b commuter with delusions of competence

    FCN 11 - If you scalp me, do I not bleed?
  • biondino wrote:
    I think she got it perfecty right. When i drive i often see deplorable cycling, and these really pi55 me off. When I am cycling, I don't really notice bad cyclists, as 1. I don't pass that many and 2. I am more bothered about cars.


    You think she's right and justify that with a demonstration of how blinkered you are? Dude, that makes you both wrong!

    There are decent points in the article, albeit, for the most part, confusingly worded. Tolerance and empathy are great things, I agree, but making fundamental, misleading errors isn't the way of getting this across (the last thing a lycra cyclist wants more of is cycle paths; and the whole point of the assume-driver's-guilty concept is that if the cyclists ARE guilty that will be provable and punishable, right?).

    She also doesn't mention whether the cyclist was right to be pissed off with the cabbie. And is it just me or is the cabbie wistfully wishing he could murder the cyclist?

    Bio, perfectly correct. But show me the cyclist without blinkers and I will show you the second coming. It's not an easy balance to get right, between motorised transport and human powered.

    I thought this article was not too blinkered, but it does have some area's that i do have slight issues with. Much better than the usual rants againt cyclists.
    "Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"
  • rhextrhext Posts: 1,639
    The thing I'd like to know is where you need to register yourself as a cyclist to avoid paying tax. It's a common theme in all these articles: cyclists don't pay tax and therefore the poor motorists have to fund not only the roads but also the cycle routes which we may or may not choose to use. Don't know about everyone else, but I pay a loads of tax. The two lots of vehicle excise duty I also pay just pales into insignificance compared with my tax bill.
  • rhext wrote:
    The thing I'd like to know is where you need to register yourself as a cyclist to avoid paying tax. It's a common theme in all these articles: cyclists don't pay tax and therefore the poor motorists have to fund not only the roads but also the cycle routes which we may or may not choose to use. Don't know about everyone else, but I pay a loads of tax. The two lots of vehicle excise duty I also pay just pales into insignificance compared with my tax bill.

    That's something in these ill-informed comments - if I can prove that I pay more tax than the motorist behind me, does that mean I have right of way?
    FCN 6 in the week on the shiny new single speed.

    FCN 3 at the weekend - struggling to do it justice!
  • biondinobiondino Posts: 5,990
    There are probably an equal number of bad drivers and bad cyclists. The difference is, only the psychotic, blind or pathologically stupid drivers do intentionally idiotic things. Cyclists often seem to believe that because they're less dangerous and smaller they can do even more nutso things, hence the lunacy that make the general public - and me - believe that bad cyclists are a real menace.
Sign In or Register to comment.