Borisbikers - are they 'cyclists'?

BigLights

As I sat at a red light last night and watched 3 borisbikers wobble straight through a light and a junction, and surprisingly not 1 'cyclist' (it wasn't a wise move), it got me wondering. We all like to lambast the RLJ hooligans on this forum - giving cyclists a bad name etc. But do Borisbikers count as 'cyclists' in your eyes? I know they're on bikes, but clearly they're inexperienced at this game and so won't necessarily know the etiquette and safety norms that regular longer distance riders will have.

So do we count them as 'cyclists' and get upset when they do naughty things?

pangolin

When you think about it, like, really think about it, we're all just like people man.

[/hippy]

rubertoe

If their on the road in whatever transport they should obey the laws of the road.

If they are on a bike at the time then they are cyclists

EKE_38BPM

If the operator of a car jumps a red light, are they a driver?

The OP has posted a stupid question. A question so stupid that I think they may be a closet American.

DonDaddyD

A tree fell in the middle of the forest. I wasnt anywhere near it, but it made a sound - it did.

Does that answer the question?

BigLights

ahha - sorry yes in hindsight it wasn't the most incisive question. I suppose what I was getting at is, should one be as wound up by Borisbike RLJs as normal bike RLJs. I'll climb back in my box now.

pangolin

DonDaddyD wrote:

A tree fell in the middle of the forest. I wasnt anywhere near it, but it made a sound - it did.

The real question is, had it fallen on a bike, would that tree be a cyclist?

bigmat

BigLights wrote:

ahha - sorry yes in hindsight it wasn't the most incisive question. I suppose what I was getting at is, should one be as wound up by Borisbike RLJs as normal bike RLJs. I'll climb back in my box now.

Another stupid question!

inkz

snobbery

notsoblue

If you ride a bike, you're cycling, you're a cyclist.

If you run a red light on a bike, that doesn't mean other people who ride bikes should share the responsibility for your behaviour.

Ben6899

Okay so a fella is using a Boris Bike to get to work. In that instance he's a cyclist - by the very definition.

What about the youth on the BSO, riding to his mate's house - headphones on, one handed and beer in the other hand? He's a cyclist too, but I bet plenty on here can't wait to say he's not a cyclist. He's not one of us, right?

We can't have it both ways. So for me:

1. I am a cyclist - I know my bike is the best way to get around London and I'll spend 3 or 4 hours every Saturday and Sunday cycling to nowhere in particular simply for the love of it.

2. A bloke riding a Boris Bike to work might be a cyclist (i.e. he shares the same values as me), but otherwise he's just a bloke on a bike. Like the youth going to his mates.

I'm sticking with 1 and 2, even if it does sound snobbish. But at least I don't need to obscure that paradigm to suit the scenario.

notsoblue

So a cyclist is someone who shares a set of values with others who identify as the same??

bigmat

Ben6899 wrote:

Okay so a fella is using a Boris Bike to get to work. In that instance he's a cyclist - by the very definition.

What about the youth on the BSO, riding to his mate's house - headphones on, one handed and beer in the other hand? He's a cyclist too, but I bet plenty on here can't wait to say he's not a cyclist. He's not one of us, right?

We can't have it both ways. So for me:

1. I am a cyclist - I know my bike is the best way to get around London and I'll spend 3 or 4 hours every Saturday and Sunday cycling to nowhere in particular simply for the love of it.

2. A bloke riding a Boris Bike to work might be a cyclist (i.e. he shares the same values as me), but otherwise he's just a bloke on a bike. Like the youth going to his mates.

I'm sticking with 1 and 2, even if it does sound snobbish. But at least I don't need to obscure that paradigm to suit the scenario.

I guess some people need to see the "us" and "them" in any given situation. Whereas for others, its just a question of fact. Somebody cycling is a cyclist.

meanredspider

Is someone taking a photo on a phone a photographer?
Playing football in the park a footballer?

I kinda understand the question (I think)

Ben6899

Okay.

1. Plenty of times on these forums, 'we' have been 'collectively' angry that a newspaper article tries to paint 'cyclists' in a bad light by citing a biased cross section of anecdotes and occurences. Am I right?

2. In those instances, there is inevitably a general concensus that those anecdotes and occurences probably refer to "some chav on a BSO" or similar. So us lot on here (and folk like us who might not bother with cycling forums) - not chavs on BSOs - cannot be painted with whichever brush the newspaper happens to be brandishing.

We can't have it both ways. We can't distance ourselves from chavs on BSOs and wobbly nodders on BBs in one breath - to say rubbish a newspaper's article about a 'cyclist' doing something stupid - and embrace anyone on a bike as a 'cyclist' in the next breath.

Ben6899

BigMat wrote:

I guess some people need to see the "us" and "them" in any given situation. Whereas for others, its just a question of fact. Somebody cycling is a cyclist.

Yes, plenty of folk on here in fact. However, some recognise they have that need and stick by it.

Headhuunter

I understand what the OP means though... When someone says "cyclist" to me, I think of someone more or less in my image - keen on bikes, wouldn't ride anything cr@p/none road bike, dress in lycra, wear a helmet, ride on club rides or at the very least commute daily etc, however in reality, the word cyclist includes anyone on a bike including Boris bikers and, as someone mentioned above, some youth on a BSO talking on the phone zig zagging up the pavement...

This is why I find it ridiculous that journalists and some pedestrians, motorists and other road users try to categorise us all as "cyclists" who "all" RLJ and "all" ride dangerously when in fact the "cyclist" encompasses anyone on a bike and most of those people have nothing in common in the way they behave than any other. It's like trying to say "all" pedestrians cross the road without looking and "all" motorists speed and talk on the phone whilst driving...

So in answer, yes, Boris bikers are cyclists but I don't necessarily feel any affinity with them simply because of what they have between their legs...

Ben6899

Headhuunter wrote:

I understand what the OP means though... When someone says "cyclist" to me, I think of someone more or less in my image - keen on bikes, wouldn't ride anything cr@p/none road bike, dress in lycra, wear a helmet, ride on club rides or at the very least commute daily etc, however in reality, the word cyclist includes anyone on a bike including Boris bikers and, as someone mentioned above, some youth on a BSO talking on the phone zig zagging up the pavement...

This is why I find it ridiculous that journalists and some pedestrians, motorists and other road users try to categorise us all as "cyclists" who "all" RLJ and "all" ride dangerously when in fact the "cyclist" encompasses anyone on a bike and most of those people have nothing in common in the way they behave than any other. It's like trying to say "all" pedestrians cross the road without looking and "all" motorists speed and talk on the phone whilst driving...

So in answer, yes, Boris bikers are cyclists but I don't necessarily feel any affinity with them simply because of what they have between their legs...

I think we're on the same wavelength, but maybe a different phase.

roger_merriman

Ben6899 wrote:

Okay.

1. Plenty of times on these forums, 'we' have been 'collectively' angry that a newspaper article tries to paint 'cyclists' in a bad light by citing a biased cross section of anecdotes and occurences. Am I right?

2. In those instances, there is inevitably a general concensus that those anecdotes and occurences probably refer to "some chav on a BSO" or similar. So us lot on here (and folk like us who might not bother with cycling forums) - not chavs on BSOs - cannot be painted with whichever brush the newspaper happens to be brandishing.

We can't have it both ways. We can't distance ourselves from chavs on BSOs and wobbly nodders on BBs in one breath - to say rubbish a newspaper's article about a 'cyclist' doing something stupid - and embrace anyone on a bike as a 'cyclist' in the next breath.

Indeed the idea that "proper" cyclists unlike bloke on bike don't RLJ or what ever is weak, for starters Cycling is the new Golf/Black etc.

But to be honest all forms of transport does seem to pull dumb moves, people are not always so smart...

JamesB5446

Headhuunter wrote:

I understand what the OP means though... When someone says "cyclist" to me, I think of someone more or less in my image - keen on bikes, wouldn't ride anything cr@p/none road bike, dress in lycra, wear a helmet, ride on club rides or at the very least commute daily etc

I ride a few none road bikes and very rarely wear a helmet. In your mind does this make me not a cyclist?

Ben6899

JamesB5446 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

I understand what the OP means though... When someone says "cyclist" to me, I think of someone more or less in my image - keen on bikes, wouldn't ride anything cr@p/none road bike, dress in lycra, wear a helmet, ride on club rides or at the very least commute daily etc

I ride a few none road bikes and very rarely wear a helmet. In your mind does this make me not a cyclist?

I think if it does, but HH sticks with that opinion then there's no problem.

It's when we're all too quick to move people from one pool to the next - dependent on what we're discussing - that irks me.

notsoblue

Ben6899 wrote:

We can't have it both ways. We can't distance ourselves from chavs on BSOs and wobbly nodders on BBs in one breath - to say rubbish a newspaper's article about a 'cyclist' doing something stupid - and embrace anyone on a bike as a 'cyclist' in the next breath.

Its not having it both ways. Both "distancing ourselves from chavs on BSOs and wobbly nodders" and snarky newspaper articles about "cyclists" are wrong and unhelpful. I think the only way people will be treated fairly and respectfully no matter what form of transport they use is if others don't bring negative prejudice to every encounter we have with them.

We can play along with the prejudice and 'Uncle Tom' in a futile attempt to make a distinction between "Real Cyclists" and cyclists that inconvenience drivers, but it won't help anyone. I think the only way we can justify asking for better cycling infrastructure is if cycling is seen as something anybody does rather than just Cyclists.

EKE_38BPM

Headhuunter wrote:

...simply because of what they have between their legs...

Its all about the genitalia with you.

Headhuunter

JamesB5446 wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

I understand what the OP means though... When someone says "cyclist" to me, I think of someone more or less in my image - keen on bikes, wouldn't ride anything cr@p/none road bike, dress in lycra, wear a helmet, ride on club rides or at the very least commute daily etc

I ride a few none road bikes and very rarely wear a helmet. In your mind does this make me not a cyclist?

If you're going to quote me, quote my whole opinion!

".....however in reality, the word cyclist includes anyone on a bike including Boris bikers and, as someone mentioned above, some youth on a BSO talking on the phone zig zagging up the pavement... "

Headhuunter

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

...simply because of what they have between their legs...

Its all about the genitalia with you.

So when you snogging RC?

JamesB5446

Indeed. But that's not the bit I was questioning so I didn't quote it.

Headhuunter

JamesB5446 wrote:

Indeed. But that's not the bit I was questioning so I didn't quote it.

Yes but it's all part of the same point! It's selective quoting and doesn't represent what I said or believe!

jamesco

JamesB5446 wrote:

I ride a few none road bikes and very rarely wear a helmet. In your mind does this make me not a cyclist?

It does come across like you're itching for a helmet argument :?

JamesB5446

Ok. It just seemed to me that you were saying "I believe A but in reality B is true too". I was just looking for clarification.

EKE_38BPM

Headhuunter wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

...simply because of what they have between their legs...

Its all about the genitalia with you.

So when you snogging RC?

The day after the video of your threesome with Anne Widdicombe and Harriet Harman is released on youtube when you announce your candidacy for the BNP with Nick Griffin doing the filming.

Anonymous

I suppose its like motorist/driver/road user/boy racer.

Just because someone is behind the wheel of a car you cant expect anything of them!