Another anti-cycling letter in a local newspaper

Wouldnt it be a shame if somebody looked on Info disk and came up with this guys full address and we
got to know what number house he lived at and WE ALL wrote him a letter ........wonder if that would
pee him off slighty

mine in the post later

cheeeeerz

"Peter Connolly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.comOpen ↗

...tolerance to all road users, eh?

I'm waiting to see what the local cycling groups response is.

Regards,

Pete.

--

---------------------------
Peter Connolly Acute Computing Derby UK

"Peter Connolly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.comOpen ↗

...tolerance to all road users, eh?

I'm waiting to see what the local cycling groups response is.

Not exactly "anti-cycling", as there are still too many cyclists who ignore red lights and cycle on
pavements!

Peter Connolly wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

tolerance to all road users, eh?

(a) The letter is true
(b) It's not anti-cycling in general.

In article <[email hidden]>, Adrian Boliston
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

"Peter Connolly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.comOpen ↗

...tolerance to all road users, eh?

I'm waiting to see what the local cycling groups response is.

Not exactly "anti-cycling", as there are still too many cyclists who ignore red lights and cycle on
pavements!

It's definitely anti-cyclist, and contains an implied threat - "So come on you arrogant cyclists -
obey the laws of the road or you will be sorry."

--
Roger Barker [email hidden] Boston, UK

Roger Barker must be edykated coz e writed:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Adrian Boliston
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

"Peter Connolly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.comOpen ↗

...tolerance to all road users, eh?

I'm waiting to see what the local cycling groups response is.

Not exactly "anti-cycling", as there are still too many cyclists who ignore red lights and cycle
on pavements!

It's definitely anti-cyclist, and contains an implied threat - "So come on you arrogant cyclists -
obey the laws of the road or you will be sorry."

Bloody cyclists! String the [censored] up.

--
Ian

Roger Barker said:

It's definitely anti-cyclist, and contains an implied threat - "So come on you arrogant cyclists -
obey the laws of the road or you will be sorry."

The start implies (though does not actually state) that cyclists (as in general) "think that road
laws and courtesy are not for them", and this I find annoyingly sweeping into stereotypical pots.

Howvwer, the sentence you quote above doesn't really bother me at all: IMHO arrogant cyclists in
particular (as opposed to cyclists in general) *should* get with the programme and respect the rules
of the road. Aside from anything else it stops me getting tarred with their rather grotty brush.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Davo <[email hidden]> wrote:
: Wouldnt it be a shame if somebody looked on Info disk and came up with this guys full address and
: we got to know what number house he lived at and WE ALL wrote him a letter ........wonder if that
: would pee him off slighty

Yes, it would be a shame. Actions like that don't help anyone.

Arthur

In article <[email hidden]>, Peter Clinch
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Roger Barker said:

It's definitely anti-cyclist, and contains an implied threat - "So come on you arrogant cyclists
- obey the laws of the road or you will be sorry."

The start implies (though does not actually state) that cyclists (as in general) "think that road
laws and courtesy are not for them", and this I find annoyingly sweeping into stereotypical pots.

Howvwer, the sentence you quote above doesn't really bother me at all: IMHO arrogant cyclists
in particular (as opposed to cyclists in general) *should* get with the programme and respect
the rules of the road. Aside from anything else it stops me getting tarred with their rather
grotty brush.

Mm... Well I read it as "arrogant cyclists" being a generic classification...

--
Roger Barker [email hidden] Boston, UK

"Steve" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter Connolly wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

tolerance to all road users, eh?

(a) The letter is true

No its not. Use of "they" to mean all cyclists. Presumably as you are here, you are a cyclist.

Do you think that courtesy is not for you? If so, [censored].

"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Howvwer, the sentence you quote above doesn't really bother me at all: IMHO arrogant cyclists
in particular (as opposed to cyclists in general) *should* get with the programme and respect
the rules of the road. Aside from anything else it stops me getting tarred with their rather
grotty brush.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells
Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Hear hear!

Ian said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Not exactly "anti-cycling", as there are still too many cyclists who ignore red lights and
cycle on pavements!

It's definitely anti-cyclist, and contains an implied threat - "So come on you arrogant cyclists
- obey the laws of the road or you will be sorry."

Bloody cyclists! String the [censored] up.

CUT THEIR GOOLIES OFF!

Oops wrong thread! :-(

--
Marc Stickers,decals,membership,cards, T shirts, signs etc for clubs and associations of all types.
jaceeprint.demon.co.ukjaceeprint.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

Peter Clinch said:

Roger Barker said:

It's definitely anti-cyclist, and contains an implied threat - "So come on you arrogant cyclists
- obey the laws of the road or you will be sorry."

The start implies (though does not actually state) that cyclists (as in general) "think that road
laws and courtesy are not for them", and this I find annoyingly sweeping into stereotypical pots.

Howvwer, the sentence you quote above doesn't really bother me at all: IMHO arrogant cyclists
in particular (as opposed to cyclists in general) *should* get with the programme and respect
the rules of the road. Aside from anything else it stops me getting tarred with their rather
grotty brush.

I would say everyone breaks the law on the road every time they go out - cyclist and motorists
alike. Not signaling, going through reds, driving over the speed limit. It's just that on bikes we
have the option (and can get away with things easier) which annoys a lot of motorists who have spent
lots of money on their precious cars and feel hard done by with supposedly high fuel charges, road
tax, insurance etc. They therefore don't like to see anyone going faster than themselves and if that
means hopping up on to a pavement or going through a red they get even more angry. Of course even
just getting in their way cycling legally also makes them feel like this. I'm also generalising of
course and those that are actually annoyed by cyclists is very few and those that are dangerous to
cyslists probably also ingnore red lights and other cars and are dangerous to pedestrians and other
motorists alike. Those that can be bothered to pick up a pen and paper and write in to their local
papers have nothing better to do than moan about most things I would have thought and that same
bloke would be just as likely to write in complaining about immigration or the ban on fox-hunting.
Personally I see nothing wrong with riding on the pavement or going through a red as long as I'm not
putting myself or others at risk or inconvenience (which I see daily)

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Stephen \

Personally I see nothing wrong with riding on the pavement or going through a red as long as I'm not
putting myself or others at risk or inconvenience (which I see daily)

I do, I think is it appalling behaviour just like when a car mounts the pavement or uses the hardshoulder of a motorway to gain an advantage in a queue. For the records I am a cyclist and a motorist.

Stephen (aka steford) said:

I would say everyone breaks the law on the road every time they go out - cyclist and motorists
alike. Not signaling, going through reds, driving over the speed limit. It's just that on bikes we
have the option (and can get away with things easier) which annoys a lot of motorists

<snip>

Probably quite a bit of truth in this, but whatever the levels of hypocrisy involved it isn't a Good
Thing to be on the receiving end of bad press from a bigger more powerful group of people (and if
you don't accept there are more regular drivers than regular cyclists and that the motoring lobby is
more effective than the cycling one I'd say you're kidding yourself).

Quoted message said:

Personally I see nothing wrong with riding on the pavement or going through a red as long as I'm
not putting myself or others at risk or inconvenience

If anyone sees you doing this and gets to mutter "bloody cyclists, think the rules don't apply to
them, yada yada" then that's contributing to bad press which ultimately *does* inconvenience anyone
on a bike because the level of respect for cycling at large will be decreased. Whether or not we
*want* to be, we are ambassadors for cycling at large because bikes are still unusual enough for one
cyclist to be taken as representative. Dumb, but I think true.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Personally I see nothing wrong with riding on the pavement or going through a red as long as I'm
not putting myself or others at risk or inconvenience (which I see daily)

Understandable, but I think, misguided. Many of those of the PSmith tendency at uk.tincans (or
whatever it called) "see nothing wrong with" speeding and don't think their actions "put themselves
or others at risk".

IMHO, if we want cyclists to be treated as equal, first class, road users then we have to be whiter
than white in our behaviour; obey all the laws we expect other road users to obey; and go out of
our way to be courteous. If we manage that then we have reasonable grounds to complain about those
that don't.

Peter

On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 10:01:54 GMT someone who may be "Steve" <[email hidden]>
wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Peter Connolly wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

tolerance to all road users, eh?

(a) The letter is true

Let's see:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I Am drawn to write about the conduct of cyclists on the roads.

The writer doesn't qualify this, so is referring to all cyclists.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They ignore things like pedestrian crossings.

That is not true.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They think that road laws and courtesy are not for them.

Neither is that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They expect to be treated with kid gloves,

Neither is that.

Had the writer been referring to some cyclists then all the statements would be true, bit the writer
is referring to all cyclists and so none of the statements are true.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

yet they are ignorant.

Of what?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Other road users show courtesy to cyclists,

That is not true, for the same reason as above. Had the author said that some other road users show
courtesy to cyclists then that would be true.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So come on you arrogant cyclists - obey the laws of the road or you will be sorry.

Is a threat, possibly implying violence.

Quoted message said:

(b) It's not anti-cycling in general.

Had it been worded differently it would not have been anti-cycling. As it is it suggests that all
cyclists are the same.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

W K wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

No its not. Use of "they" to mean all cyclists.

The same as when people on this newsgroup refer to all motorists as "cagers" or whatever endearing
term they wish to use.

Quoted message said:

Presumably as you are here, you are a cyclist.

Not exclusively, also Motorcyclist and Car Driver (in about equal proprtions time-wise).

Quoted message said:

Do you think that courtesy is not for you?

Sure is, I try to be courteous whatever "mode" I'm in, but even when I'm cycling I get so [censored]
at other cyclists abusing their privileges and riding arrogantly, especially as often happens
forcing their way through zebra-crossings between people who are actually crossing and through
general pedestrian areas.

Quoted message said:

If so, [censored].

Typical arrogant response expected from a "Cyclist".

"Stephen \(aka steford\)" <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

Peter Clinch said:

Roger Barker said:

It's definitely anti-cyclist, and contains an implied threat - "So come on you arrogant
cyclists - obey the laws of the road or you will be sorry."

The start implies (though does not actually state) that cyclists (as in general) "think that
road laws and courtesy are not for them", and this I find annoyingly sweeping into
stereotypical pots.

Howvwer, the sentence you quote above doesn't really bother me at all: IMHO arrogant cyclists in
particular (as opposed to cyclists in general) *should* get with the programme and respect the
rules of the road. Aside from anything else it stops me getting tarred with their rather grotty
brush.

Quoted message said:

I would say everyone breaks the law on the road every time they go out - cyclist and
motorists alike.

I would say you are wrong there. NOT everyone breaks the law.

Quoted message said:

Not signaling,

This is NOT a legal requirement.

Quoted message said:

going through reds, driving over the speed limit.

No, cyclists and motorists do not necssarily infringe.

Quoted message said:

It's just that on bikes we have the option (and can get away with things easier)

This lack of enforcement serves to degrade the image of cyclists who obey the law. Much of the time,
I get the impression that the Plod could

harrassment, pavement cycling or even crashes.

Quoted message said:

which annoys a lot of motorists who have spent lots of money on their precious cars and feel hard
done by with supposedly high fuel charges, road tax, insurance etc. They therefore don't like to
see anyone going faster than themselves

I think that's true. Its called envy.

Quoted message said:

and if that means hopping up on to a pavement or going through a red they get even more angry.

But then the indignation is righteous.

Quoted message said:

Of course even just getting in their way cycling legally also makes them feel like this. I'm also
generalising of course and those that are actually annoyed by cyclists is very few and those that
are dangerous to cyslists probably also ingnore red lights and other cars and are dangerous to
pedestrians and other motorists alike. Those that can be bothered to pick up a pen and paper and
write in to their local papers have nothing better to do than moan about most things I would have
thought and that same bloke would be just as likely to write in complaining about immigration or
the ban on fox-hunting.

You're probably right here, if my local paper is anything to go by.

Quoted message said:

Personally I see nothing wrong with riding on the pavement

I do. I have MS and am very unsteady on my feet. Cycling can really baulk me. DON'T RIDE ON THE
PAVEMENT, PLEASE! STAY ON THE ROAD!

Quoted message said:

or going through a red as long as I'm not putting myself or others at risk or inconvenience (which
I see daily)

You can't always see all the risks. Being seen going through red lights just reduces the low respect
Joe Public has for cyclists and encourages him to tar us all with the same brush. If you want
respect, you must act respectably. Otherwise, we'll all suffer.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden] Edgware.

"Stephen (aka steford)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter Clinch said:

Roger Barker wrote:

Quoted message said:

Personally I see nothing wrong with riding on the pavement or going

through

Quoted message said:

a red as long as I'm not putting myself or others at risk or inconvenience (which I see daily)

What is your view of a motorist driving up to a pelican crossing that turns red but there is
no-0ne in sight?

Is it legitimate for him to sail through the red light?

pk