A new term in the TImes - Psycolist

Porgy

Wallace1492 wrote:

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.

I lost my temper and stopped reading half way through. Stupid bint! :evil:

Porgy

Jehannum wrote:

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?

No - I know several people who's kids have done it recently

Kieran_Burns

Now THIS is an excellent reply:

David Ward wrote:
Carol, your call for more understanding between motorists and cyclists is worthy, but the misinformation in the article doesn't help.

There is no proposal to make motorists legally responsible for all collisions - the proposal is that they should bear the *presumption* of responsibility, owing to the disparity in damage the different parties will suffer, and the impossible struggle cyclists face to get compensation for even the most blatant case of driver error. If they have witnesses to the effect that the cyclist was at fault, there will be no problem. However, I can't see the proposal becoming law anyway, so it seems to have little relevance.

As for demanding cycle lanes then cycling in the middle of the road, I can think of no cyclist who fits this model. Those who cycle in primary position for their own safety are invariably the most dismissive of badly-designed, ill-conceived and unnecessary cycle lanes/paths which put cyclists in more danger. If you want to promote understanding, maybe you could start with an examination of how the country is being filled with cycle lanes which most cyclists don't want, put cyclists at greater risk, and do no more than create the illusion of safety. You could also perform a public service and explain why a bad cycle lane (which is most of them) is worse than no cycle lane, and why a large number of cyclists don't use them. This would be a start in creating better understanding between road users.

As you say, every form of transport has its share of idiots. As a law-abiding and safety-conscious cyclist and motorist, I'd like to see the police taking a greater interest in prosecuting both cyclists and motorists who think the law applies to other people. The difference, though, is that when I'm in my car, a cyclist on the pavement isn't putting my life in danger. When I'm on my bike, a driver trying to pass too fast and too close is doing just that.

fnegroni

I don't really rate the author considering she can't even have a balanced view:

When I’m on a bike I consider motorists to be a pain in the backside and when I am in a car I consider cyclists to be a pain in the backside. When I am a pedestrian I consider everyone to be a pain in the backside (including pavement dawdlers)

The parts of the article that make sense, are just, well, common sense, nothing new.

I see bad and good cyclists, bad and good drivers, bad and good pedestrians, just like anyone.
But our minds are not always open to admit we do.
And that's where the trouble starts.

Wallace1492

fnegroni wrote:

I don't really rate the author considering she can't even have a balanced view:

When I’m on a bike I consider motorists to be a pain in the backside and when I am in a car I consider cyclists to be a pain in the backside. When I am a pedestrian I consider everyone to be a pain in the backside (including pavement dawdlers)

The parts of the article that make sense, are just, well, common sense, nothing new.

I see bad and good cyclists, bad and good drivers, bad and good pedestrians, just like anyone.
But our minds are not always open to admit we do.
And that's where the trouble starts.

I for one, think it is quite a balanced view. Your view will change depending on circumstances, and the view from a cyclist will be different to your view as a motorists. I see things when on my bike that do not bother me, but they do when I am in a car and vice versa.

Completely agree that most stuff is common sense, but here is the issue, a lot of people do not have the same common sense appoach. I think most people on this forum will have coomon sense, but it is the idiots out there that have none that spoil it.

The article starts out with an altercation between a taxi and a cyclist, we do not know the circumstances, so cannot determine blame, but what sticks out is the cyclist has come "tooled up" with stones. that loses me any respect or sympathy immediately.

fnegroni

Wallace1492 wrote:

Your view will change depending on circumstances

Your might.
Mine doesn't.
I commute by bike, car, train and on foot, with child and without, all in the same day.
I keep quite a balanced view on other 'people' at all times.
I certainly don't change my attitude towards others based on where I am or what I do.
But I can see other people do change their attitude, and that, IMHO, is where the problem is.

Wallace1492

fnegroni wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Your view will change depending on circumstances

Your might.
Mine doesn't.
I commute by bike, car, train and on foot, with child and without, all in the same day.
I keep quite a balanced view on other 'people' at all times.
I certainly don't change my attitude towards others based on where I am or what I do.
But I can see other people do change their attitude, and that, IMHO, is where the problem is.

I don't think I am explaining well. I have a balanced view, and am considerate to other road users no matter my mans of transportation. Perhaps what I ought to have said is that the perspective changes rather than your view. For example, the perspective from a saddle is different from a car seat. In a car, it is likely you will be pi55ed off more by bad cyclists. On a bike, vehicle drivers are more a menace.

It is the ones that do not use common sense that ruin it, both the vehicle drivers and the cyclists.

Porgy

Wallace1492 wrote:

fnegroni wrote:

I don't really rate the author considering she can't even have a balanced view:

When I’m on a bike I consider motorists to be a pain in the backside and when I am in a car I consider cyclists to be a pain in the backside. When I am a pedestrian I consider everyone to be a pain in the backside (including pavement dawdlers)

The parts of the article that make sense, are just, well, common sense, nothing new.

I see bad and good cyclists, bad and good drivers, bad and good pedestrians, just like anyone.
But our minds are not always open to admit we do.
And that's where the trouble starts.

I for one, think it is quite a balanced view. Your view will change depending on circumstances, and the view from a cyclist will be different to your view as a motorists. I see things when on my bike that do not bother me, but they do when I am in a car and vice versa.

Completely agree that most stuff is common sense, but here is the issue, a lot of people do not have the same common sense appoach. I think most people on this forum will have coomon sense, but it is the idiots out there that have none that spoil it.

The article starts out with an altercation between a taxi and a cyclist, we do not know the circumstances, so cannot determine blame, but what sticks out is the cyclist has come "tooled up" with stones. that loses me any respect or sympathy immediately.

If it's even a true story :roll:

rhext

Porgy wrote:

If it's even a true story :roll:

Oooooh, you cynic you! Of course it's true, it's in the papers!