Freedom at last...

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

My dictionary, published in 1999, defines 'militant' as being 'very active or aggressive in the support of a cause'.

So, a cyclist "who cannot recognise, and therefore cannot make allowances for, his/her own vulnerability" according to you is the same as a "person who is very active or aggressive in support of a cause." :whistle:

Obviously that's completely silly, but your desire to use the word 'militant', however inappropriately, says more about your anti cyclist prejudice than your ability to understand the meaning of the word.

brat

Nebulous2 wrote: »

I came to cycling relatively late, mainly to lose weight, but the bike became much more important than my weight. One of the great surprises for me has been how tuned into my environment I am.

My hearing isn't the best in the world. I manage to tune out a lot of people's conversation when the TV is on, yet I can tell a great deal about where a car is and what it's doing by sound.

We were in Cornwall on holiday and were out cycling as a family in narrow lanes with high hedges. I was taking up the rear and as we approached a gap I shouted, "pull in here, there's a car coming." After it passed my wife said "how did you know there was a car?" "I heard it" I said. She then said "I hardly think that's possible, you never hear anything!"

You could be describing me. I've commuted all my life on bike but only a few miles daily, until. I took it up seriously two years ago to replace running. I've cycled 7,500 miles so far this year, mostly on quiet rural roads.
My hearing is not great either, but it's surprising just how aware you are of what's around you.

modsandmockers

brat wrote: »

So, a cyclist "who cannot recognise, and therefore cannot make allowances for, his/her own vulnerability" according to you is the same as a "person who is very active or aggressive in support of a cause." :whistle:

Obviously that's completely silly, but your desire to use the word 'militant', however inappropriately, says more about your anti cyclist prejudice than your ability to understand the meaning of the word.

Just to put a bit of 'context' into the picture, here is what I really said -

“When my grandchildren turn out of school, the pavement is clogged with children on all sorts of devices from scooters to electric cars, and pedestrians have to step aside - it is not a middle-class area! This is probably similar to the training which many of today's militant cyclists received during their recent school days”

“My definition of a militant cyclist is one who cannot recognise, and therefore cannot make allowances for, his/her own vulnerability. Militant cyclists also make an awful lot of noise, whereas defensive cyclists, like defensive drivers, just pass on by”

“My dictionary, published in 1999, defines 'militant' as being 'very active or aggressive in the support of a cause' “

You seem to be blind to the fact that I am actually totally pro-cyclist, but those days are gone. Cycling today is not a solution, it's just another problem. The number of road users who have the necessary 'sixth sense' is small, and it is cyclists who are most likely to pay the price.

Si_Clist

modsandmockers wrote: »

Cycling today is not a solution, it's just another problem.

Well, I've been following this thread since you started it, only because I've been trying to work out what your point is.

Maybe everything's a problem nowadays ...

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

Just to put a bit of 'context' into the picture, here is what I really said -

“When my grandchildren turn out of school, the pavement is clogged with children on all sorts of devices from scooters to electric cars, and pedestrians have to step aside - it is not a middle-class area! This is probably similar to the training which many of today's militant cyclists received during their recent school days”

“My definition of a militant cyclist is one who cannot recognise, and therefore cannot make allowances for, his/her own vulnerability. Militant cyclists also make an awful lot of noise, whereas defensive cyclists, like defensive drivers, just pass on by”

“My dictionary, published in 1999, defines 'militant' as being 'very active or aggressive in the support of a cause' “

repeating something doesn't make it right.

According to you a cyclist is defined as militant if he cannot recognise and make allowances for his own vulnerability.

That's just wrong on every level - so much so that it makes me and others wonder what you are trying to say, and why you join a money saving forum to make whatever point you're trying to make.

Maybe you just used the wrong word - it happens from time to time.

Read this piece about a militant cyclist http://quiet-environmentalist.com/the-millitant-cyclist/

Cyclists are described by motorists as militant for a few reasons

• They take positive action (often wrongly perceived by the motorist as arrogant or selfish) to make their roadspace safer by taking the primary position through hazards.
• They take on the blinkered motorist on online discussion such as this
• They get angry when their road safety has been seriously compromised by motorists who don't think or care.
• They get involved in campaigning action such as critical mass.

Then there's your definition. :eek:

modsandmockers wrote: »

You seem to be blind to the fact that I am actually totally pro-cyclist, but those days are gone.

How can you be ("I am") totally pro cyclist, then say that those days have gone.

modsandmockers wrote: »

Cycling today is not a solution, it's just another problem. The number of road users who have the necessary 'sixth sense' is small, and it is cyclists who are most likely to pay the price.

More tripe. Your agenda seems to be to try to frighten cyclists off the road to make more space for motorists. That's the only purpose I can see in this thread.

photome

brat wrote: »

Then don't. No one is forcing you to ride on the road. Typically, you're criticising a group you neither know or understand.

But keep cycling. It's life enhancing, it staves off alzheimers, and keeps you alive , fit, and in better physical and mental condition for 10 years longer than average.

That bit Hurt

My father in law was a long distance (about 100 miles) time trial cyclist most of his life , used to ride in derbyshire most days and was very fit. He died of Alzheimers in his early 70s

brat

photome wrote: »

That bit Hurt

My father in law was a long distance (about 100 miles) time trial cyclist most of his life , used to ride in derbyshire most days and was very fit. He died of Alzheimers in his early 70s

We will all have personal examples of those who are the exception to the general rule. That doesn't mean that the general rule doesn't apply.

My dad was a hobby cyclist and time trialist. He died at 48 of a brain tumour.
One of my friends was killed in a cycling accident a few years ago. He was fit as a fiddle. I learned from his tragedy, but it wouldn't put me off cycling.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/the-cycle-path-to-happiness-8422706.html

silverwhistle

modsandmockers wrote: »

I rarely ride my bike on the road - it's too dangerous.

So you're _not_ a cyclist then.

Don't let that stop your rant though; we're all quite used to them.

silverwhistle

modsandmockers wrote: »

You seem to be blind to the fact that I am actually totally pro-cyclist, but those days are gone. Cycling today is not a solution, it's just another problem.

Haha, I'm glad I carried on reading. I'd hate to know how you'd express your opinion on something you were against!

Unbelievable obtuseness.

modsandmockers

Si_Clist wrote: »

Well, I've been following this thread since you started it, only because I've been trying to work out what your point is.

Maybe everything's a problem nowadays ...

I started the thread because I am very interested in road-user behaviour, and I would really like to hear from you about what advice you would give to a class of 10-year-olds and their parents who might be thinking about copying your choice of lifestyle.

One of the reasons I was pleased to be able to give up driving was because of the ever-increasing plethora of regulations (and penalties for non-compliance) which drivers in general (and truckers in particular) have to deal with whenever they take to the roads.

The reduction in road casualties which has taken place in recent years is mostly due to better vehicle design, better road layouts and better regulation. Cyclists have none of these advantages. One poster on this thread celebrated the fact that he/she was protected by the the requirement for motorists to carry insurance at all times - if he/she had hit a child who had run out from between two parked cars, then who would have been liable? Another poster made it clear that he/she was not prepared to use the cycle lanes because of the risk of getting a puncture, whilst also objecting to being criticised by motorists for invading the motorists’ space. Strider - get better tyres!

When cycling was widespread, and motoring was in its pre-1970s infancy, then drivers would instinctively ‘think bike’, but those are the days which have gone. Drivers today think ‘ME’, and it is naive to expect them to think otherwise.