Cyclist fined £700 for jumping red light
Comments
-
No - it was sarcasm.W1 wrote: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.
First you accuse me of elitism then seeing things in black and white. I was not being elitist. Not everyone's a cycling enthusiat - i wasn;t for years - but I did try to cooperate with other road users, learn a bit of maintenance and take a training course when i was 11. Not all those would be necessary, just one, or none, but something else.
i see the source of your confusion now though. I was using the OR logic function - read highway code OR use LBS OR learn mechanical skills OR become part of community OR campaign etc. and you thought I meant AND. With OR I don;t think there's a decent cyclist in the land who wouldn't fit in somewhere. But with AND - probably noone would fit.Still, from that lofty height, I'm not surprised we all look the same to you!
i suggest you brush up on your logic before continuing to throw insults my way.0 -
W1 wrote: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.
that's a matter of semantics don't you think?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.
By your definition, as long as he said to the barman that he cycled to the pub (discussed a cycling related issue), then yes. He did even better if he adjusted a brake or realised that by changing gears hills are easier.
So your definition is so broad that you must be immersed fully in the owning/ aspiration to understanding of the mechanics/ want of a mastery of roadcraft to become a cyclist.
twaddle. He rides a bike, he is cycling but what is he?FCN 120 -
neiltb 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.
By your definition, as long as he said to the barman that he cycled to the pub (discussed a cycling related issue), then yes. He did even better if he adjusted a brake or realised that by changing gears hills are easier.
So your definition is so broad that you must be immersed fully in the owning/ aspiration to understanding of the mechanics/ want of a mastery of roadcraft to become a cyclist.
twaddle. He rides a bike, he is cycling but what is he?
it was deliberately broad but...
fu'ck this. I was hoping that we could have a discussion not everyone pick holes in someone who's trying to be constructive.
goodnight pedants.0 -
Porgy wrote:
No - it was sarcasm.W1 wrote: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.
First you accuse me of elitism then seeing things in black and white. I was not being elitist. Not everyone's a cycling enthusiat - i wasn;t for years - but I did try to cooperate with other road users, learn a bit of maintenance and take a training course when i was 11. Not all those would be necessary, just one, or none, but something else.
i see the source of your confusion now though. I was using the OR logic function - read highway code OR use LBS OR learn mechanical skills OR become part of community OR campaign etc. and you thought I meant AND. With OR I don;t think there's a decent cyclist in the land who wouldn't fit in somewhere. But with AND - probably noone would fit.Still, from that lofty height, I'm not surprised we all look the same to you!
i suggest you brush up on your logic before continuing to throw insults my way.
The source of the confusions is your own lack of thought.
There are plenty of cyclists who have done none of those things. They are not nobs (except by your definition). There are plenty of nobs who can adjust a brake lever. They are cyclists (by your definition). How's that for logic?0 -
W1 wrote:Porgy wrote:
No - it was sarcasm.W1 wrote: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.
First you accuse me of elitism then seeing things in black and white. I was not being elitist. Not everyone's a cycling enthusiat - i wasn;t for years - but I did try to cooperate with other road users, learn a bit of maintenance and take a training course when i was 11. Not all those would be necessary, just one, or none, but something else.
i see the source of your confusion now though. I was using the OR logic function - read highway code OR use LBS OR learn mechanical skills OR become part of community OR campaign etc. and you thought I meant AND. With OR I don;t think there's a decent cyclist in the land who wouldn't fit in somewhere. But with AND - probably noone would fit.Still, from that lofty height, I'm not surprised we all look the same to you!
i suggest you brush up on your logic before continuing to throw insults my way.
The source of the confusions is your own lack of thought.
There are plenty of cyclists who have done none of those things. They are not nobs (except by your definition). There are plenty of nobs who can adjust a brake lever. They are cyclists (by your definition). How's that for logic?
no cyclist who's never been to a bike shop or done simple mechanics. Christ - I'd love to see what they ride on.0 -
I'm superior to the lot of you - I'm not a cyclist; I'm a Cycler - I look down on you all. Bit like the bird spotters who think it makes them cool to call themselves birders!Faster than a tent.......0
-
see i've got two people here - one says i'm too broad, the other says i'm eltist.
Maybe you two should carry on arguing and I can go and do something useful instead.0 -
Porgy wrote:neiltb 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.
By your definition, as long as he said to the barman that he cycled to the pub (discussed a cycling related issue), then yes. He did even better if he adjusted a brake or realised that by changing gears hills are easier.
So your definition is so broad that you must be immersed fully in the owning/ aspiration to understanding of the mechanics/ want of a mastery of roadcraft to become a cyclist.
twaddle. He rides a bike, he is cycling but what is he?
it was deliberately broad but...
fu'ck this. I was hoping that we could have a discussion not everyone pick holes in someone who's trying to be constructive.
goodnight pedants.
There's not much to discuss in this case. Everyone has agreed this guy is a nob. But he is also - evidently - a cyclist, much as it pains me to say it. I don't want to be grouped with people like him - but that's tough because we are.
Night.0 -
can i make it clear - i do not look down on anyone. Fu.ck I hate the internet.
End of discussion unless you want to meet me down the pub to continue. Noone who's ever met has accused me of elitism I assure you.
I was only trying to have a discussion, but apparently I fail on that level - I'm not good enough.0 -
W1 wrote:Porgy wrote:neiltb 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.
By your definition, as long as he said to the barman that he cycled to the pub (discussed a cycling related issue), then yes. He did even better if he adjusted a brake or realised that by changing gears hills are easier.
So your definition is so broad that you must be immersed fully in the owning/ aspiration to understanding of the mechanics/ want of a mastery of roadcraft to become a cyclist.
twaddle. He rides a bike, he is cycling but what is he?
it was deliberately broad but...
fu'ck this. I was hoping that we could have a discussion not everyone pick holes in someone who's trying to be constructive.
goodnight pedants.
There's not much to discuss in this case. Everyone has agreed this guy is a nob. But he is also - evidently - a cyclist, much as it pains me to say it. I don't want to be grouped with people like him - but that's tough because we are.
Night.
and that's the problem - becasue I'm not anything to do with him - unless being human makes you the same as Pol Pot.
I'm better than Pol Pot becasue I haven't carried out genocide - oh no elitism!!0 -
Porgy wrote:see i've got two people here - one says i'm too broad, the other says i'm eltist.
Maybe you two should carry on arguing and I can go and do something useful instead.
What's there to argue about - I think we agree there's no logic to your "definition" by what you consider to be a cyclist and what you consider to be a nob.0 -
W1 wrote:Porgy wrote:see i've got two people here - one says i'm too broad, the other says i'm eltist.
Maybe you two should carry on arguing and I can go and do something useful instead.
What's there to argue about - I think we agree there's no logic to your "definition" by what you consider to be a cyclist and what you consider to be a nob.
but if you don't agree why then one of you is wrong, probably both. I say both.
really am going now, got better things to do0 -
Porgy wrote:W1 wrote:Porgy wrote:see i've got two people here - one says i'm too broad, the other says i'm eltist.
Maybe you two should carry on arguing and I can go and do something useful instead.
What's there to argue about - I think we agree there's no logic to your "definition" by what you consider to be a cyclist and what you consider to be a nob.
but if you don't agree why then one of you is wrong, probably both. I say both.
really am going now, got better things to do
Or we've illustrated clearly why your sort of definition is completely flawed?
By trying to distinguish youself as a "proper" cyclist (and excluded those who aren't proper cyclists by your terms) you're coming accross as some sort of cycling snob - which is elitist.
What I think/hope/presume you mean is that you don't want to be associated with people like the idiot under discussion. I agree, neither do I, neither does anyone on this thread. But that's not because you are distinguished from him by the fact that you are a "proper" cyclist (and as is evident it's hard to decide what that means), it's by the fact that you aren't a nob. (And, for the record, I don't think you are).0 -
Chill Porgy, nobody thinks you are elitist - just passionate. Good arguments gents, I really enjoyed that. Remind me never to argue with any of you.
0 -
sorry if I offended, anyway. the OP is a nob period. On a bike, off a bike, in the pub, on the bus.
No one, would ever want to be associated with him (you would hope)FCN 120
