60 Cyclists To Sue Edinburgh Council

Retrogamer

Altarf wrote: »

In proportion to the number of motorists, few are very bad.

In proportion to the number of cyclists, lots are very bad.

Now as a cyclist, you are going to put your blinkers on and deny it, but as cyclists you ought to be honest with yourselves.

I'm also a motorist covering around 300 miles a week so i would hardly say my statement about lots of motorists breaking the laws & being dangerous is blinkered. I've spent many years and many many miles driving with them. It's based on my experiences.

Some cyclists are bad and/or dangerous, but from my experience the percentage of motorists who are bad/and or dangerous is much higher.

Altarf wrote: »

Do you keep to the rules, or more accurately given some of the posts in this thread, do you actually know what the rules are?

Yes. Didn't you when you cycled?

custardy

frisbeej wrote: »

Are you sure you're not a cyclist?

You seem to have posted a lot of moaning posts, and most of them are moaning about other people moaning.

I think you need to shave your legs, pull on the lycra and join the dark side!

brat

Altarf wrote: »

brat wrote:

A dislike of cyclists (or any other groups that behaves differently to a recognised norm) is pretty well understood psychologically. Perhaps you and the others need to understand how and why this happens, so that you can be a bit more open minded and tolerant of others.

Open minded and tolerant of self-centred individuals, who choose to break rules they don't like. Hmmm.

As I say, it's a well recognised pattern of behaviour. You might not like it, but all the influences that have formed you make you behave this way.

You have your own reasons for vilifying cyclists over motorists, despite motorists being many hundreds of times more likely to kill and maim others, despite motorists committing many offences like speeding, tailgating, obstructing pavements, driving aggressively, tired, inattentively etc etc.
Perhaps you should start by asking yourself why you feel this way? Why do cyclists who hardly kill or injure anyone become the target so much hatred and vitriol?

It might be worth reading this piece by Tom Stafford. I think he sees it just about right.

Tom Stafford
"...my theory is that motorists hate cyclists because they think they offend the moral order.

Driving is a very moral activity – there are rules of the road, both legal and informal, and there are good and bad drivers. The whole intricate dance of the rush-hour junction only works because people know the rules and by-and-large follow them: keeping in lane; indicating properly; first her turn, now mine, now yours. Then along come cyclists, innocently following what they see are the rules of the road, but doing things that drivers aren't allowed to: overtaking queues of cars, moving at well below the speed limit or undertaking on the inside."

System

despite motorists committing many offences like speeding, tailgating, obstructing pavements, driving aggressively, tired, inattentively etc etc

Well, apart from speeding (because it is nigh on impossible to trace a speeding cyclist after the event) all your examples are pertinent to cyclists as well.

Retrogamer

!!!!!! wrote: »

Well, apart from speeding (because it is nigh on impossible to trace a speeding cyclist after the event) all your examples are pertinent to cyclists as well.

Legally speaking speed limits don't apply to cyclists anyway. They only apply to motorised vehicles.

The comparison given isn't as equal as you think.

If a cyclist follows a car too closely and the car brakes suddenly the cyclist is the only one likely to be seriously injured for putting them self at risk.

If a motorist does the same to a cyclist and follows them too closely the cyclist is still more likely to seriously injured if they need to stop suddenly.

There's a world of difference in terms of risk they present between a 10-20kg low speed bicycle vs a 1000kg high speed motor vehicle

brat

!!!!!! wrote: »

Well, apart from speeding (because it is nigh on impossible to trace a speeding cyclist after the event) all your examples are pertinent to cyclists as well.

Speeding is not an offence for cyclists.

Of course cyclists commit the other offences too, but if you listen to Altarf and his ilk, you would be forgiven for thinking that cyclists are the main culprits and the primary danger.

So a balanced view is what is needed, rather than the prejudicial posts we've seen on this thread.
That balance should reflect the recognition that cyclists are to blame for only one in every 5,000 to 10,000 3rd party road deaths or serious injuries.

Tilt

brat wrote: »

I did 200 bike rides last year excluding commutes, 7,500 miles in total. On each ride I'll have seen a dozen examples of carelessness by car drivers, each one of which would put me in at least as much danger as the cyclists put themselves in in this video. Two or three incidents each trip are usually sufficiently bad to warrant taking the driver to court.

This is why it's pointless using anecdote and youtube to try to make a point. You need facts.

Yes, bad riders cycle badly, bad drivers can drive badly.
But half of cycling threads on forums are about motorists attitude towards cyclists, seemingly forgetting that car drivers are often just as bad, and when they are bad, they maim and kill thousands of times more often than cyclists do.

I don't know how many more times or in which language I have to keep hammering this point BUT (for the umpteenth time) I actually do concede that there are good and bad in both cyclists and motorists. Plus it's quite obvious that a motorist is much more likely to cause serious injury than a cyclist is. However, a cyclist who rides recklessly is much more likely to injure themselves than a reckless motorist.

Now I know that you don't like the clips I have referred to because they simply underline my argument which is that even cyclists (the responsible ones) are seen having a go at their "comrades" who are flouting the law and riding recklessly by saying "it's people like you that give us a bad name". This can be heard in a lot of the clips so even your fellow cyclists are expressing their concerns about reckless cycling. One such person has even created a whole series on You Tube called 'Silly Cyclists' of which there is over 45 episodes, each one containing around 10 incidents of 'silly cycling'. Most of the incidents seem to happen in London which I can totally accept as i've seen it myself first hand and at night where dozens, yes dozens of cyclists were recklessly weaving in and out of stop-start traffic sometimes between slow moving buses through the narrowest of gaps. Most didn't even have any lights on!

So sorry, they do exist and I still say there are far too many of them BUT fortunately in most cases, they only put themselves in danger.

I also resent being accused of being prejudiced against cyclists because I am most certainly not. However I will remain totally critical of cyclists who flout the law and ride irresponsibly. The responsible cyclist will always get my full respect and am more than happy to give them all the space they need on the road, even if it means me having to wait a few minutes to get past them. And as I live in a rural area, I also offer the same consideration to horses.

Is the above clear enough? :cool:

Johno100

brat wrote: »

A dislike of cyclists (or any other groups that behaves differently to a recognised norm) is well understood psychologically. Perhaps you and the others need to understand how and why this happens, so that you can be a bit more open minded and tolerant of others.

All this psychobabble, give it a rest, lets put in terms you will understand:-

You see three or four young lads in a very nice motor driving around a nice area which, shall we say, doesn't match the prevailing ethnic make-up of the area and you decide to give them a tug. Does that make you prejudiced against (or dislike) young lads, young lads in nice motors or a certain ethnic minority? No, of course not, you would do so because of 'reasonable suspicion', 'an offender profile' or the old fashioned 'coppers nose'. All of those are based on your years of experience not prejudice or a dislike.

So why is it so hard for you and others to accept that some of us who are not card carrying members of the 'cycling is the solution to all our problem' brigade aren't prejudiced or have a dislike for individual cyclists. We just find the 'holier than thou' attitude, hypocrisy and undue influence that pro-cycling groups are now having on public policy to be extremely irritating and worthy of challenge on forums such as this.

custardy

Probably my biggest question.
why do these threads exist against cyclists (in multiples) yet not on the motoring sections on motorists behaviours?

Tilt

custardy wrote: »

Probably my biggest question.
why do these threads exist against cyclists (in multiples) yet not on the motoring sections on motorists behaviours?

Only recently I contributed to a thread (on the motoring forum) about car lights. I took the opportunity to criticise drivers who don't know how/when to use their dipped head lights as that particular morning it had been persistently raining. As I noticed about 1 in 4 drivers who hadn't got any lights on at all, I suggested that DRLs were invented because of these incompetent drivers.

Happy now?