Espirit de corps
View Full Version : Espirit de corps
Pages :
[
1]
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
A couple of the comments in the "Cycle Lanes" thread about what to say to other cyclists who seem to
be being stupid has got me wondering.
Just how much espirit de corps should cyclists exhibit toward each other? I speak as someone who
doesn't go through red lights, never rides on pavements, avoids going the wrong down one-way
streets, generally stops on or near the front white line at junctions, always uses lights (often
when it's not dark) and has much reflective tape, clothing and equipment.
I consider my riding fast and assertive - while not a roadie, I do ride a decent road bike and am
faster than 95% of the other cyclists I seem to come across on my daily commutes.
When I say assertive, many might have it as aggressive, I'm happy to point out, very vocally and
demonstrably, when a motorist does me wrong
- and even sometimes when it's not so clear cut. ;)
But is it suitable to point out things to other cyclists?
The fact that I don't go through red lights doesn't mean that at some junctions I can't admit that
it's not actually unsafe to do so and if it means that a slower cyclist can save a bit of time, am I
churlish to throw a few words at them as I pass them a bit down the after I have waited for the
lights to change?
It's unfair, but many motorists do tar all cyclists with the same brush and I do feel that people
see the wrong-doers and ignore those who don't break the rules - but treat everyone as if they had.
So while most cyclists don't break the rules, we're all assumed to be habitual red-light-runners who
cycle around with no light and a flagrant disregard for all traffic laws. I get the impression that
pointing these things out to other cyclists is letting the side down - is that fair?
chris harrison wrote:
> So while most cyclists don't break the rules, we're all assumed to be habitual red-light-runners
> who cycle around with no light and a flagrant disregard for all traffic laws. I get the impression
> that pointing these things out to other cyclists is letting the side down
> - is that fair?
I don't break many rules whilst cycling and I hate it when I see riders who
do. I would like to put them right but its not my job to police the highway and they may turn around
an come after me. I agree that their actions gets us all a bad name but it is they who are
letting us down. I think the best I can do is try to set an example. I usually ride alone and
when I have been in groups it always amzes me the inconsideration some riders have. The lead
riders will whiz through lights but not look back to see if anyone got left as the lights
changed to amber. Next lights the riders at the back decide not to get left behind and proceeds
not matter what. No wonder some cyclists have crashes.
--
The Reply & From email addresses are checked rarely. http://www.mseries.freeserve.co.uk (http://www.mseries.freeserve.co.uk/)
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, chris harrison wrote:
> When I say assertive, many might have it as aggressive, I'm happy to point out, very vocally and
> demonstrably, when a motorist does me wrong
> - and even sometimes when it's not so clear cut. ;)
I thought "assertive" cycling was more about adopting a sensible road position and cooperating with
other road users on equal terms. ;-)
--
Daniel Auger - dja25@granta.cam.ac.uk (Please remove Granta to get a valid address.)
>I speak as someone who doesn't go through red lights, never rides on pavements, avoids going the
>wrong down one-way streets, generally stops on or near the front white line at junctions, always
>uses lights (often when it's not dark) and has much reflective tape, clothing and equipment.
Are we related? ;-)
>When I say assertive, many might have it as aggressive, I'm happy to point out, very vocally and
>demonstrably, when a motorist does me wrong
>- and even sometimes when it's not so clear cut. ;)
Ye gods, we are related ;-) But I wouldn't describe assertive cycling as being aggressive. Riding
assertively is riding safely.
>But is it suitable to point out things to other cyclists?
I have done.
Cheers, helen s
--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam-- to get correct one remove dependency on fame &
fortune h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**s@$*$a$$o**l.c**$*$om$$
chris harrison wrote:
> So while most cyclists don't break the rules, we're all assumed to be habitual red-light-runners
> who cycle around with no light and a flagrant disregard for all traffic laws. I get the impression
> that pointing these things out to other cyclists is letting the side down
> - is that fair?
I don't break many rules whilst cycling and I hate it when I see riders who
do. I would like to put them right but its not my job to police the highway and they may turn around
an come after me. I agree that their actions gets us all a bad name but it is they who are
letting us down. I think the best I can do is try to set an example. I usually ride alone and
when I have been in groups it always amzes me the inconsideration some riders have. The lead
riders will whiz through lights but not look back to see if anyone got left as the lights
changed to amber. Next lights the riders at the back decide not to get left behind and proceeds
not matter what. No wonder some cyclists have crashes.
--
The Reply & From email addresses are checked rarely. http://www.mseries.freeserve.co.uk (http://www.mseries.freeserve.co.uk/)
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, chris harrison wrote:
> When I say assertive, many might have it as aggressive, I'm happy to point out, very vocally and
> demonstrably, when a motorist does me wrong
> - and even sometimes when it's not so clear cut. ;)
I thought "assertive" cycling was more about adopting a sensible road position and cooperating with
other road users on equal terms. ;-)
--
Daniel Auger - dja25@granta.cam.ac.uk (Please remove Granta to get a valid address.)
>I speak as someone who doesn't go through red lights, never rides on pavements, avoids going the
>wrong down one-way streets, generally stops on or near the front white line at junctions, always
>uses lights (often when it's not dark) and has much reflective tape, clothing and equipment.
Are we related? ;-)
>When I say assertive, many might have it as aggressive, I'm happy to point out, very vocally and
>demonstrably, when a motorist does me wrong
>- and even sometimes when it's not so clear cut. ;)
Ye gods, we are related ;-) But I wouldn't describe assertive cycling as being aggressive. Riding
assertively is riding safely.
>But is it suitable to point out things to other cyclists?
I have done.
Cheers, helen s
--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam-- to get correct one remove dependency on fame &
fortune h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**s@$*$a$$o**l.c**$*$om$$
chris harrison wrote:
> So while most cyclists don't break the rules, we're all assumed to be habitual red-light-runners
> who cycle around with no light and a flagrant disregard for all traffic laws. I get the impression
> that pointing these things out to other cyclists is letting the side down
> - is that fair?
I don't break many rules whilst cycling and I hate it when I see riders who
do. I would like to put them right but its not my job to police the highway and they may turn around
an come after me. I agree that their actions gets us all a bad name but it is they who are
letting us down. I think the best I can do is try to set an example. I usually ride alone and
when I have been in groups it always amzes me the inconsideration some riders have. The lead
riders will whiz through lights but not look back to see if anyone got left as the lights
changed to amber. Next lights the riders at the back decide not to get left behind and proceeds
not matter what. No wonder some cyclists have crashes.
--
The Reply & From email addresses are checked rarely. http://www.mseries.freeserve.co.uk (http://www.mseries.freeserve.co.uk/)
chris harrison wrote:
> The fact that I don't go through red lights doesn't mean that at some junctions I can't admit that
> it's not actually unsafe to do so and if it means that a slower cyclist can save a bit of time, am
> I churlish to throw a few words at them as I pass them a bit down the after I have waited for the
> lights to change?
I think so yes, if they are not actually causing danger or inconvenience to anyone that is.
> It's unfair, but many motorists do tar all cyclists with the same brush and I do feel that
> people see the wrong-doers and ignore those who don't break the rules - but treat everyone as if
> they had.
People like to have a moan and pick on cyclists: the easy targets. (Sadly the moaners include some
other cyclists). They know not every cyclist is a wrong-doer, really. Afterall, they notice you
perfectly well when you're stopped at a pedestrian crossing in the middle of nowhere with no
pedestrians about.
I think you can be satisfied with setting a "good" example yourself. I don't think you'll convert
many "bad" cyclists by telling them off - whom in many cases aren't causing any trouble but are
merely breaking rules, that while applying to cyclists in law, were actually designed for motorists.
Exceptions might be having a go at those who really have caused trouble or educating children who
genuienly don't seem to have a clue about their own safety.
> So while most cyclists don't break the rules, we're all assumed to be habitual red-light-runners
> who cycle around with no light and a flagrant disregard for all traffic laws. I get the impression
> that pointing these things out to other cyclists is letting the side down
> - is that fair?
I don't think it does any good - including to one's own blood pressure.
~PB
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, chris harrison wrote:
> When I say assertive, many might have it as aggressive, I'm happy to point out, very vocally and
> demonstrably, when a motorist does me wrong
> - and even sometimes when it's not so clear cut. ;)
I thought "assertive" cycling was more about adopting a sensible road position and cooperating with
other road users on equal terms. ;-)
--
Daniel Auger - dja25@granta.cam.ac.uk (Please remove Granta to get a valid address.)
>I speak as someone who doesn't go through red lights, never rides on pavements, avoids going the
>wrong down one-way streets, generally stops on or near the front white line at junctions, always
>uses lights (often when it's not dark) and has much reflective tape, clothing and equipment.
Are we related? ;-)
>When I say assertive, many might have it as aggressive, I'm happy to point out, very vocally and
>demonstrably, when a motorist does me wrong
>- and even sometimes when it's not so clear cut. ;)
Ye gods, we are related ;-) But I wouldn't describe assertive cycling as being aggressive. Riding
assertively is riding safely.
>But is it suitable to point out things to other cyclists?
I have done.
Cheers, helen s
--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam-- to get correct one remove dependency on fame &
fortune h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**s@$*$a$$o**l.c**$*$om$$
chris harrison wrote:
> The fact that I don't go through red lights doesn't mean that at some junctions I can't admit that
> it's not actually unsafe to do so and if it means that a slower cyclist can save a bit of time, am
> I churlish to throw a few words at them as I pass them a bit down the after I have waited for the
> lights to change?
I think so yes, if they are not actually causing danger or inconvenience to anyone that is.
> It's unfair, but many motorists do tar all cyclists with the same brush and I do feel that
> people see the wrong-doers and ignore those who don't break the rules - but treat everyone as if
> they had.
People like to have a moan and pick on cyclists: the easy targets. (Sadly the moaners include some
other cyclists). They know not every cyclist is a wrong-doer, really. Afterall, they notice you
perfectly well when you're stopped at a pedestrian crossing in the middle of nowhere with no
pedestrians about.
I think you can be satisfied with setting a "good" example yourself. I don't think you'll convert
many "bad" cyclists by telling them off - whom in many cases aren't causing any trouble but are
merely breaking rules, that while applying to cyclists in law, were actually designed for motorists.
Exceptions might be having a go at those who really have caused trouble or educating children who
genuienly don't seem to have a clue about their own safety.
> So while most cyclists don't break the rules, we're all assumed to be habitual red-light-runners
> who cycle around with no light and a flagrant disregard for all traffic laws. I get the impression
> that pointing these things out to other cyclists is letting the side down
> - is that fair?
I don't think it does any good - including to one's own blood pressure.
~PB
> When I say assertive, many might have it as aggressive, I'm happy to point out, very vocally and
> demonstrably, when a motorist does me wrong
> - and even sometimes when it's not so clear cut. ;)
Unfortunately you are aggressive. Aggression is better than stupidity tho, so don't feel too bad
about shouting at the idiots.
> But is it suitable to point out things to other cyclists?
>
> The fact that I don't go through red lights doesn't mean that at some junctions I can't admit that
> it's not actually unsafe to do so and if it means that a slower cyclist can save a bit of time, am
> I churlish to throw a few words at them as I pass them a bit down the after I have waited for the
> lights to change?
Yes you are. What you are meant to do is burn past them grinning a smug grin in the knowledge that
you don't need to cheat!
> So while most cyclists don't break the rules, we're all assumed to be habitual red-light-runners
> who cycle around with no light and a flagrant disregard for all traffic laws. I get the impression
> that pointing these things out to other cyclists is letting the side down - is that fair?
It's not that it's unfair, it's just that it's easier for the yob on the cycle to take a swing at
you than it is for someone in their tin box. Also, the cyclist hasn't just tried to run you down! I
set an example when I jump red lights by dismounting and walking past 'em, then remounting the other
side. Makes a nice balance between speed and the law, and /really/ annoys the car drivers - I've got
ahead of 'em without cheating!
chris harrison <news@lowfield.com> wrote:
> Just how much espirit de corps should cyclists exhibit toward each other? I speak as someone who
> doesn't go through red lights, never rides on pavements, avoids going the wrong down one-way
> streets, generally stops on or near the front white line at junctions, always uses lights (often
> when it's not dark) and has much reflective tape, clothing and equipment.
IMHO there is an unjustifiable "us and them" attitude in this group and it's (probably) similar in
uk.tosspot, in which in this group (drivers == bad) and (cyclists == good) and if there is any
description of an altercation it's generally accepted that (cyclist == in the right) and (driver ==
in the wrong) because after all cyclists are vulnerable road users and so have a right to be
specially protected by motorists.
Often it is justified, but equally often it isn't. Cyclists are indeed vulnerable road users and
motorisits have a duty of care towards them as they do towards all other road users, but no more so
than they do towards any other road user. Motorists don't deliberately target cyclists, irrespective
of the stories that are often told here - those same stupid motorists who star in anecdotes in here
will be acting just as aggressively towards all other road users. As far as I can see, there is as
much aggressive thought and behaviour towards motorists by cyclists (and indeed towards other
cyclists) as the other way round. The difference is that a motorist in a ton of car is scarier in
all ways to a cyclist than a cyclist on a flimsy bike is towards a motorist. Neither forms of
aggression are in any way acceptable, though.
If I'm honest, I probably see more examples of stupid cyclist behaviour as a percentage of cyclists
seen than I do driver stupidity. Cycling stupidity is generally the most stupid, because the person
who is most likely to be injured by it is the cyclist - how stupid is that, to deliberately enhance
your own chances of being injured? It's stupider than stupidity shown by a car driver, who is far
more likely to injure others rather than himself - note that I am not equating "less stupid" with
"morally more acceptable" though, because of course it's far more acceptable in a moral sense to
increase your own risk though your own stupidity than to increase someone else's risk through your
own stupidity.
So, no, I don't think that being a cyclist engenders in itself any particular esprit de corps with
other cyclists. I have many things in common with many other cyclists, but then there are
intersections of commonality as a cyclist with many motorists, and as a motorist with many cyclists,
etc ad infinitum. I probably have a lot in common with many football supporters, too, although I've
only ever watched half a dozen games on the TV in my life! As an Australian living in England, I
even have something in common with the English Rugby team, but it's slipped my mind what? Oh yeah,
that's right, I live here :-)
Trev
> When I say assertive, many might have it as aggressive, I'm happy to point out, very vocally and
> demonstrably, when a motorist does me wrong
> - and even sometimes when it's not so clear cut. ;)
Unfortunately you are aggressive. Aggression is better than stupidity tho, so don't feel too bad
about shouting at the idiots.
> But is it suitable to point out things to other cyclists?
>
> The fact that I don't go through red lights doesn't mean that at some junctions I can't admit that
> it's not actually unsafe to do so and if it means that a slower cyclist can save a bit of time, am
> I churlish to throw a few words at them as I pass them a bit down the after I have waited for the
> lights to change?
Yes you are. What you are meant to do is burn past them grinning a smug grin in the knowledge that
you don't need to cheat!
> So while most cyclists don't break the rules, we're all assumed to be habitual red-light-runners
> who cycle around with no light and a flagrant disregard for all traffic laws. I get the impression
> that pointing these things out to other cyclists is letting the side down - is that fair?
It's not that it's unfair, it's just that it's easier for the yob on the cycle to take a swing at
you than it is for someone in their tin box. Also, the cyclist hasn't just tried to run you down! I
set an example when I jump red lights by dismounting and walking past 'em, then remounting the other
side. Makes a nice balance between speed and the law, and /really/ annoys the car drivers - I've got
ahead of 'em without cheating!
chris harrison wrote:
> The fact that I don't go through red lights doesn't mean that at some junctions I can't admit that
> it's not actually unsafe to do so and if it means that a slower cyclist can save a bit of time, am
> I churlish to throw a few words at them as I pass them a bit down the after I have waited for the
> lights to change?
I think so yes, if they are not actually causing danger or inconvenience to anyone that is.
> It's unfair, but many motorists do tar all cyclists with the same brush and I do feel that
> people see the wrong-doers and ignore those who don't break the rules - but treat everyone as if
> they had.
People like to have a moan and pick on cyclists: the easy targets. (Sadly the moaners include some
other cyclists). They know not every cyclist is a wrong-doer, really. Afterall, they notice you
perfectly well when you're stopped at a pedestrian crossing in the middle of nowhere with no
pedestrians about.
I think you can be satisfied with setting a "good" example yourself. I don't think you'll convert
many "bad" cyclists by telling them off - whom in many cases aren't causing any trouble but are
merely breaking rules, that while applying to cyclists in law, were actually designed for motorists.
Exceptions might be having a go at those who really have caused trouble or educating children who
genuienly don't seem to have a clue about their own safety.
> So while most cyclists don't break the rules, we're all assumed to be habitual red-light-runners
> who cycle around with no light and a flagrant disregard for all traffic laws. I get the impression
> that pointing these things out to other cyclists is letting the side down
> - is that fair?
I don't think it does any good - including to one's own blood pressure.
~PB
chris harrison <news@lowfield.com> wrote:
> Just how much espirit de corps should cyclists exhibit toward each other? I speak as someone who
> doesn't go through red lights, never rides on pavements, avoids going the wrong down one-way
> streets, generally stops on or near the front white line at junctions, always uses lights (often
> when it's not dark) and has much reflective tape, clothing and equipment.
IMHO there is an unjustifiable "us and them" attitude in this group and it's (probably) similar in
uk.tosspot, in which in this group (drivers == bad) and (cyclists == good) and if there is any
description of an altercation it's generally accepted that (cyclist == in the right) and (driver ==
in the wrong) because after all cyclists are vulnerable road users and so have a right to be
specially protected by motorists.
Often it is justified, but equally often it isn't. Cyclists are indeed vulnerable road users and
motorisits have a duty of care towards them as they do towards all other road users, but no more so
than they do towards any other road user. Motorists don't deliberately target cyclists, irrespective
of the stories that are often told here - those same stupid motorists who star in anecdotes in here
will be acting just as aggressively towards all other road users. As far as I can see, there is as
much aggressive thought and behaviour towards motorists by cyclists (and indeed towards other
cyclists) as the other way round. The difference is that a motorist in a ton of car is scarier in
all ways to a cyclist than a cyclist on a flimsy bike is towards a motorist. Neither forms of
aggression are in any way acceptable, though.
If I'm honest, I probably see more examples of stupid cyclist behaviour as a percentage of cyclists
seen than I do driver stupidity. Cycling stupidity is generally the most stupid, because the person
who is most likely to be injured by it is the cyclist - how stupid is that, to deliberately enhance
your own chances of being injured? It's stupider than stupidity shown by a car driver, who is far
more likely to injure others rather than himself - note that I am not equating "less stupid" with
"morally more acceptable" though, because of course it's far more acceptable in a moral sense to
increase your own risk though your own stupidity than to increase someone else's risk through your
own stupidity.
So, no, I don't think that being a cyclist engenders in itself any particular esprit de corps with
other cyclists. I have many things in common with many other cyclists, but then there are
intersections of commonality as a cyclist with many motorists, and as a motorist with many cyclists,
etc ad infinitum. I probably have a lot in common with many football supporters, too, although I've
only ever watched half a dozen games on the TV in my life! As an Australian living in England, I
even have something in common with the English Rugby team, but it's slipped my mind what? Oh yeah,
that's right, I live here :-)
Trev
chris harrison wrote:
> Just how much espirit de corps should cyclists exhibit toward each other?
A cheery wave to all law-abiding types going the other way, a victory salute to all we pass (with a
blast on the Air Zound if they are roadies and we are riding a commuter bike at the time!), and "Oi!
Mate! Get some lights!" to the stealth brigade.
--
Guy
===
WARNING: May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk (http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/)
> It's unfair, but many motorists do tar all cyclists with the same brush and I do feel that
> people see the wrong-doers and ignore those who don't break the rules - but treat everyone as if
> they had.
I get the impression that pointing these
> things out to other cyclists is letting the side down - is that fair?
I fit your description of your own cycling, and I just do not usually acknowledge the pavement or
stealth brigade. While I would like to give them the benefit of my assessment of their poor
judgement I am afraid that to do so volubly is seen as weirdly aggressive. And there are so many of
them, you'd shout yourself hoarse. TerryJ
> When I say assertive, many might have it as aggressive, I'm happy to point out, very vocally and
> demonstrably, when a motorist does me wrong
> - and even sometimes when it's not so clear cut. ;)
Unfortunately you are aggressive. Aggression is better than stupidity tho, so don't feel too bad
about shouting at the idiots.
> But is it suitable to point out things to other cyclists?
>
> The fact that I don't go through red lights doesn't mean that at some junctions I can't admit that
> it's not actually unsafe to do so and if it means that a slower cyclist can save a bit of time, am
> I churlish to throw a few words at them as I pass them a bit down the after I have waited for the
> lights to change?
Yes you are. What you are meant to do is burn past them grinning a smug grin in the knowledge that
you don't need to cheat!
> So while most cyclists don't break the rules, we're all assumed to be habitual red-light-runners
> who cycle around with no light and a flagrant disregard for all traffic laws. I get the impression
> that pointing these things out to other cyclists is letting the side down - is that fair?
It's not that it's unfair, it's just that it's easier for the yob on the cycle to take a swing at
you than it is for someone in their tin box. Also, the cyclist hasn't just tried to run you down! I
set an example when I jump red lights by dismounting and walking past 'em, then remounting the other
side. Makes a nice balance between speed and the law, and /really/ annoys the car drivers - I've got
ahead of 'em without cheating!
Automatic Translations (Powered by
):
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
