Cyclist fined £700 for jumping red light
Comments
-
iainment wrote:Porgy wrote:iainment wrote:Porgy wrote:the difference between a dictionary defined cyclist and what may be termed a "proper" cyclist is one of ethics, morality and culture.
A true cyclist has committed to all or part of a set of rules, ethics, values, etc. A philosophy if you will. Through a process of learning to ride, interacting with other cyclists, getting involved with cycling issues - they acquire a set of values.
Someone just hopping on a bike does not necessarily have this set of values. They may well be opposed to this set of values - eg, a motorist who has lost his license for careless or dangerous driving. The cycling community cannot hope to have any influence on this sort of cyclist as they are not part of the cycling community.
There - that's my attempt at defining a difference.
Blimey.
is that blimey good, or blimey bad?
It's blimey O'Reilly.
Erm maybe a tad majestic in it's description of cyclists, who after all are just people riding a bike.
I don't think so - human beings are constantly tkaing on board information and responding to it...much of it subconcious. All us humans belong to/ respond to/ have relaiton with multiple cutural/social belief systems - I'm just saying, so do cyclists. I'm not saying we're special or anything....all humans are fecking amazing....even the nob heads.0 -
Noel PT wrote:I hate to fuel an already heated argument, but would it be fair to say that not everyone that rides a bike is necessarily a cyclist in our dictionary, but thats only because many of us have such a passion for cycling and we hate to be associated with some muppet on two wheels. Someone that drives a car is motorist whether they are good or bad at it.
I've seen motorists trying to make the same distinction in their world - motorists are proper drivers and drivers, well, they;re just drivers.
0 -
-
Good Lord, what have I started. TBH, there are probably a lot of users in the road and MTB sections that think that commuters aren't 'cyclists' either......Mud - Genesis Vapour CCX
Race - Fuji Norcom Straight
Sun - Cervelo R3
Winter / Commute - Dolan ADX0 -
shouldbeinbed wrote:chill out its sunny and theres nice ridin' to be done.
I do not recognise that person as a 'cyclist' in the same way I don't recognise a 14 year old joyrider hooning their latest stolen car up and down my street as a driver or a £49.99 collection of metal, rubber and cables from Asda (and others) as a bicycle. superficially they may appear the same but realistically there are large differences between these things and the mainstream majority.
I'm thorouhly glad that he got a hefty fine, I'd like to see the baliffs at his door asking for it because sadly it sounds like he's got the same disregard for that as for everything else and I doubt any of the £700+ will get to the court coffers.
Also glad to see the cops taking it seriously and aiming a campaign at all road users. good on em.
I see the distinction between 'proper' cyclists and people who happen to be riding bikes and I do buy into it to a certain extent, but we need to recognise that the vast majority of other people don't recognise any such distinction.0 -
MrChuck wrote:I see the distinction between 'proper' cyclists and people who happen to be riding bikes and I do buy into it to a certain extent, but we need to recognise that the vast majority of other people don't recognise any such distinction.
Which is why stories such as this should be applauded. Hopefully one less "cyclist" contributing to the generally held negative view of cyclists.0 -
W1 wrote:Porgy wrote:the difference between a dictionary defined cyclist and what may be termed a "proper" cyclist is one of ethics, morality and culture.
A true cyclist has committed to all or part of a set of rules, ethics, values, etc. A philosophy if you will. Through a process of learning to ride, interacting with other cyclists, getting involved with cycling issues - they acquire a set of values.
Someone just hopping on a bike does not necessarily have this set of values. They may well be opposed to this set of values - eg, a motorist who has lost his license for careless or dangerous driving. The cycling community cannot hope to have any influence on this sort of cyclist as they are not part of the cycling community.
There - that's my attempt at defining a difference.
Well done for just excluding thousands of cyclists from the "cycling community".
Who have I excluded? :?:0 -
Porgy wrote:W1 wrote:Porgy wrote:the difference between a dictionary defined cyclist and what may be termed a "proper" cyclist is one of ethics, morality and culture.
A true cyclist has committed to all or part of a set of rules, ethics, values, etc. A philosophy if you will. Through a process of learning to ride, interacting with other cyclists, getting involved with cycling issues - they acquire a set of values.
Someone just hopping on a bike does not necessarily have this set of values. They may well be opposed to this set of values - eg, a motorist who has lost his license for careless or dangerous driving. The cycling community cannot hope to have any influence on this sort of cyclist as they are not part of the cycling community.
There - that's my attempt at defining a difference.
Well done for just excluding thousands of cyclists from the "cycling community".
Who have I excluded? :?:
The thousands of people who cycle, yet don't interract with cyclists and don't get involved with cycling issues. Read your own post - anyone who doesn't fit your criteria is excluded.0 -
W1 wrote:Porgy wrote:W1 wrote:Porgy wrote:the difference between a dictionary defined cyclist and what may be termed a "proper" cyclist is one of ethics, morality and culture.
A true cyclist has committed to all or part of a set of rules, ethics, values, etc. A philosophy if you will. Through a process of learning to ride, interacting with other cyclists, getting involved with cycling issues - they acquire a set of values.
Someone just hopping on a bike does not necessarily have this set of values. They may well be opposed to this set of values - eg, a motorist who has lost his license for careless or dangerous driving. The cycling community cannot hope to have any influence on this sort of cyclist as they are not part of the cycling community.
There - that's my attempt at defining a difference.
Well done for just excluding thousands of cyclists from the "cycling community".
Who have I excluded? :?:
The thousands of people who cycle, yet don't interract with cyclists and don't get involved with cycling issues. Read your own post - anyone who doesn't fit your criteria is excluded.
I never excluded anyone - just tried to find definitions of cyclists that most would agree with.
If someone doesn't interact with other cyclsts (not even on the roads?) then they probably have made the effort to learn to ride their bike properly, understand the Highway code, chat to the staff in their LBS.
I don;t really see that there are going to be many who don't fit in to my definition of a "proper" cyclist.
If you wish to try to improve my attempt to define the "proper" cyclist then go ahead.
I'm still puzzled that you think I'm trying to exclude anyone other than the sort of nobs that the OP is about.0 -
Porgy wrote:W1 wrote:Porgy wrote:W1 wrote:Porgy wrote:the difference between a dictionary defined cyclist and what may be termed a "proper" cyclist is one of ethics, morality and culture.
A true cyclist has committed to all or part of a set of rules, ethics, values, etc. A philosophy if you will. Through a process of learning to ride, interacting with other cyclists, getting involved with cycling issues - they acquire a set of values.
Someone just hopping on a bike does not necessarily have this set of values. They may well be opposed to this set of values - eg, a motorist who has lost his license for careless or dangerous driving. The cycling community cannot hope to have any influence on this sort of cyclist as they are not part of the cycling community.
There - that's my attempt at defining a difference.
Well done for just excluding thousands of cyclists from the "cycling community".
Who have I excluded? :?:
The thousands of people who cycle, yet don't interract with cyclists and don't get involved with cycling issues. Read your own post - anyone who doesn't fit your criteria is excluded.
I never excluded anyone - just tried to find definitions of cyclists that most would agree with.
If someone doesn't interact with other cyclsts (not even on the roads?) then they probably have made the effort to learn to ride their bike properly, understand the Highway code, chat to the staff in their LBS.
I don;t really see that there are going to be many who don't fit in to my definition of a "proper" cyclist.
If you wish to try to improve my attempt to define the "proper" cyclist then go ahead.
I'm still puzzled that you think I'm trying to exclude anyone other than the sort of nobs that the OP is about.
Simply by defining it (in your terms) you by definiton exclude all those cyclists who don't fit your criteria. It's so obvious that I can't believe it needs to be said (twice).
I don't know why it needs to be defined - except in some sort of weird elitist/cycling snobbery way. The general public certainly don't differentiate cyclists by their interraction with other cyclists or their work on cycling causes (to paraphrase).
Your definition appears to include an actually small minority of cyclists in my experience.
None of my friends who regularly cycle fit in with your definition. I don't even consider that I do (you lot don't count!) None of them are the sort of nobs that the OP is about and nor am I (though I'm sure you beg to differ). It's also interesting that you appear to dismiss the same distinction amongst motorists as you try to argue exists among cyclists - a hypocritical stance.
Still, if it makes you feel big to try and sneer at other cyclists, that says more about you than them. I am sure there are plenty of other cyclists who might feel that you don't "fit" with their definition of a proper cyclist either and equally sneer at you.0 -
Definition of a cyclist = person who rides a bicycleWant to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_6660 -
Do you say that becasue you can't think of a proper argument?W1 wrote:Simply by defining it (in your terms) you by definiton exclude all those cyclists who don't fit your criteria. It's so obvious that I can't believe it needs to be said (twice).
I wasn't being elitist - I am the opposite of an elitist - there was noted already that many make a clear distinction between the man in the OP and ourselves as cyclists - I tried to put it in words. You disagree but I still don;t understand why?I don't know why it needs to be defined - except in some sort of weird elitist/cycling snobbery way. The general public certainly don't differentiate cyclists by their interraction with other cyclists or their work on cycling causes (to paraphrase).Your definition appears to include an actually small minority of cyclists in my experience.
None of my friends who regularly cycle fit in with your definition. I don't even consider that I do (you lot don't count!) None of them are the sort of nobs that the OP is about and nor am I (though I'm sure you beg to differ). It's also interesting that you appear to dismiss the same distinction amongst motorists as you try to argue exists among cyclists - a hypocritical stance.
they're your friends - so you probably talk to them, and some of the time about cycling? Therefore they fit into my definition. And you do for the very reason that you're on-line positing about cycling. it's about partaking in cycling culture from one end of total immersion to the other where you go into bike shops; say hello to other cyclists; have some commitment to improving your ability, learning roadcraft, learn some mechanics, becoming fitter etc. It's about as wide as you can get it - includes almost every cyclist I've ever met. does not include those idiots you see on ill fitting bikes, riding on the pavements, sometimes with a beer can in hand - the ones that end up making us all look bad. I'm certain that's not you....Still, if it makes you feel big to try and sneer at other cyclists, that says more about you than them. I am sure there are plenty of other cyclists who might feel that you don't "fit" with their definition of a proper cyclist either and equally sneer at you.
I have never sneered at other cyclists - you seme to have a problem understanding what I was saying.0 -
spen666 wrote:Definition of a cyclist = person who rides a bicycle
ok so some tw@t's just been banned from driving and borrows a bike so he can cycle to the pub and get pi55ed up and cycle home on the pavement. The bike's not roadworthy. He's never ridden a bike before. Believes that people who ride for pleasure are losers. He's suddenly a cyclist is he?
On a very simplistic and literal sense, yes. But apply your brain and realise that words have layers of meaning, then no. Although I'm sure that's a level of philosophising that will probably cause your programming to start going haywire.0 -
Porgy wrote:spen666 wrote:Definition of a cyclist = person who rides a bicycle
ok so some tw@t's just been banned from driving and borrows a bike so he can cycle to the pub and get pi55ed up and cycle home on the pavement. The bike's not roadworthy. He's never ridden a bike before. Believes that people who ride for pleasure are losers. He's suddenly a cyclist is he?
On a very simplistic and literal sense, yes. But apply your brain and realise that words have layers of meaning, then no. Although I'm sure that's a level of philosophising that will probably cause your programming to start going haywire.
Like it or not he is a cyclist.
In the same way that a 17 year old chav in a Corsa is as much of a motorist as a member of the IAM or the Queen's ChauffeurWant to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_6660 -
spen666 wrote:Porgy wrote:spen666 wrote:Definition of a cyclist = person who rides a bicycle
ok so some tw@t's just been banned from driving and borrows a bike so he can cycle to the pub and get pi55ed up and cycle home on the pavement. The bike's not roadworthy. He's never ridden a bike before. Believes that people who ride for pleasure are losers. He's suddenly a cyclist is he?
On a very simplistic and literal sense, yes. But apply your brain and realise that words have layers of meaning, then no. Although I'm sure that's a level of philosophising that will probably cause your programming to start going haywire.
Like it or not he is a cyclist.
In the same way that a 17 year old chav in a Corsa is as much of a motorist as a member of the IAM or the Queen's Chauffeur
It's not very useful to call him a cyclist though - as the cycling community we are often called upon to clean our act up - more than likely by cyclists. So if we are to clean our act up - we need to monitor our improvement. If you include any old tw@t on a bike as a cyclist including those we can have no possible influence over then we have absolutely no chance. We're finished before we start.0 -
Rogue cyclist ;-)0
-
supersonic wrote:Rogue cyclist ;-)
But that sounds cool 8)0 -
Porgy wrote:spen666 wrote:Porgy wrote:spen666 wrote:Definition of a cyclist = person who rides a bicycle
ok so some tw@t's just been banned from driving and borrows a bike so he can cycle to the pub and get pi55ed up and cycle home on the pavement. The bike's not roadworthy. He's never ridden a bike before. Believes that people who ride for pleasure are losers. He's suddenly a cyclist is he?
On a very simplistic and literal sense, yes. But apply your brain and realise that words have layers of meaning, then no. Although I'm sure that's a level of philosophising that will probably cause your programming to start going haywire.
Like it or not he is a cyclist.
In the same way that a 17 year old chav in a Corsa is as much of a motorist as a member of the IAM or the Queen's Chauffeur
It's not very useful to call him a cyclist though - as the cycling community we are often called upon to clean our act up - more than likely by cyclists. So if we are to clean our act up - we need to monitor our improvement. If you include any old tw@t on a bike as a cyclist including those we can have no possible influence over then we have absolutely no chance. We're finished before we start.
Anyone "looking in" sees just that a person on a bike = a cyclist. You don't need for what you to consider "proper" cyclists to clean up their act - the people you need to target are exactly those you mention because to Joe Public we are all cyclists. Which we are.0 -
Porgy wrote:W1 wrote:Simply by defining it (in your terms) you by definiton exclude all those cyclists who don't fit your criteria. It's so obvious that I can't believe it needs to be said (twice).
Do you say that becasue you can't think of a proper argument?
I shall try and make this simple just for you. if you can't get it, then so be it - I don't think I can stoop much lower anyway.
By defining "cyclists" that excludes a number of people who ride bicycles. Right? That means you exclude a large number of people who are not nobs as per this idiot who got done. So either you mean that the cycling community is tiny or you don't think that the majority of people that ride bicycles are cyclists. That, on it's own, excludes an awful lot of people who consider themselves to be cyclists, who ride regularly, who benefit from cycling policies. But you think they are outside of the cycling community?
What you have said is that:
Unless you interract with other cyclists
Unless you get involved in "cycling politics"
Unless you take instruction on how to ride a bike
Unless you know the Highway code
Unless you chat to your LBS
you are an inferior cyclist.Porgy wrote:
I wasn't being elitist - I am the opposite of an elitist - there was noted already that many make a clear distinction between the man in the OP and ourselves as cyclists - I tried to put it in words. You disagree but I still don;t understand why?I don't know why it needs to be defined - except in some sort of weird elitist/cycling snobbery way. The general public certainly don't differentiate cyclists by their interraction with other cyclists or their work on cycling causes (to paraphrase).
You want to class youself as a proper cyclist - as better than most cyclists, somehow superior. That's elitist. Many who make that distinction are also perhaps sneeringly elitist too.
Why do you need this definition?Your definition appears to include an actually small minority of cyclists in my experience.
None of my friends who regularly cycle fit in with your definition. I don't even consider that I do (you lot don't count!) None of them are the sort of nobs that the OP is about and nor am I (though I'm sure you beg to differ). It's also interesting that you appear to dismiss the same distinction amongst motorists as you try to argue exists among cyclists - a hypocritical stance.Porgy wrote:they're your friends - so you probably talk to them, and some of the time about cycling? Therefore they fit into my definition. And you do for the very reason that you're on-line positing about cycling. it's about partaking in cycling culture from one end of total immersion to the other where you go into bike shops; say hello to other cyclists; have some commitment to improving your ability, learning roadcraft, learn some mechanics, becoming fitter etc. It's about as wide as you can get it - includes almost every cyclist I've ever met. does not include those idiots you see on ill fitting bikes, riding on the pavements, sometimes with a beer can in hand - the ones that end up making us all look bad. I'm certain that's not you....
.
No, none of my friend do any of those things - they have a bike like some people use the bus or the tube. Doesn't make them inferior to you, doesn't make them nobs.Still, if it makes you feel big to try and sneer at other cyclists, that says more about you than them. I am sure there are plenty of other cyclists who might feel that you don't "fit" with their definition of a proper cyclist either and equally sneer at you.Porgy wrote:I have never sneered at other cyclists - you seme to have a problem understanding what I was saying.
You seem to have a problem explaining yourself clearly. You can't be elitist without being sneering.0 -
Worst. Thread. Ever.0 -
OK - not wanting to be seen as elitist I back down. Yes obviously I have a problem making myself understood.
You win. all cyclists are as good as each other even the one that ran into the back of me when i stopped at a red light, called me a cu.nt and then continued to ride through a busy junction against the lights.
And the one in the OP. He's a fine chap and a good example of a wonderful cyclist. Let's all sing "for he's a jolly good fellow" ...all in the name of not being elitist. 8) 0 -
-
You can't be elitist without being sneering.
As a point of order, I'm not sure that's true.0 -
Porgy wrote:OK - not wanting to be seen as elitist I back down. Yes obviously I have a problem making myself understood.
You win. all cyclists are as good as each other even the one that ran into the back of me when i stopped at a red light, called me a cu.nt and then continued to ride through a busy junction against the lights.
And the one in the OP. He's a fine chap and a good example of a wonderful cyclist. Let's all sing "for he's a jolly good fellow" ...all in the name of not being elitist. 8)
That was a quick addition.
I've never said that all cyclists are all as good as each other. I've simply said that they are all cyclists. That is how they are seen from those who do not cycle.
What you've failed to do is distinguish between cyclists who are nobs (like the guy who hit you and the plank in the OP) and cyclists are are simply indifferent - it's just a form of transport. They don't have to be lycra warriors in the bike shop everyday to avoid being a nob (well, they do under your definition). To you they are either nobs or cycling enthusiasts - with nothing in between.
Still, from that lofty height, I'm not surprised we all look the same to you!0 -
Porgy wrote:You can't be elitist without being sneering.
As a point of order, I'm not sure that's true.
You're quite right - but it's clear what I'm alluding to. if you think you are better than someone, the flipside is that you think they are worse than you. That's as near as damn it "sneering" in my book.0 -
W1 wrote:Porgy wrote:You can't be elitist without being sneering.
As a point of order, I'm not sure that's true.
You're quite right - but it's clear what I'm alluding to. if you think you are better than someone, the flipside is that you think they are worse than you. That's as near as damn it "sneering" in my book.
I don't think I'm better than most people, but I am damn sure I'm a better cyclist than the bloke in the OP. And if that's elitism then I'm guilty.0 -
Porgy wrote:OK - not wanting to be seen as elitist I back down. Yes obviously I have a problem making myself understood.
You win. all cyclists are as good as each other even the one that ran into the back of me when i stopped at a red light, called me a cu.nt and then continued to ride through a busy junction against the lights.
And the one in the OP. He's a fine chap and a good example of a wonderful cyclist. Let's all sing "for he's a jolly good fellow" ...all in the name of not being elitist. 8)
Porgy, no one is saying every cyclists skills are equal to everyone elses.
No matter how skilled they are, if they are riding bikes they are cyclistsWant to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_6660 -
Porgy wrote:W1 wrote:Porgy wrote:You can't be elitist without being sneering.
As a point of order, I'm not sure that's true.
You're quite right - but it's clear what I'm alluding to. if you think you are better than someone, the flipside is that you think they are worse than you. That's as near as damn it "sneering" in my book.
I don't think I'm better than most people, but I am damn sure I'm a better cyclist than the bloke in the OP. And if that's elitism then I'm guilty.
But if you think you're a cyclist and he isn't, then you're wrong.0
