Maggot
The Cake of Liberty
Of course, that's obvious to everyone except Julie Burchill. I heard her being interviewed last week, and she claimed that pedestrians are as likely to be killed bya fast bike as by a car.
Cyclists v Drivers an arbitrary distinction?
- Thread starter Mr Moose
- Start date
AnnO'Neemus
Is so vanilla
What's this?
Nose (and headlights) dipping as cars (or motorbikes) brake.What's this?
Conversely, nose (and headlights) rising as cars (or motorbikes) accelerate.
(At night, in the case of bikes particularly, often misinterpreted as the rider flashing headlight at vehicles in front ...)
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Agent Sparrow
AGENT TRAITOR; fools 8 year olds
When you come across a bad road user (cyclists, drivers and even peds) IMO they roughly fit into 4 categories. The first are the arrogant fucks who just do what they want and think they have much more of a right to be on the road than anyone else. The second are those who are just careless and lazy routinely. The third are based on misunderstandings of the perspectives of other road users (e.g. motorists passing bikes too closely).
And the fourth are people who are generally considerate but who make a mistake on that instance. In regards to this fourth category, obviously they're rare mistakes, but people aren't perfect and these things do unfortunately happen. A mistake doesn't necessary make someone a cunt or routinely careless/selfish. They can however as just as bad consequences as the mistakes made by less normally considerate people though.
However, as has been said, the consequences of making mistakes in motorised vehicles have more potential to be greater than those made on a bike. Also, cars tend to be able to hide behind horns, which IME are overused and can be used to intimidate other road users they don't like. I've been beeped at before when cycling despite doing everything by the letter, obviously just because the driver didn't approve of a cycle being on the road. At those times I want an acme awooga horn to get a bit of balance. 
And the fourth are people who are generally considerate but who make a mistake on that instance. In regards to this fourth category, obviously they're rare mistakes, but people aren't perfect and these things do unfortunately happen. A mistake doesn't necessary make someone a cunt or routinely careless/selfish. They can however as just as bad consequences as the mistakes made by less normally considerate people though.
However, as has been said, the consequences of making mistakes in motorised vehicles have more potential to be greater than those made on a bike. Also, cars tend to be able to hide behind horns, which IME are overused and can be used to intimidate other road users they don't like. I've been beeped at before when cycling despite doing everything by the letter, obviously just because the driver didn't approve of a cycle being on the road.
At those times I want an acme awooga horn to get a bit of balance. Simplistic drivel bollocks - "Let's conduct a thorough mental profile of that nutter in charge of that grunty 200 BHP bus".
The change in people's attitude when they don lycra piss pants, wrap around shades and a plastic bed pan on their bonce is terrifying - "yooo - I'm a lemming"
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
And then there are those like you that are just a prick all the time.
Thrrrrrsp - thumbs nose in equally intellectual riposte (apart from the use of a puerile rude word)........
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
And your response (#37) to my post that you quoted was anything other than "puerile"? And now you want to claim the moral high ground? You're acting like a prick.
Wah wah here's my nuts - by all means use "prick" to underline the paucity of your "debate".
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
*barfs*
George & Bill
semiotically superfluous
with rage, cobbles' member swells to six times its usual size
Hah! Fab chillies!
Sorry, I don't have anything more intelligent to add to this debate other than there are idiots of every type on the road, cyclists, car drivers, motorcyclists etc. Thankfully I think they're in the minority but sadly an idiot on the road is a dangerous idiot.
Sorry, I don't have anything more intelligent to add to this debate other than there are idiots of every type on the road, cyclists, car drivers, motorcyclists etc. Thankfully I think they're in the minority but sadly an idiot on the road is a dangerous idiot.
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
It's not a great argument imo. You said earlier that "only a small minority of drivers are dangerous" - or words to that effect. But the overwhelming majority of car drivers routinely drive over the speed limit. Since we know that how fast you drive has a direct influence on (a) how likely you are to crash and (b) how serious the consequences of that crash will be, it tends to follow that the overwhelming majority of car drivers are driving dangerously.
Note I'm not saying that the overwhelming majority of car drivers are "cunts" - to adopt the language of the thread - but that put in a particular environment (ie behind the wheel of a vastly over-powered car), they will mostly behave in a way that is dangerous and obviously intimidatory to others who aren't in a car.
It's similar to the way that discussion in the particular environment of internet bulletin boards elicits far more aggressive and argumentative exchanges than would the same same debates face-to-face.
For what it's worth, and just to point out that I'm not just being anti-car here, I think cycling elicits aggressive behaviour too. I suppose for me the big difference between cyclist aggression and cardriver aggression is that in the end cyclists aren't equipped with deadly power, cardrivers are.
I'd always question this idea that you can simplify anti-social behaviour down to a simplistic division between "cunts" and "us", the nice people. It's a deeply reactionary way of seeing the world, by the same (environment-free)logic, young black men in South London are obviously naturally more likely to be "violent cunts" since they stab and get stabbed in such high numbers.
Cid
Proper break this time
i think driving helps you appreciate how stupid some cycling practices are... I mean I always used to have my lights on at night, but I don't think I realised just how hard it was to see me without them (certainly there were a couple of occasions when they were running low or I forgot them) until I got in a car and actually experienced the low vis for myself. I'm going to get back into cycling now that I'm in London and tbh will prob start using them in rainy weather too, plus high vis jacket. I'll probably still run reds and occasionaly use the pavement though...
Absolute, complete and utter, 110%, gold-plated bollocks ...
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
b) is plainly not bollocks. more speed = more kinetic energy = more damage. The faster you crash at, the more energy your car has, the more energy it must absorb, the more energy is transferred to anything you collide with. Inescapeable physics.Absolute, complete and utter, 110%, gold-plated bollocks ...
a) can be argued in different directions, but as a rule of thumb, faster speeds above a certain threshold are harder to control in an emergency situation.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
This was the bollocks bit.
All very true.
And utterly unrelated to any adherence (or otherwise) to a speed limit ...
And, of course, more dangerous does not necessarily mean actually. (Two sticks of celery are more fattening than one stick of celery ... but they are not actually fattening ... )
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
It was linked to a "reason" - the fact that pretty much 100% of motorists routinely break the speed limits. If you accept that speeding has bad outcomes in terms of safety for everyone then the conclusion is that most drivers drive dangerously or recklessly - especially with regard to those of us lower down the food chain.
If you want to call it bollocks you might want to try finding a "reason" why.
Hope this helpful.
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
Absolute, complete and utter, 110%, gold-plated bollocks ...
A disappointing response from Her Majesty's Constabulary. But sadly typical. The fact that the police have clearly decided that speeding is OK is one of the reasons why everyone does it.
If I drove past my local school at 30mph at 3.30 in the afternoon, would that be safe and sensible? Meanwhile, if I drive down a dual carriageway at night at 80mph, am I actually putting anyone in greater danger than I would be at 70...?
Most cyclists jump red lights and mount the pavement now and then. It's technically illegal, but most of us accept that there are many instances where it's safer and more convenient for all concerned if the law is employed slightly flexibly. Why should that not be the case with drivers as well?
Most cyclists jump red lights and mount the pavement now and then. It's technically illegal, but most of us accept that there are many instances where it's safer and more convenient for all concerned if the law is employed slightly flexibly. Why should that not be the case with drivers as well?
Termite Man
zombie flesh eater
slight derail but isn't celery one of those foods that take more calories to eat and digest than you actually gain from them* so in effect 2 sticks of celery would be less fattening than 1 stick
*it's probably bollocks but I've heard people say it before !
The police have decided no such thing ... but, unlike "[Only] Speed Kills" fuckwits, they apply some common sense and discretion. Unfortunately they have been largely replaced by cameras ... which don't.
OK ... apples then!
(Roadkills jumping red lights example amounts to the same thing and, as it includes a pedal cycle, it may be easier for some to comprehend the analogy anyway ...
)See my earlier post. Which boils down to the reason being comparison to an arbitrary, one-size-fits-all speed limit which is given mythical importance ...
Similar threads
- Poll
