Dispicable cyclist

Druidor

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -home.html

These are some of the A##H@#es that give cyclists a bad rep I hope they catch him :evil:

Anonymous

If he had been running along the pavement and knocked her over, would he have given pedestrians a bad name?

tangled_metal

Carbonator wrote:

If he had been running along the pavement and knocked her over, would he have given pedestrians a bad name?

I always thought adults cycling on the pavements was not allowed or illegal and could result in a fine. That is one way runners and cyclists on the pavement are different levels. Also there was a small drag along the ground when the girl got caught up. That is less likely with a runner.

I will defend cyclists since there are enough out there denigrating them but there are few things I do not believe is acceptable. First off anyone 11 years old cycling on the pavement is wrong unless it is a mixed use path and signed accordingly. This is a residential street from the look of it and unlikely to have mixed use paths. The second is not stopping when you have caused harm through an accident. I am assuming this was an accident in which case there is an obligation to stop and help if you can. The only exception if that would result in harm to yourself in which case you should remove yourself from danger. In this case the man was only bothered about getting to the girl (his daughter I assume) and the mother too (although she did appear to go a bit further out of camera than where the man picked the girl up so perhaps chasing the cyclist??).

No matter what you say about comparing it to a runner the most important thing here that IMHO makes the cyclist out to be scum and that is not stopping. I personally feel the cycling on the pavement thing is wrong but it happens just like accidents. Stopping when you have caused an accident is simply the right thing to do.

zanelad

Carbonator wrote:

If he had been running along the pavement and knocked her over, would he have given pedestrians a bad name?

Yes, if he didn't stop. Shit happens, it's how you deal with it that matters.

lakesluddite

Tangled Metal wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

If he had been running along the pavement and knocked her over, would he have given pedestrians a bad name?

I always thought adults cycling on the pavements was not allowed or illegal and could result in a fine. That is one way runners and cyclists on the pavement are different levels. Also there was a small drag along the ground when the girl got caught up. That is less likely with a runner.

I will defend cyclists since there are enough out there denigrating them but there are few things I do not believe is acceptable. First off anyone 11 years old cycling on the pavement is wrong unless it is a mixed use path and signed accordingly. This is a residential street from the look of it and unlikely to have mixed use paths. The second is not stopping when you have caused harm through an accident. I am assuming this was an accident in which case there is an obligation to stop and help if you can. The only exception if that would result in harm to yourself in which case you should remove yourself from danger. In this case the man was only bothered about getting to the girl (his daughter I assume) and the mother too (although she did appear to go a bit further out of camera than where the man picked the girl up so perhaps chasing the cyclist??).

No matter what you say about comparing it to a runner the most important thing here that IMHO makes the cyclist out to be scum and that is not stopping. I personally feel the cycling on the pavement thing is wrong but it happens just like accidents. Stopping when you have caused an accident is simply the right thing to do.

Cycling on the pavement is just as ilegal now as it's ever been - from the Highway Code:

You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129

Pretty unequivocal I think. Not that I have EVER heard of it being enforced (unless perhaps in one of those crackdowns they have in The Smoke now and again), which is precisely why a lot of people still do it. Of course 'proper cyclists' like us would not be seen dead riding on the pavement. Discuss.

keef66

You'd think with a mugshot like that the old bill should be able to locate the tosser and point out that his behaviour was unacceptable on several counts...

iPete

Did he get the KOM?

cookeeemonster

LakesLuddite wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

If he had been running along the pavement and knocked her over, would he have given pedestrians a bad name?

I always thought adults cycling on the pavements was not allowed or illegal and could result in a fine. That is one way runners and cyclists on the pavement are different levels. Also there was a small drag along the ground when the girl got caught up. That is less likely with a runner.

I will defend cyclists since there are enough out there denigrating them but there are few things I do not believe is acceptable. First off anyone 11 years old cycling on the pavement is wrong unless it is a mixed use path and signed accordingly. This is a residential street from the look of it and unlikely to have mixed use paths. The second is not stopping when you have caused harm through an accident. I am assuming this was an accident in which case there is an obligation to stop and help if you can. The only exception if that would result in harm to yourself in which case you should remove yourself from danger. In this case the man was only bothered about getting to the girl (his daughter I assume) and the mother too (although she did appear to go a bit further out of camera than where the man picked the girl up so perhaps chasing the cyclist??).

No matter what you say about comparing it to a runner the most important thing here that IMHO makes the cyclist out to be scum and that is not stopping. I personally feel the cycling on the pavement thing is wrong but it happens just like accidents. Stopping when you have caused an accident is simply the right thing to do.

Cycling on the pavement is just as ilegal now as it's ever been - from the Highway Code:

You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129

Pretty unequivocal I think. Not that I have EVER heard of it being enforced (unless perhaps in one of those crackdowns they have in The Smoke now and again), which is precisely why a lot of people still do it. Of course 'proper cyclists' like us would not be seen dead riding on the pavement. Discuss.

WRONG!

Some laws were brought in in 1999 to allow cyclists to be fined for riding on the pavement (or prosecuted, or both) but they specifically added guidance THAT HAS NEVER BEEN RESCINDED that said considerate cycling should be allowed - aimed at non dangerous cyclists obviously - as they as they are not putting anyone in danger, then they are fine.

Not many people know this (including the police) which led to a large number of fines being incorrectly given to cyclists in the the recent (year or so) operation safeway cyclist blaming bs in london. After this home office guideance was pointed out to the police, they informed their officers...some of which have taken note.

By the way, there must be 3/4 millions cars parked on the pavement in this country - is driving on the pavement legal but cycling on the pavement illegial then? 30 people a year are killed by cars on the pavement btw.

Not having a go by the way, and I certainly haven't even clicked on to the daily scum to read what the fuss is about, but thought I'd point this out.

Also, there are a lot of shared use pavements about that people dont know about - it's a mega cheap bodge to allow councils to tick their 'green transport' box without actually doing anything. Literally no pedestrian on earth has ever noticed the signs that signal this.

markhewitt1978

CookeeeMonster wrote:

Also, there are a lot of shared use pavements about that people dont know about - it's a mega cheap bodge to allow councils to tick their 'green transport' box without actually doing anything. Literally no pedestrian on earth has ever noticed the signs that signal this.

Indeed, I've been shouted at before to get off the pavement, when it was a shared use path alongside a dual carriageway.

dee4life2005

I never cycle on the pavement, but I can understand some folk wouldn't have the confidence to ride on the road. Riding on the pavement should be allowed, provided you keep your speed down to around walking pace - certainly no faster than jogging pace.

This guy was going waaaay too fast. If you look closely at the video you can see that he's travelling just as fast as the cars on the road. To cause the collision as bad as this is bad enough, but to then hurl abuse and then cycle off ... that's horrendous. I'm not sure I agree with the Daily Mail stance of posting a close up of the riders face though. That doesn't add anything to the story, and may even incite vigilante justice ... that should have been kept between whomever took the photo and the police.

Even if this was one of those "shared use" pavements ... with gates (and presumably driveways as well), that speed is just not appropriate as this incident quite clearly proves.

I'm glad the little girl appears to be okay, bar the cuts/grazes ... it could easily have been much much worse.

ai_1

Carbonator wrote:

If he had been running along the pavement and knocked her over, would he have given pedestrians a bad name?

If you mean what I think you mean then I agree completely.
This is not a "dispicable cyclist", it's a despicable person or at least a person who acted despicably on this occasion. There is a danger of linking the behaviour with the activity rather than the person. The fact that this is normal practice creates two obvious societal problems. We associate activities with behaviours and we discriminate continuously and inaccurately. So cyclists become known for being discourteous or inclined to break rules and two things happen. Many more cyclists start to regard bad behaviour as normal cycling behaviour and adopt these bad practices. Others, such as motorists, start to regard all cyclists as badly behaved and treat them accordingly.

The guy who cycled on the path, hit a girl and carried on in this case was a guy who behaved terribly first and a cyclist second. Let's not be complicit in linking the two.

Anonymous

Yep, that's exactly what I was hinting at.
Could not have put it better ;-)

frisbee

I bet he also jumped a red light and undertook a truck turning left...

Alugenius

Ai_1 wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

If he had been running along the pavement and knocked her over, would he have given pedestrians a bad name?

If you mean what I think you mean then I agree completely.
This is not a "dispicable cyclist", it's a despicable person or at least a person who acted despicably on this occasion. There is a danger of linking the behaviour with the activity rather than the person. The fact that this is normal practice creates two obvious societal problems. We associate activities with behaviours and we discriminate continuously and inaccurately. So cyclists become known for being discourteous or inclined to break rules and two things happen. Many more cyclists start to regard bad behaviour as normal cycling behaviour and adopt these bad practices. Others, such as motorists, start to regard all cyclists as badly behaved and treat them accordingly.

The guy who cycled on the path, hit a girl and carried on in this case was a guy who behaved terribly first and a cyclist second. Let's not be complicit in linking the two.

That's what I would say if I was that good with words. Well said.

cswitch

LakesLuddite wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

If he had been running along the pavement and knocked her over, would he have given pedestrians a bad name?

I always thought adults cycling on the pavements was not allowed or illegal and could result in a fine. That is one way runners and cyclists on the pavement are different levels. Also there was a small drag along the ground when the girl got caught up. That is less likely with a runner.

I will defend cyclists since there are enough out there denigrating them but there are few things I do not believe is acceptable. First off anyone 11 years old cycling on the pavement is wrong unless it is a mixed use path and signed accordingly. This is a residential street from the look of it and unlikely to have mixed use paths. The second is not stopping when you have caused harm through an accident. I am assuming this was an accident in which case there is an obligation to stop and help if you can. The only exception if that would result in harm to yourself in which case you should remove yourself from danger. In this case the man was only bothered about getting to the girl (his daughter I assume) and the mother too (although she did appear to go a bit further out of camera than where the man picked the girl up so perhaps chasing the cyclist??).

No matter what you say about comparing it to a runner the most important thing here that IMHO makes the cyclist out to be scum and that is not stopping. I personally feel the cycling on the pavement thing is wrong but it happens just like accidents. Stopping when you have caused an accident is simply the right thing to do.

Cycling on the pavement is just as ilegal now as it's ever been - from the Highway Code:

You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129

Pretty unequivocal I think. Not that I have EVER heard of it being enforced (unless perhaps in one of those crackdowns they have in The Smoke now and again), which is precisely why a lot of people still do it. Of course 'proper cyclists' like us would not be seen dead riding on the pavement. Discuss.

Police have been advised to use discretion when applying section 72. Also not all footways are equal in the eyes of the law. More in the link below.
http://www.bikehub.co.uk/featured-artic ... d-the-law/

Regardless, the hit and run chap is a tit.

dj58

As mentioned above, a despicable individual who did a despicable thing, blaming the child's parents and showing no empathy for the child he ran over. Probably not intentional though unavoidable because he was riding too fast to react. But why was he riding on the footpath in the first place. Needs re-educating as to the highway code/law regarding cycling.

Probably only shamed into owning up to plod because the parents of the girl had a CCTV camera on their property and also got a face shot of him.

veronese68

Ai_1 wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

If he had been running along the pavement and knocked her over, would he have given pedestrians a bad name?

If you mean what I think you mean then I agree completely.
This is not a "dispicable cyclist", it's a despicable person or at least a person who acted despicably on this occasion. There is a danger of linking the behaviour with the activity rather than the person. The fact that this is normal practice creates two obvious societal problems. We associate activities with behaviours and we discriminate continuously and inaccurately. So cyclists become known for being discourteous or inclined to break rules and two things happen. Many more cyclists start to regard bad behaviour as normal cycling behaviour and adopt these bad practices. Others, such as motorists, start to regard all cyclists as badly behaved and treat them accordingly.

The guy who cycled on the path, hit a girl and carried on in this case was a guy who behaved terribly first and a cyclist second. Let's not be complicit in linking the two.

Very well put. There are idiots in all walks of life, that one just happened to be on a bike.

debeli

The behaviour of the cyclist - and he was a cyclist - was reprehensible. It is not appropriate and it is not safe to cycle on the pavement. As speed increases, culpability is multiplied. There are horrid, selfish, criminal cyclists, just as there are horrid, selfish, criminal people in every walk of life. It does not reflect poorly on cyclists, just as one SMIDSY or left hook does not reflect badly on motorists.

I am also not a fan of the 'caring parent behaviour' of swinging a car in to the kerb to load little Mimpsy or Blimpsie or Kylie into the child seat for a school run. I imagine the car was parked that way round (facing the traffic) to allow easy access from the kerb. It will not have been left like that overnight, as that would have been illegal.

Everyone who takes little Minxie-Boo-Boo to school by car has a legitimate reason, justification or excuse. Most are Bullshit. None of which excuses the dreadful behaviour by the cyclist...

Before anyone takes exception to any of the above, I ought to add that I have it on good authority from no fewer than three Deities associated with major world religions that I am never wrong. Ever. So please keep any misguided dissent to yourself!

And a passing comment: How glad I am that I don't feel the need to monitor the front of my house with CCTV!

diy

LakesLuddite is correct. Others with a different opinion are confused at best. The "confusion" is due to the definition of a footpath/pavement/footway etc., the specific powers granted for ticketing, rights of way and the path's proximity to a highway.

Since 1879 it's been illegal to cycle on the pavement, this was set by prosecution president. It came in to statute in 1835.

Cycling on footways (a path at the side of a carriageway) is prohibited by Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835, amended by Section 85(1) of the Local Government Act 1888. This is punishable by a fixed penalty notice under Section 51 and Schedule 3 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

A public footpath is a right of way which the public have a right to pass over on foot. It is not illegal to cycle on a footpath, unless it is adjacent highway or specifically covered by a bylaw. You just don't have a right to do it and may be trespassing.

Now for the more interesting bit: That appears to be the only offence (perhaps furious cycling too). He has no obligation to stop, give details or report the accident.

refs:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Wil ... section/72
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vic ... 1/contents
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/10-11/89

jgsi

Gee, thanks for posting in the 'Road' section of BR....
If you ride your road bike on a pavement then you are complete twunt basically.... bu that goes for your BSO,MTB, hyinbred
That lad needs a good slappin... if that had been my daughter.

steadyrollingman

Ai_1 wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

If he had been running along the pavement and knocked her over, would he have given pedestrians a bad name?

If you mean what I think you mean then I agree completely.
This is not a "dispicable cyclist", it's a despicable person or at least a person who acted despicably on this occasion. There is a danger of linking the behaviour with the activity rather than the person.

I really wish people would stop using the c word to describe somebody riding a bike on the pavement, usually dressed in jeans and trainers and with no helmet, lights etc. They're not a cyclist, they're just a prick on a bike - probably only because they don't own a car, rather than because they want to ride.

On this occasion though, the lack of helmet aside, he did otherwise look like a cyclist...

debeli

steadyrollingman wrote:

I really wish people would stop using the c word to describe somebody riding a bike on the pavement, usually dressed in jeans and trainers and with no helmet, lights etc. They're not a cyclist, they're just a prick on a bike - probably only because they don't own a car, rather than because they want to ride.

On this occasion though, the lack of helmet aside, he did otherwise look like a cyclist...

Tee hee..... (I think).

Someone riding a bicycle is (among other things) a cyclist. The chap in the video was riding a bicycle and is a cyclist. He may not ride (or dress) as you'd like him to, but that does not make him anything other than a cyclist.

I do not wear a helmet, but I am a cyclist. I often ride in jeans or chinos or moleskins or corduroys, but I am a cyclist. I even ride in trainers sometimes.....

I'm not at all sure why people who identify themselves as one or another thing feel it necessary to give themselves the power to judge who else has the right to be described as belonging to that group.... That isn't how it works.

ai_1

steadyrollingman wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

If he had been running along the pavement and knocked her over, would he have given pedestrians a bad name?

If you mean what I think you mean then I agree completely.
This is not a "dispicable cyclist", it's a despicable person or at least a person who acted despicably on this occasion. There is a danger of linking the behaviour with the activity rather than the person.

I really wish people would stop using the c word to describe somebody riding a bike on the pavement, usually dressed in jeans and trainers and with no helmet, lights etc. They're not a cyclist, they're just a prick on a bike - probably only because they don't own a car, rather than because they want to ride.

On this occasion though, the lack of helmet aside, he did otherwise look like a cyclist...

I'm not entirely sure if you're serious or kidding!
A cyclist is a person who rides a bicycle. It's not a difficult concept. There are no dress codes. It doesn't matter if they are there by desire or necessity. A person who rides a bicycle is a cyclist. You do not have a say in the matter.

My point was about whether the defining characteristic of this guy was that he was a cyclist or that he was behaving despicably. However he IS a cyclist. So, I would like to distance myself from your ridiculous remarks, if I may.

awavey

Ai_1 wrote:

steadyrollingman wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

If he had been running along the pavement and knocked her over, would he have given pedestrians a bad name?

If you mean what I think you mean then I agree completely.
This is not a "dispicable cyclist", it's a despicable person or at least a person who acted despicably on this occasion. There is a danger of linking the behaviour with the activity rather than the person.

I really wish people would stop using the c word to describe somebody riding a bike on the pavement, usually dressed in jeans and trainers and with no helmet, lights etc. They're not a cyclist, they're just a prick on a bike - probably only because they don't own a car, rather than because they want to ride.

On this occasion though, the lack of helmet aside, he did otherwise look like a cyclist...

I'm not entirely sure if you're serious or kidding!
A cyclist is a person who rides a bicycle. It's not a difficult concept. There are no dress codes. It doesn't matter if they are there by desire or necessity. A person who rides a bicycle is a cyclist. You do not have a say in the matter.

My point was about whether the defining characteristic of this guy was that he was a cyclist or that he was behaving despicably. However he IS a cyclist. So, I would like to distance myself from your ridiculous remarks, if I may.

the reason why it matters if he IS or IS NOT a cyclist, and this isnt just about someone riding a bike, is because its a media obsession it seems to create social out groupings, ascribing behaviour or attributes to that social out group that encourages discriminatory or even retallitory behaviour then towards that group.

which they do not do for any other form of transport or leisure activity or crime.

if someone gets mugged in the street and the assailant runs off, they dont say they were mugged by a pedestrian or runner, if the assailant gets in a car instead, they dont say they were mugged by a motorist, but if the assailant rides off on a bike, they DO say they were mugged by a cyclist.

all people are saying is dont tar all cyclists with the same brush, for the actions of one guy who happens to be riding a bike.

although interesting to see in todays papers he's said the version of events portrayed so far are not wholly accurate.

chris_bass

I'm pretty sure if he had run her over in a car he would have been called a driver.

Do you have a link to his side? I'm interested in how he justifies it.

tangled_metal

Well I see him as an irresponsible cyclist but a cyclist makes all the same. With many groups you get irresponsible individuals within that group. Media might be inclined to be negative about our group, cyclists, but that doesn't mean you can deny those irresponsible cyclists from being in the same group as you. He's also human but would you deny that too?
As far as this story goes I'd be very interested to know his side of the story. The cctv is a real gift to media but it's such a small angle of view. I'd like to know a few things. The mother reacted quickly and was nearer than the father but the father got to his daughter first. The mother went out of the field of view, the child I think was only just out of the cctv camera's view. I'm guessing she was interacting with the cyclist. Was that violent in nature. IF I had been cycling on a mixed use path and hit a toddler who had come from nowhere I'd have tried to help. If threatened I'd scarper. I'm sure others would too.
Now please note this scenario is one potential way the cyclist was not really despicable but party to an unfortunate accident. I am not saying that is the case just that the cctv footage does not provide conclusive evidence one way or another.
I know my child who is a little younger is able to run quickly, change direction and accelerate in unpredictable ways. We have to keep eyes on all the time when out and about. I've cycled towpaths and wide mixed use paths with young kids where I've only just stopped before hitting one child before now who'd suddenly moved into my path very unpredictably. I'm aware of this but wasn't as aware before my child came along.

mikeeye

This has prompted today's Call You and Yours on Radio 4 at 12:15: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05vy4kk

Call You and Yours: At Risk from Cyclists
You and Yours

A child is recovering after being hit by a cyclist riding on a pavement.
Have you ever been put at risk on the road by a cyclist?

Meanwhile Chris Boardman has called for stricter liability for motorists in accidents involving vulnerable road users, to protect pedestrians and cyclists.

Cyclist casualties have risen in recent years as the amount of cycling has increased, latest figures show that over 19,000 cyclists were killed or injured in reported road accidents in 2013.

What's your experience on the pavement or road? Are you a cyclist who has been in an accident? Or are you a pedestrian or motorist who's been in an accident caused by a cyclist?

Email us with your stories youandyours@bbc.co.uk and join Winifred Robinson at 1215.

diy

The strict liability thing is crazy. All that will happen is drivers wont stop.

steadyrollingman

Ai_1 wrote:

steadyrollingman wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

If he had been running along the pavement and knocked her over, would he have given pedestrians a bad name?

If you mean what I think you mean then I agree completely.
This is not a "dispicable cyclist", it's a despicable person or at least a person who acted despicably on this occasion. There is a danger of linking the behaviour with the activity rather than the person.

I really wish people would stop using the c word to describe somebody riding a bike on the pavement, usually dressed in jeans and trainers and with no helmet, lights etc. They're not a cyclist, they're just a prick on a bike - probably only because they don't own a car, rather than because they want to ride.

On this occasion though, the lack of helmet aside, he did otherwise look like a cyclist...

I'm not entirely sure if you're serious or kidding!
A cyclist is a person who rides a bicycle. It's not a difficult concept. There are no dress codes. It doesn't matter if they are there by desire or necessity. A person who rides a bicycle is a cyclist. You do not have a say in the matter.

My point was about whether the defining characteristic of this guy was that he was a cyclist or that he was behaving despicably. However he IS a cyclist. So, I would like to distance myself from your ridiculous remarks, if I may.

If you read my post properly, you'll see I did grudgingly admit he should be considered a 'cyclist'. But to suggest that anyone on a bike should be classed as a cyclist is ludicrous - is a kid kicking a ball off a wall a 'footballer'? Or someone (like me) mowing the lawn once every couple of months a 'gardener'? And I wasn't having a go at non-car owners either - my point is that a lot of these path-based 'cyclists' probably wouldn't be riding a bike if they owned a car.

If enough of the criteria - lack of specialised kit, riding on the path etc - fit, then it's merely someone on a bike. The more these (potential) idiots are referred to as cyclists, then the rest of us suffer by association, and god knows we have enough trouble already without them stirring things up.

ai_1

steadyrollingman wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

steadyrollingman wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

Carbonator wrote:

If he had been running along the pavement and knocked her over, would he have given pedestrians a bad name?

If you mean what I think you mean then I agree completely.
This is not a "dispicable cyclist", it's a despicable person or at least a person who acted despicably on this occasion. There is a danger of linking the behaviour with the activity rather than the person.

I really wish people would stop using the c word to describe somebody riding a bike on the pavement, usually dressed in jeans and trainers and with no helmet, lights etc. They're not a cyclist, they're just a prick on a bike - probably only because they don't own a car, rather than because they want to ride.

On this occasion though, the lack of helmet aside, he did otherwise look like a cyclist...

I'm not entirely sure if you're serious or kidding!
A cyclist is a person who rides a bicycle. It's not a difficult concept. There are no dress codes. It doesn't matter if they are there by desire or necessity. A person who rides a bicycle is a cyclist. You do not have a say in the matter.

My point was about whether the defining characteristic of this guy was that he was a cyclist or that he was behaving despicably. However he IS a cyclist. So, I would like to distance myself from your ridiculous remarks, if I may.

If you read my post properly, you'll see I did grudgingly admit he should be considered a 'cyclist'. But to suggest that anyone on a bike should be classed as a cyclist is ludicrous - is a kid kicking a ball off a wall a 'footballer'? Or someone (like me) mowing the lawn once every couple of months a 'gardener'? And I wasn't having a go at non-car owners either - my point is that a lot of these path-based 'cyclists' probably wouldn't be riding a bike if they owned a car.

If enough of the criteria - lack of specialised kit, riding on the path etc - fit, then it's merely someone on a bike. The more these (potential) idiots are referred to as cyclists, then the rest of us suffer by association, and god knows we have enough trouble already without them stirring things up.

No, I did ready your post properly and I stand by my previous post. You are wrong.
A cyclist is a person who rides a bicycle. Look it up.

Going by your approach, I'm not a motorist since I only drive a car because I don't have a jet pack and I don't wear driving gloves.

You seem to be trying to distinguish between those who cycle for sport and those who cycle for transport. That's fine. However, the difference is not that one is a cyclist and the other is not. They are both cyclists. The word "cyclist" means a person who rides a bicycle. I'm not aware of it in any way referring to the reason for riding the bike, the attitude of the person, their cycling experience, their attire. Can you point me to the definition you're using please?

You've basically said yourself that you are looking for a reason to discriminate between yourself and other cyclists because you don't want to be labelled alongside them. So you're trying to use prejudice to fight prejudice. Yeah, that's a sensible and defensible approach. :roll: You are more of the problem than the solution sir.

steadyrollingman

Erm, no, sorry. Firstly, not quite sure why you seem to think I would distinguish between riding for sport and riding for transport - I regularly do both, and the latter (commuting) is done far more regularly than any other method of getting to work (despite owning several cars). I'd consider myself to be a cyclist on either of those occasions. Your jet pack statement is also flawed if you'd just read what I wrote properly, but I really CBA to start getting into petty pedantic dissections of statements.

But yes, you're right I don't want to be tarred with the same brush as 'pricks on bikes' as per my original statement, and I'm not quite sure why that's such a bad thing. At no time do I feel I share anything in common with someone pootling along the path from one part of a housing estate to the next, riding in everyday clothes, no lights, or whatever. Given that most of the time I'd condemn/consider that behaviour to be idiotic, I really fail to see how that makes me 'part of the problem'. Quite the opposite I'd have thought...