CycleCraft - a discussion...

Retrogamer

There have been a number of incidents where drivers have got out their cars and physically assaulted cyclists by pushing them off their bike whilst shouting & swearing at them, it gets reported to the police and they get a caution.

Taking this into consideration i doubt the police would entertain someone complaining about a cyclist riding with no lights even if they could identify them.
It would only be different i imagine if the police caught them doing it personally.

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

Tobster - I think that your casual dismissal of the cyclists’ errant behaviour (numpties?) was not much different from other people’s casual dismissal of the motorist’s behaviour in your video on the other thread.

Numpty is another word for idiot. How much less casual do you want? :huh:
Idiot (or numpty) is what he is.

And the idea of you shouting instructions to a nearby road user is very similar to the idea of the motorist giving you a blast on the horn because he/she thought you were unnecessarily hogging the lane.

Cyclists are very critical of other cyclists, especially when they do stupid things like squeeze through gaps or ride without lights. The reason I think cyclists do this is because they understand that the behaviour of errant cyclists gives ammunition to motorists to peddle the belief that all cyclists are law breakers and therefore inferior road users.

But there's a world of difference between a cyclist shouting at another cyclist for being an idiot, and someone (through ignorance) blasting a horn rebuke at someone for being in the right.

You have a very skewed perspective on certain things Mods... :undecided

modsandmockers

Brat - everything I say is wrong, right? But everything you say is right, right? So therefore, if I say that you are wrong, you are actually right, right? And if I say that you are right, then you are, by definition, wrong, right?

Tobster86

modsandmockers wrote: »

Brat - everything I say is wrong, right? But everything you say is right, right? So therefore, if I say that you are wrong, you are actually right, right? And if I say that you are right, then you are, by definition, wrong, right?

No, because if everything you say is wrong, then that entire statement is, in itself, wrong.


This has just happened:

modsandmockers

Tobster86 wrote: »

No, because if everything you say is wrong, then that entire statement is, in itself, wrong

But it’s Brat, not me, who thinks that everything I say is wrong, and, like Brat, I think that everything I say is right. So therefore, it’s Brat’s opinion, not mine, that if I say he is right, then he is, by definition, wrong. NiteNite

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

Brat - everything I say is wrong, right? But everything you say is right, right? So therefore, if I say that you are wrong, you are actually right, right? And if I say that you are right, then you are, by definition, wrong, right?

When I say you're wrong, I'll give reasons or an explanation why I think you're wrong.

You have a habit of parading spurious, often crazy opinion as fact without offering anything to support it. For example...

Originally Posted by modsandmockers
For many years, I have been saying to anyone who would listen (not many!) that road users mostly assess any perceived hazard in terms of the threat which they face themselves, rather than the threat which they pose to other road users.

and

Originally Posted by modsandmockers
it explains why car drivers etc routinely ‘edit out’ the presence of a cyclist in an otherwise clear path, and also why cyclists fail to understand why they sometimes appear to be invisible to bigger and stronger road users.

If you cannot support crazy statements like these you pay the price in loss of credibility.
I don't think that matters to you anyway, because I believe your purpose here is to spoil, to troll. No-one has the capacity to be so wrong about so many things without knowing it.

modsandmockers

It’s in CycleCraft, innit…

‘Motorists primarily give attention to that part of the road where there is risk to themselves’
‘More collisions happen because drivers cannot see a cyclist….than because they do see but fail to take notice’

Nobody can process every part of what is visible, especially in a fast-changing traffic situation. People will concentrate on the bits that they regard as important, and will ignore the bits that are insignificant. Unfortunately, some less experienced/competent drivers will unconsciously include cyclists in the latter category - did you think I meant to to say that they would ‘edit out’ the cyclists deliberately?

Tobster86

I don't buy any of that to be honest, other than perhaps the message that one must be adequately visible.

ALL of the dangerous situations I've encountered have been due to someone's impatient/belligerent attitude. It's hard to advise how exactly to deal with those circumstances. Fair enough, 'Just get out of their way, it's not worth it'; but what do you do if they're coming up the inside of you?

This is why I got the camera, but ultimately it's only a passive form of protection. I'd rather not have to deal with these incidents at all and am contemplating what else can be done to prevent them - Traffic enforcement camera sign prominently visible on my rucksack with the text 'Please pass carefully'?

JP08

I actually understand where Mods is coming from here - having been on the receiving end of such behaviour - fortunately from a pedestrian rather than a car driver. Said pedestrian looked at me (we actually made eye contact !) saw at the car approaching some distance behind me, and at a range of about 3 feet, stepped out into the road in front of me. I swear I actually saw his eyes de-focus on me and focus on the car.

Anyhow, complete perler over the handlebars from the emergency stop and impact with the road, slowed only by a hefty impact on said pedestrian's shoulder in passing.

frisbeej

JP08 wrote: »

I actually understand where Mods is coming from here - having been on the receiving end of such behaviour - fortunately from a pedestrian rather than a car driver. Said pedestrian looked at me (we actually made eye contact !) saw at the car approaching some distance behind me, and at a range of about 3 feet, stepped out into the road in front of me. I swear I actually saw his eyes de-focus on me and focus on the car.

Anyhow, complete perler over the handlebars from the emergency stop and impact with the road, slowed only by a hefty impact on said pedestrian's shoulder in passing.

I think it actually supports completely the opposite argument and it is a good example of a scenario where you should take the primary position.

He's made eye contact with you, he knows that you've seen him, so he assumes he can cross the road and you'll avoid him.

You've made eye contact with him and assume that he won't step out in front of you, he's seen you so it would be a stupid thing to do but....

....there is always the risk that he will do so.