Inconsidererate, aggressive, but not necessarily dangerous. Report?

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

For a serving police officer, he seems to have some worryingly fixed and aggressive anti-motorist opinions,

Do you think so?
Can you quote those 'worryingly fixed and aggressive opinions in your next posting please, so that I can qualify them for you.

Don't be drawn into quoting this thread - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5140228 - which was purely an experiment to test what responses might be drawn from opening an 'anti' thread in an antagonistic style - as explained in post #48.


My life philosophy is to try not to seek to blame people for their poor behaviours and attitudes. There is much greater value in discovering what influences and events have caused people to behave and think the way they do, and seek to address those primary causal issues if necessary.

Tobster86

modsandmockers wrote: »

Is there anyone else who shares my doubts about Brat's credentials?

Nope, he seems pretty sensible, unlike someone.

Retrogamer

tight_scotsman wrote: »

I won't be commenting any more on this thread. It's a waste of time both sides of the argument think they are right. So it's just going round in circles.

Perhaps if you posted rational helpful responses towards the subject matter you'd enjoy the thread more.

You're going on the basis that cyclists taking primary position is dangerous.

However not taking primary position encourages impatient motorists to try and overtake when it's not safe.

So my questions to you, as i'm sure you'll be back are

What's more dangerous. Allowing a dangerous overtake by staying to the left, or prevent an dangerous overtake by staying in the middle?
How do you suggest cyclists prevent motorists from attempting dangerous overtakes without moving to the middle of the lane?

modsandmockers

brat wrote: »

Do you think so?
Can you quote those 'worryingly fixed and aggressive opinions in your next posting please, so that I can qualify them for you.

Don't be drawn into quoting this thread - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5140228 - which was purely an experiment to test what responses might be drawn from opening an 'anti' thread in an antagonistic style - as explained in post #48.


My life philosophy is to try not to seek to blame people for their poor behaviours and attitudes. There is much greater value in discovering what influences and events have caused people to behave and think the way they do, and seek to address those primary causal issues if necessary.

Clearly, I have a lot to learn from you and others on this forum about how to join in with the exchange of diversionary personal attacks ‘on the man instead of the ball’

How about this...

"Is there anyone else who shares my doubts about Brat's credentials? For a serving police officer, he seems to have some worryingly fixed and aggressive pro-cyclist opinions, even though he regularly implies that he is a fully fledged traffic cop. He also seems to have an awful lot of spare time"

Marco_Panettone

brat wrote: »

I rode for 25 miles yesterday, the same on Sunday, on a hilly rural circuit where I'm normally only passed by about 10 cars. I feel very safe on these roads because the vehicular approach speed is slow and I control the overtakes when I need to. I'm always illuminated front and rear with top quality LED flashers.

The routes I choose are not the kind of route that families would use on a leisure ride, because they're undulating, with several steep ascents.

I see little or no need to incorporate them into any holistic cycling plan, but I'm happy to accommodate any ideas which would improve my safety without destroying the appeal of the routes I use.

What are your views on routes such as these Marco? Would you leave them as they are, or do you know of a 'light touch' fix to improve roads such as these? (other than to improve road surfaces). Or does the holistic directive towards segregation have more radical plans for my precious rural minor roads?

It depends on the road, where it goes and what the alternatives are. If it's used as a rat-run then it can be closed to through-traffic, allowing access for motor vehicles at a reduced speed limit. If it's a long, winding road between 2 towns then a more direct cycle path might be appropriate, rather than an on-road plan, to encourage the use of bikes rather than cars for transport. It might be the case that nothing needs doing to that particular road at all.


Like I said (sort of), just because there are places that wouldn't necessarily benefit from any treatment certainly doesn't mean that all roads are fine for everyone. My overall plan would be to fix cities first, then towns, then link towns together to create a network.

pendragon_arther

Tobster86 wrote: »

Nope, he seems pretty sensible, unlike someone.

I thought he was a she!:eek:

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

Clearly, I have a lot to learn from you and others on this forum about how to join in with the exchange of diversionary personal attacks ‘on the man instead of the ball’

You're at least my age Mods, I'd have thought you would have learned by now that if you're going to say something defamatory about someone, it needs to be able to be backed up. Otherwise you can get yourself into some trouble.

So when I accused you recently of having "a screw loose", it was in response to a nonsensical, incorrect, presumably abusive (given the edit) comment you made. I linked directly to that comment, then took time to correct your strange misconceptions. Others noted your comments as bizarre, and questioned the real reasons for you making such comments (trolling).

I recently accused Tilt and Altarf of being prejudiced against cyclists. There was lots of evidence of this in their postings, and when they challenged me on it, I was able to show them the comments that proved their prejudice.

It doesn't matter to me whether you think I'm a traffic cop or a fraud. What matters to me is your unsupported public allegations that I possess specific qualities that deem me to be unsuited to the job.

So when you post stuff like this...

modsandmockers wrote: »

Is there anyone else who shares my doubts about Brat's credentials? For a serving police officer, he seems to have some worryingly fixed and aggressive anti-motorist opinions, even though he regularly implies that he is a fully fledged traffic cop. He also seems to have an awful lot of spare time.

and this...

modsandmockers wrote: »

"Is there anyone else who shares my doubts about Brat's credentials? For a serving police officer, he seems to have some worryingly fixed and aggressive pro-cyclist opinions , even though he regularly implies that he is a fully fledged traffic cop. He also seems to have an awful lot of spare time"

...you need to be able to support these allegations and accusations when challenged, otherwise you pay the price either in serious loss of credibility, or worse.

modsandmockers

brat wrote: »

You're at least my age Mods, I'd have thought you would have learned by now that if you're going to say something defamatory about someone, it needs to be able to be backed up. Otherwise you can get yourself into some trouble.

So when I accused you recently of having "a screw loose", it was in response to a nonsensical, incorrect, presumably abusive (given the edit) comment you made. I linked directly to that comment, then took time to correct your strange misconceptions. Others noted your comments as bizarre, and questioned the real reasons for you making such comments (trolling).

I recently accused Tilt and Altarf of being prejudiced against cyclists. There was lots of evidence of this in their postings, and when they challenged me on it, I was able to show them the comments that proved their prejudice.

It doesn't matter to me whether you think I'm a traffic cop or a fraud. What matters to me is your unsupported public allegations that I possess specific qualities that deem me to be unsuited to the job.

So when you post stuff like this...

and this...
...you need to be able to support these allegations and accusations when challenged, otherwise you pay the price either in serious loss of credibility, or worse.

Brat - you definitely have too much spare time. Have you considered taking up Safe Cycling?

Tobster86

modsandmockers wrote: »

Brat - you definitely have too much spare time. Have you considered taking up Safe Cycling?

What do (/don't) you do that affords you so much spare time?

esuhl

modsandmockers wrote: »

Brat - you definitely have too much spare time. Have you considered taking up Safe Cycling?

You definitely have a screw loose.

If you have an irrational arrogance and hatred towards other people minding their own business on the road, then you could well benefit from therapy to reduce your anxiety and pent-up frustrations about your inadequacies.

A healthy mind does not spend its time berating others for their method of transport. Brat, et al, have tried to educate you, but no one can help you if you are irrationally digging your heels in out of some kind of perceived injustice that once happened to you on the road.

Are you racist, out of interest? Racism and your aggressive anti-cycling sentiments have their roots in the same psychological prejudice. "Cyclists don't obey road laws" is a very similar sentiment to "black people are criminals".

It sounds like you need to take some time out for a period of reflection and gain control over your judgements of others. You can't change the world. You can't make everyone do what you want. So you need to learn to accept that. Once you can, you will be able to face the world without your sense of injustice derailling your mood.

Does it matter (to you) if you, say, see a cyclist jump a red light? Does it automatically mean that the cyclist is a representative of his tribe that has an official policy of red-light-jumping as a way to irritate you personally? Or does it just not matter? Is it just one individual choosing himself what risks to take; risks that are no business of yours...?

I hope you find some peace.