If there was compulsory training for cyclists, would that put you off cycling?

esuhl

modsandmockers wrote: »

Your real life experience is clearly broader than mine...

I think, from what you've posted so far, you have very little real-life experience of anything relevant to the threads you post on.

Tilt

Norman_Castle wrote: »

You're not a cyclist.

Just because I don't agree with you makes me "not a cyclist"? Well actually you are wrong, I used to be a cyclist, but one that abided by the rules.

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Why do you keep returning to a board used almost entirely by cyclists and provoking arguments?. Isn't that what trolls do?.

Where is the argument? More to the point; how can there be an argument about the behaviour of the cyclists who rode across the crossing while the lights were showing, the barriers were dropping AND while being directed to stop by a police officer?

The point I am making is that these (apparently) are professional cyclists who demonstrated a total disregard for the law and more importantly their own safety. Would you call that responsible cycling then? Or do you reckon they need compulsory training?

Oh and it's not just me being critical... the train operator is demanding that the offending cyclists are prosecuted for their actions.

esuhl

Tilt wrote: »

Just because I don't agree with you makes me "not a cyclist"? Well actually you are wrong, I used to be a cyclist, but one that abided by the rules.

And I used to be a driver. Oh, but one that abided by the rules. Good job I said that, otherwise you'd presumably assume I was a reckless, dangerous, criminal driver.

Tilt wrote: »

Where is the argument? More to the point; how can there be an argument about the behaviour of the cyclists who rode across the crossing while the lights were showing, the barriers were dropping AND while being directed to stop by a police officer?

Is there an argument about that? I must've missed it. Are you sure it isn't just going on inside your head?

Tilt wrote: »

The point I am making is that these (apparently) are professional cyclists who demonstrated a total disregard for the law and more importantly their own safety. Would you call that responsible cycling then? Or do you reckon they need compulsory training?

What have professional cyclists got to do with cyclists in general?! And, don't you think that most professional cyclists have received more than enough training and experience to be able to cycle safely and legally?

If training stopped people from doing whatever the hell they liked, we could simply increase the amount of training required to drive on the road and (with your magic spell), drivers would no longer drive as recklessly, aggressively and as carelessly as they do. But we both know the world doesn't work like that.

And we both know that you lack the ability to present a logical argument and prefer to use fallacies to promote your distorted view of people based on the mode of transport they currently happen to be using.

Tilt wrote: »

Oh and it's not just me being critical... the train operator is demanding that the offending cyclists are prosecuted for their actions.

Sure, cyclists who behave recklessly and break traffic laws should be prosecuted. You're hardly a revolutionary for thinking that!

But why focus on cyclists? They have a clear incentive not to put themselves in harms way. Motorists cause far more problems (and far more injuries). You'd be better off finding a forum where you can blabber on about motorists jumping red lights, speeding, overtaking dangerously, parking illegally and obstructing the highway, racing each other, etc., etc.

Of course, again, we both know why you focus on cyclists. You have an inferiority problem and want to psychologically split people into arbitrary categories so that can feel superior based on your membership to one group. It's the same kind of tedious tribalism that racists, sexists and football hooligans subscribe to. It's a bit sad, really.

brat

modsandmockers wrote: »

People don’t just invent stereotypes, they emerge out of peoples’ real-life experiences.

...or their prejudices. Many stereotypes are a caricature of the truth, formed through ignorance, envy or to bolster a misplaced sense of superiority.

modsandmockers wrote: »

Cyclists don’t like non-cyclists invading their space,

Non cyclists invading cyclists space is given a name. It's called careless or dangerous driving. That's why we don't like it.

modsandmockers wrote: »

but the truth is that, in the UK, cyclists quite often refuse to use the space which is provided for them at council-tax-payers’ expense.

That space is used by those cyclists who would benefit from it. Many cycle paths are not suitable or convenient for road or commuter cyclists. It's a bit like motorists who choose to use the motorway to get from A to B rather than using the available stop start rural roads. Horses for courses. But we've been here many times before...

modsandmockers wrote: »

On MSE, cyclists (and public transport) have been awarded their own forum, but I think it would be more appropriate to create a forum called ‘Commuting by Road’.

As has already been said, the cycling forum was created because when it was lumped in with the transport sub forum it wasn't possible for cyclists to discuss cycling matters without some nutjob anti-cyclist derailing the thread by posting nonsense.

modsandmockers wrote: »

Touring cyclists, racing cyclists and family cyclists are in a completely different kettle of fish.

Of course they are. They are all cyclists though.

Norman_Castle

Tilt wrote: »

Just because I don't agree with you makes me "not a cyclist"? Well actually you are wrong, I used to be a cyclist, but one that abided by the rules.



Where is the argument? More to the point; how can there be an argument about the behaviour of the cyclists who rode across the crossing while the lights were showing, the barriers were dropping AND while being directed to stop by a police officer?

The point I am making is that these (apparently) are professional cyclists who demonstrated a total disregard for the law and more importantly their own safety. Would you call that responsible cycling then? Or do you reckon they need compulsory training?

Oh and it's not just me being critical... the train operator is demanding that the offending cyclists are prosecuted for their actions.

So you're a sanctimonious ex cyclist who likes to moan about cyclists on a forum populated by responsible cyclists who don't support or condone irresponsible cycling!. Unsurprisingly, this makes you as welcome as a turd in a swimming pool.

You are using the behavior of the racing cyclists, which nobody has condoned, as a back drop for another moan about cyclists who you like to believe and portray as generally irresponsible and reckless.

Tilt

esuhl wrote: »

And I used to be a driver. Oh, but one that abided by the rules. Good job I said that, otherwise you'd presumably assume I was a reckless, dangerous, criminal driver.

Nope.

esuhl wrote: »

Is there an argument about that? I must've missed it. Are you sure it isn't just going on inside your head?

I was referring to Norma Castle's comment about me "provoking arguments" which I wasn't as how could you "argue" about the actions of these "professional" cyclists. But you knew that.

esuhl wrote: »

What have professional cyclists got to do with cyclists in general?! And, don't you think that most professional cyclists have received more than enough training and experience to be able to cycle safely and legally?

One would assume that these guys would regard themselves as "professional" riders. And clearly some of them (those that crossed while the barriers were coming down and against the instructions of the police officer) do require additional training.

esuhl wrote: »

If training stopped people from doing whatever the hell they liked, we could simply increase the amount of training required to drive on the road and (with your magic spell), drivers would no longer drive as recklessly, aggressively and as carelessly as they do. But we both know the world doesn't work like that.

Yes we do. I pass cars parked on the zig zags of a pedestrian crossing outside a primary school almost every day while taking my son to school. Clearly either these drivers havn't got a clue what the zig zags mean or they just don't give a toss which, in my book, makes them both irresponsible and reckless.

esuhl wrote: »

And we both know that you lack the ability to present a logical argument and prefer to use fallacies to promote your distorted view of people based on the mode of transport they currently happen to be using.

Oh dear, and I was almost taking you seriously. Just because I highlight something which a group of "professional" cyclists have been captured doing on TV, means I havn't got the ability to present a logical argument?? As you said earlier: Is there an argument about that? If there was, I wasn't making it.

esuhl wrote: »

Sure, cyclists who behave recklessly and break traffic laws should be prosecuted. You're hardly a revolutionary for thinking that!

Phew! God forbid... I would of never lived it down!

esuhl wrote: »

But why focus on cyclists? They have a clear incentive not to put themselves in harms way. Motorists cause far more problems (and far more injuries). You'd be better off finding a forum where you can blabber on about motorists jumping red lights, speeding, overtaking dangerously, parking illegally and obstructing the highway, racing each other, etc., etc.

I don't just focus on cyclists... or other motorists for that matter. Just the irresponsible ones. But cyclists tend to get away with more violations than motorists do. For example who do you reckon is more likely to get stopped by the police for not having any lights on at night... cyclist or motorist?

esuhl wrote: »

Of course, again, we both know why you focus on cyclists. You have an inferiority problem and want to psychologically split people into arbitrary categories so that can feel superior based on your membership to one group. It's the same kind of tedious tribalism that racists, sexists and football hooligans subscribe to. It's a bit sad, really.

You know me so well

Tilt

Norman_Castle wrote: »

So you're a sanctimonious ex cyclist who likes to moan about cyclists on a forum populated by responsible cyclists who don't support or condone irresponsible cycling!. Unsurprisingly, this makes you as welcome as a turd in a swimming pool.

Really? I would of thought "cyclists who don't support or condone irresponsible cycling!" would agree with me then. After all wouldn't we singing from the same hymn sheet if we both thought that these guys were reckless for riding across a high speed rail crossing when the barriers were coming down? That was the point I was making, nothing more. But you turned into some kind of paranoid assumption that I was having a go at the members on here!

Norman_Castle wrote: »

You are using the behavior of the racing cyclists, which nobody has condoned, as a back drop for another moan about cyclists who you like to believe and portray as generally irresponsible and reckless.

No... again, just pointing out something currently in the news which gives cycling a bad press which I think is relevant in a cycling forum. I don't see why any responsible cyclist would have a problem with that. But hey ho, i'll leave you in your own little world then. :hello:

Tobster86

The cyclists that crossed clearly shouldn't have, but the event organisers want shooting. Common sense dictates that you don't set up a course that includes a possibility to gain a competitive advantage by risking getting run over by a train.

That aside, why is some sports footage even being compared to day-to-day road use?

This is absurd. It's like suggesting that rally drivers should set a good example of how to drive a passenger vehicle down narrow country lanes!

Tilt

Tobster86 wrote: »

The cyclists that crossed clearly shouldn't have, but the event organisers want shooting. Common sense dictates that you don't set up a course that includes a possibility to gain a competitive advantage by risking getting run over by a train.

That aside, why is some sports footage even being compared to day-to-day road use?

This is absurd. It's like suggesting that rally drivers should set a good example of how to drive a passenger vehicle down narrow country lanes!

Maybe because they are riding on a public road where normal rules apply?

Rally drivers tend to spend most of their race off road BUT occasionally have to drive on public roads and as such, adhere to the speed limits etc.

Johnmcl7

Tobster86 wrote: »

The cyclists that crossed clearly shouldn't have, but the event organisers want shooting. Common sense dictates that you don't set up a course that includes a possibility to gain a competitive advantage by risking getting run over by a train.

That aside, why is some sports footage even being compared to day-to-day road use?

This is absurd. It's like suggesting that rally drivers should set a good example of how to drive a passenger vehicle down narrow country lanes!

I guess it's simply because it's another chance to have a dig at cyclists, I agree I can't believe the event organisers allowed this to happen as part of a professional race.

If it had happened with a group of cyclists just out on the road I could fully understand the frequent references to it (it's not just on this forum people are using it as justification to have a go at cyclists) but as it is, there is no relevance to 'normal' cyclists.

John