60 Cyclists To Sue Edinburgh Council

Tilt · 1 February 2015 at 10:47PM

custardy wrote: »

Nope.I made a post about threads being posted against cyclists. You provided a perfectly innocent thread topic in motoring. had you posted a thread about motorists not being able to use their lights,then maybe a bit closer.

So what exactly do you want? You bang on about me complaining about cyclists when you think I don't do the same about motorists? I simply provided a link to a thread in which demonstrates that indeed I AM critical of incompetent motorists and other road users too, proving I am NOT prejudiced against cyclists. I was using the thread to back up my position, the fact that it was an "innocent thread" is surely of no consequence.

armyknife · 1 February 2015 at 11:58PM

The guys a troll, why else would four out of the last eight threads he's started be about badly behaving cyclists and three of those he posted in the motoring forum, not this sub-forum.

He's clearly fixated on this topic to an unhealthy degree, doesn't seem able to find something even slight more productive to do with his time.

He should try out a little thought experiment, imagine himself on his deathbed, mulling over what he's done with his life and have himself say "and another thing, I'm bloody proud of the untold hours I spent on the internet trolling cyclists, those were battles that need to be fought and won, both for my own self-esteem and to make a better world".

I can't understand why some of you are wasting your own time and energy trying to educate this troll and his little better wingman JohnO07.5; they're both a waste of human potential, why let them 'drag you down'?

DaveTheMus · 2 February 2015 at 12:02AM

brat wrote: »

Altarf will have found one example (albeit probably tongue in cheek) of cyclist extremism and is using that to vilify all cyclists.

It's the usual sous le pont strawman buffoonery.

:rotfl:

I hope this is tongue-in-cheek as well

custardy · 2 February 2015 at 8:22AM

Tilt wrote: »

So what exactly do you want? You bang on about me complaining about cyclists when you think I don't do the same about motorists? I simply provided a link to a thread in which demonstrates that indeed I AM critical of incompetent motorists and other road users too, proving I am NOT prejudiced against cyclists. I was using the thread to back up my position, the fact that it was an "innocent thread" is surely of no consequence.

but it is. The point is we don't have threads in the motoring boards talking about all motorists being drunk drivers,speeders,killers etc.
However the same premise is fine for describing cyclists.
Given the greater numbers,wouldn't this be expected?

brat · 2 February 2015 at 9:52AM

Tilt wrote: »

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.

I know you've "conceded" that point. That's progress. All we need is for you to recognise the imbalance in your predisposition to vilify cyclists, and the real reason for that imbalance. Then we might be getting somewhere.

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".

I don't have to see your clips to know what responsible cyclists think of the irresponsible ones. I don't have to look at your clips to be aware of examples of bad cycling. I had to run after a cyclist last night to give him a ticket for no front light after I nearly knocked him over. He nicked off down an alley once he realised I wanted him to stop. He said he didn't stop because he couldn't afford to pay a ticket.
The FACT that there are poor riders and drivers out there is not in dispute. What the cyclists here can't quite grasp is what you're trying to achieve by starting threads lambasting cyclists other than to further drive a wedge between the two groups, that can only be injurious to cyclists.

I also resent being accused of being prejudiced against cyclists because I am most certainly not.

Your earlier words convey your prejudice. That's your doing, not mine. Your imbalanced view is a constant strong reinforcement of that.
You even admit #1 #2that you have prejudices against some cyclists.

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:

No, not really. There is a strong implication in that paragraph that you as a motorist adopt a different driving attitude to cyclists that in your opinion behave responsibly, compared to those who cycle irresponsibly.
That's not good for a couple of reasons. You mustn't use your poor opinion of certain road users as a reason to be less tolerant of them on the road. Also, as we have seen, your and other's opinions of the poor quality of cycling is very often a subjective opinion, based largely on the "motorist's moral code", taking little or no account or understanding of the ability of the cyclist, or the consideration he is giving to avoiding the other road users.
So your behaviour towards cyclists may well depend on your subjective opinion of their riding ability.
We need to improve on that.

brat · 2 February 2015 at 11:48AM

Johno100 wrote: »

All this psychobabble, give it a rest,

It's important to understand why you have an irrational dislike for certain other groups. That applies not just between road user groups, but also between groups of different race, ethnicity, creed, football allegiances etc.

Johno100 wrote: »

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.

Okay, so far...

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.

If I stop a group of four youngsters in a flash car, it may well be because I want to know that they're legal in the car. I might be thinking that they don't look like they could afford such a car, or afford to be insured for it. That's profiling.
I don't have an opinion on them as individuals until I talk to them.

If I described them in an unfair or offensive way, without more knowledge of them as individuals, or make assumptions on their criminality without establishing facts, that would be pre-judging them, and that would mean I was prejudiced.

You criticise the attitudes and thoughts of groups of cyclists when you cannot possibly know what those individuals within that group think. You employ sarcasm and a belittling attitude to emphasise your opinion.
None of this is particularly annoying, because most cyclists are broad shouldered enough to laugh off or argue down such inanity, but it is evidence of prejudice.

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.

Perhaps you could evidence the "holier than thou" and "hypocrisy" allegations, because that just sounds weird to me.
I'm happy to have any debate about influencing road policy, but wouldn't it be better if done in the absence of bias, where you didn't evidence your prejudices, and where you resolved the (imo mistaken) belief that our "purpose" (if we had one) is a product of our holier than thou, hypocritical attitudes.

boatman · 2 February 2015 at 3:15PM

God this thread is such a load of twaddle. Cyclists have every right to seek compensation. The council have fitted the tracks, but not completed the job, still a lot of snagging to be done and more thought in certain areas. We all need to be able to get from A to B, regardless of what form of transport.

60 Cyclists To Sue Edinburgh Council

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free