Inconsidererate, aggressive, but not necessarily dangerous. Report?

modsandmockers

esuhl wrote: »

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.

Esuhl - if Brat had begun his post with the words “I disagree with you for the following reasons…”, I would probably have taken the trouble to read the rest of the post.

The same applies to you.

Tilt

brat wrote: »

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.

You did indeed but incorrectly as I have pointed out MANY times in this (and others) thread.

I believe I made my position clear to you in post #197. The OP obviously wanted an opinion and he's now got mine which I stand by. Obviously neither he or you agree with my opinion which is your prerogative just as it's mine to disagree with yours.

End of discussion as far as i'm concerned.

brat

Tilt wrote: »

You did indeed but incorrectly...

We've moved on Tilt, but one of the quotes that proved your 'prejudice' was this one...

Tilt wrote: »

Call it what you like but your are wrong. I am not prejudiced against all cyclists at all, just the stupid ones

That's either an admission of prejudice, or ignorance of the meaning of the word.

Like you say, discussion over.

Tilt

brat wrote: »

We've moved on Tilt, but one of the quotes that proved your 'prejudice' was this one...



That's either an admission of prejudice, or ignorance of the meaning of the word.

Like you say, discussion over.

<SIGH> and you expect people to believe you are police officer???

Lets try one last time and i'll try and make it clearer and more obvious:

I am not prejudiced against ALL (note the word "all" please as it is an important part of the sentence) cyclists....

Is that coming through ok so far...? Yes? Ready for the next bit??

...just the STUPID ONES.

Ok... now let me explain what exactly I mean as obviously you are not getting it.

My definition of ALL cyclists:

Those people who chose to cycle on a public road or public place (not including off road mountain cycling of cycling on a track or other area where the road traffic act dosn't apply), this includes fully responsible and competent cyclists (who abide by and observe all the relevant traffic regs/laws) and stupid, irresponsible and less competent cyclists (who cycle recklessly ignoring basic traffic regs/laws while putting themselves and others at risk).

Ok, now i've colour coded the above 2 groups of cyclists as follows GREEN: fully responsible and competent cyclists (who abide by and observe all the relevant traffic regs/laws)
RED: stupid, irresponsible and less competent cyclists (who cycle recklessly ignoring basic traffic regs/laws while putting themselves and others at risk)

Now to clarify which particular category of cyclist my "prejudice" or (if you like) criticism is aimed at i'll use the following so that hopefully this time you will get it;

GREEN NO prejudice or criticism what so ever. Already do and Will always respect, cooperate with and acknowledge while sharing the road with.

RED VERY CRITICAL of these type of cyclists (and drivers) who flout the law and ride/drive recklessly and will challenge (depending on the severity of the incident) given the opportunity.

Ok, now i've spent a bit of time and put a bit of thought on this
as to how I can finally get the message across. Hopefully even you will get it this time but if not, well then.... TOUGH!

armyknife

Tilt wrote: »

<SIGH> and you expect people to believe you are police officer???

Lets try one last time and i'll try and make it clearer and more obvious:

I am not prejudiced against ALL (note the word "all" please as it is an important part of the sentence) cyclists....

Is that coming through ok so far...? Yes? Ready for the next bit??

...just the STUPID ONES.

Ok... now let me explain what exactly I mean as obviously you are not getting it.

My definition of ALL cyclists:

Those people who chose to cycle on a public road or public place (not including off road mountain cycling of cycling on a track or other area where the road traffic act dosn't apply), this includes fully responsible and competent cyclists (who abide by and observe all the relevant traffic regs/laws) and stupid, irresponsible and less competent cyclists (who cycle recklessly ignoring basic traffic regs/laws while putting themselves and others at risk).

Ok, now i've colour coded the above 2 groups of cyclists as follows GREEN: fully responsible and competent cyclists (who abide by and observe all the relevant traffic regs/laws)
RED: stupid, irresponsible and less competent cyclists (who cycle recklessly ignoring basic traffic regs/laws while putting themselves and others at risk)

Now to clarify which particular category of cyclist my "prejudice" or (if you like) criticism is aimed at i'll use the following so that hopefully this time you will get it;

GREEN NO prejudice or criticism what so ever. Already do and Will always respect, cooperate with and acknowledge while sharing the road with.

RED VERY CRITICAL of these type of cyclists (and drivers) who flout the law and ride/drive recklessly and will challenge (depending on the severity of the incident) given the opportunity.

Ok, now i've spent a bit of time and put a bit of thought on this
as to how I can finally get the message across. Hopefully even you will get it this time but if not, well then.... TOUGH!

So what's your opinion of colour-blind cyclists?

Tilt

armyknife wrote: »

So what's your opinion of colour-blind cyclists?

I'm almost tempted to give that one a like... :rotfl:

Hanky_Panky

armyknife wrote: »

So what's your opinion of colour-blind cyclists?

Unfortunately it seems we are also subjected to his opinion of what makes up good and bad cyclists which could be based on inaccurate beliefs in the first place, the taking of primary as an example.

Tobster86

Tilt,

Reading through the thread, it seems you made your judgement on the basis of an uncertain camera position therefore suggesting an uncertain road position; and then jumped to the conclusion that the BMW driver did nothing wrong because I was too far out. This vague conclusion, I suspect, is why people think you have a prejudice against cyclists.

So these technicalities aside, and assuming I was in the position I say I was in; what is your opinion on the situation and why?

Tilt

Tobster86 wrote: »

Tilt,

Reading through the thread, it seems you made your judgement on the basis of an uncertain camera position therefore suggesting an uncertain road position; and then jumped to the conclusion that the BMW driver did nothing wrong because I was too far out. This vague conclusion, I suspect, is why people think you have a prejudice against cyclists.

So these technicalities aside, and assuming I was in the position I say I was in; what is your opinion on the situation and why?

I didn't say the BMW had done nothing wrong. I said (from the available footage) that in my opinion BOTH you and the BMW driver were equally at fault.

The footage suggests that you MAY of been further out into the road than you possibly were purely because there is no reference point of your bike in shot. Equally there is no reference point in shot to actually show how close the BMW came. For example, for all I know the camera could of been on the end of a stick. So my opinion (and it is just that; an opinion) is purely based on the footage available.

IF however, you were where you say you were (and I concede I may of miss-understood your stated position in the road), then I would agree the BMW seemed to be unnecessarily too close. But I am not convinced it was the BMW that sounded his horn. Others seem to think it was the car travelling the opposite way who was aiming it at the BMW driver for being too far over the centre line of the road while overtaking you.

You must appreciate that I sat on a jury once where there was video and CCTV footage from two different sources being used in evidence. We were first shown just the one piece of footage and we discussed our opinions. When we were shown the second piece of footage of the SAME incident (but gave a wider capture of the scene) the circumstances were shown as being somewhat different compared to the first footage we saw. I learned a lot from that so I only tell it now how I see it which may (or may not be) exactly how an incident actually pans out. This is why I am merely expressing an opinion based on the footage I have seen.

brat

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

Unfortunately it seems we are also subjected to his opinion of what makes up good and bad cyclists which could be based on inaccurate beliefs in the first place, the taking of primary as an example.

Exactly. It's classic prejudice - a judging of someone based on the ignorance of the judger.

prej·u·dice n.
1.a. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions:
1.b. An adverse judgment or opinion formed unfairly or without knowledge of the facts: