If you want to RLJ then move to Paris

2»

Comments

  • dhope
    dhope Posts: 6,699
    ddraver wrote:
    Nice one, Belgium rocks! Beautiful country, great beer, safe cycling . . . a tad boring though, no hills

    Never heard of the Ardennes then Paté?
    ftfy
    Rose Xeon CW Disc
    CAAD12 Disc
    Condor Tempo
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    notsoblue wrote:
    My point is that this is an acknowledgement of the fact that cyclists are more like pedestrians than cars when it comes to road use.
    And my point is that car drivers would like that to be the case. Then they can say we shouldn't be on the roads at all - like pedestrians.
    I want the rights of traffic, you want the freedom of pedestrians but we probably both want much the same thing. :wink:
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • notsoblue
    notsoblue Posts: 5,756
    daviesee wrote:
    notsoblue wrote:
    My point is that this is an acknowledgement of the fact that cyclists are more like pedestrians than cars when it comes to road use.
    And my point is that car drivers would like that to be the case. Then they can say we shouldn't be on the roads at all - like pedestrians.
    I want the rights of traffic, you want the freedom of pedestrians but we probably both want much the same thing. :wink:
    :) Yeah, I think that ultimately we all just want to be able to ride our bikes safely and unharassed. Good point about car drivers wanting us to be seen as more like pedestrians... I suppose I'd respond to that by saying that I'd just like to see less domination of roads by motor vehicles. At least in urban areas anyway. It seems silly for Central London to place so much importance on maintaining traffic flow (=motor vehicles) at the expense of bikes given that during rush hour its quicker for me to get to work by bike than if I were in a car. I'd rather that motorists gave up some of their privileged position to cyclists rather than cyclists being treated more like cars. Would be a bit more inclusive for those who don't wear bibshorts or mysteriously have a pot of udder cream in their possession.

    Besides, if you think about it, cars have only really been dominating roads for the last 70 odd years of human history. Before that they were made for everyone...
    FCN 4 PX SL Pro SRAM Red
    FCN 8 Scott Sportster '05
  • sfichele
    sfichele Posts: 605
    notsoblue wrote:
    daviesee wrote:
    notsoblue wrote:
    My point is that this is an acknowledgement of the fact that cyclists are more like pedestrians than cars when it comes to road use.
    And my point is that car drivers would like that to be the case. Then they can say we shouldn't be on the roads at all - like pedestrians.
    I want the rights of traffic, you want the freedom of pedestrians but we probably both want much the same thing. :wink:
    :)Yeah, I think that ultimately we all just want to be able to ride our bikes safely and unharassed. Good point about car drivers wanting us to be seen as more like pedestrians... I suppose I'd respond to that by saying that I'd just like to see less domination of roads by motor vehicles. At least in urban areas anyway. It seems silly for Central London to place so much importance on maintaining traffic flow (=motor vehicles) at the expense of bikes given that during rush hour its quicker for me to get to work by bike than if I were in a car. I'd rather that motorists gave up some of their privileged position to cyclists rather than cyclists being treated more like cars. Would be a bit more inclusive for those who don't wear bibshorts or mysteriously have a pot of udder cream in their possession.

    Besides, if you think about it, cars have only really been dominating roads for the last 70 odd years of human history. Before that they were made for everyone...

    +1 Good post, and before the rise of the car a lot of people rode bikes. Every seems to have forgotten that their granddad most likely rode to work. And then cars became more affordable, and they forgot that driving was a privilege not a right.
    BMC: http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12749451
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    sfichele wrote:
    +1 Good post, and before the rise of the car a lot of people rode bikes. Every seems to have forgotten that their granddad most likely rode to work. And then cars became more affordable, and they forgot that driving was a privilege not a right.
    +1
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • pete54
    pete54 Posts: 488
    sfichele wrote:
    +1 Good post, and before the rise of the car a lot of people rode bikes. Every seems to have forgotten that their granddad most likely rode to work. And then cars became more affordable, and they forgot that driving was a privilege not a right.

    There is gross over-use of private cars in this country, especially in cities. I often wonder as I cycle by why people are prepared to sit in a traffic jam for large portions of their lives? I guess it's the mentality that I've paid vast sums of money to buy / insure this car so I'm damned well going to use it. Seems completely crazy.
  • notsoblue
    notsoblue Posts: 5,756
    pete54 wrote:
    There is gross over-use of private cars in this country, especially in cities. I often wonder as I cycle by why people are prepared to sit in a traffic jam for large portions of their lives? I guess it's the mentality that I've paid vast sums of money to buy / insure this car so I'm damned well going to use it. Seems completely crazy.
    I think some of it is down to aspirational consumerism. People are sold a lifestyle when they buy a car, they're told it gives them freedom and status. That and they're really fun to drive when you're not in a jam, and they're more comfortable than waiting at a bus stop in the cold and rain, you get a bubble of privacy which you have complete control over. Beats squashing into a tube with your face pressed up against an armpit... ;)

    Oh, and people generally travel further distances to go to work than they did years ago. Would be impractical to use a bike, and if you can afford the luxury of your own transport rather than public then why not? Goes back to the status and convenience thing.
    FCN 4 PX SL Pro SRAM Red
    FCN 8 Scott Sportster '05
  • jonny_trousers
    jonny_trousers Posts: 3,588
    Makes perfect sense to me. I guess there will always be the odd idiot who goes sailing on through the junction without paying attention to what might be about to cut across them, but they probably won't be around for too long.

    I've always understood the, the-law-is-the-law, argument for us all stopping at red lights, and sure, that is reason enough alone, but I really don't think it is always the safest option for cyclists and motorists to bunch up at junctions together and to all set off again at the same time. It'll be very interesting to see how the Paris experiment goes.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    notsoblue wrote:
    pete54 wrote:
    There is gross over-use of private cars in this country, especially in cities. I often wonder as I cycle by why people are prepared to sit in a traffic jam for large portions of their lives? I guess it's the mentality that I've paid vast sums of money to buy / insure this car so I'm damned well going to use it. Seems completely crazy.
    I think some of it is down to aspirational consumerism. People are sold a lifestyle when they buy a car, they're told it gives them freedom and status. That and they're really fun to drive when you're not in a jam, and they're more comfortable than waiting at a bus stop in the cold and rain, you get a bubble of privacy which you have complete control over. Beats squashing into a tube with your face pressed up against an armpit... ;)

    Oh, and people generally travel further distances to go to work than they did years ago. Would be impractical to use a bike, and if you can afford the luxury of your own transport rather than public then why not? Goes back to the status and convenience thing.

    For many people (still) cycling is associated with poverty.
    _
  • notsoblue
    notsoblue Posts: 5,756
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    For many people (still) cycling is associated with poverty.
    Glorious, SRAM Red equipped, poverty!
    FCN 4 PX SL Pro SRAM Red
    FCN 8 Scott Sportster '05
  • pete54
    pete54 Posts: 488
    notsblue wrote:
    I think some of it is down to aspirational consumerism. People are sold a lifestyle when they buy a car, they're told it gives them freedom and status.

    We all know that true freedom is riding a bike! If ever there was an aspirational lifestyle that is a million miles from the reality it's modern motoring.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    notsoblue wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    For many people (still) cycling is associated with poverty.
    Glorious, SRAM Red equipped, poverty!

    Still cheaper than car gears...:P
    _
  • notsoblue
    notsoblue Posts: 5,756
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    notsoblue wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    For many people (still) cycling is associated with poverty.
    Glorious, SRAM Red equipped, poverty!

    Still cheaper than car gears...:P

    True true. Funny how its not really reflected in reality. I mean if you look at most of the posts in this forum they're all pretty ABC1.
    FCN 4 PX SL Pro SRAM Red
    FCN 8 Scott Sportster '05
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    notsoblue wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    For many people (still) cycling is associated with poverty.
    Glorious, SRAM Red equipped, poverty!

    Still cheaper than car gears...:P
    I'd argue that it's not. A financially struggling person is likely to purchase an entire car that costs the same as SRAM Red (makes you think that doesn't it).

    Where as if they were to buy a bike it'd cost probably a 10% of what SRAM costs. It all relative "what a person would resonably spend on an item".
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    notsoblue wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    For many people (still) cycling is associated with poverty.
    Glorious, SRAM Red equipped, poverty!

    Still cheaper than car gears...:P
    I'd argue that it's not. A financially struggling person is likely to purchase an entire car that costs the same as SRAM Red (makes you think that doesn't it).

    Where as if they were to buy a bike it'd cost probably a 10% of what SRAM costs. It all relative "what a person would resonably spend on an item".

    Eh?

    Think about it again.
    _
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    Rick Chasey wrote:

    Eh?

    Think about it again.
    I can see where he is coming from. Most people think they are splashing out if they spend £250 on a bike.
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • Initialised
    Initialised Posts: 3,047
    It's got to be a better way of avoiding conflict with the motorist than those stupid ASLs they all ignore.
    I used to just ride my bike to work but now I find myself going out looking for bigger and bigger hills.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    daviesee wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:

    Eh?

    Think about it again.
    I can see where he is coming from. Most people think they are splashing out if they spend £250 on a bike.


    Well yeah, since bikes are a cheap uncomfortable form of transport - i.e. for poor people.

    (by their logic).
    _
  • Initialised
    Initialised Posts: 3,047
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    daviesee wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:

    Eh?

    Think about it again.
    I can see where he is coming from. Most people think they are splashing out if they spend £250 on a bike.


    Well yeah, since bikes are a cheap uncomfortable form of transport - i.e. for poor people.

    (by their logic).
    Yes, but how many of them smoke a grand or two a year...
    I used to just ride my bike to work but now I find myself going out looking for bigger and bigger hills.
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Well yeah, since bikes are a cheap uncomfortable form of transport - i.e. for poor people.

    (by their logic).
    I think clarification of your point is required. (For me at least but I have had a few beers).
    Well off people think cycling is for poor people perhaps?
    In which case you are probably right. And they are wrong. Isn't cycling the new golf?
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.

Categories