UK and Europe · Public discussion

A lycra lout's psyche

Started by Kinetic · · Last activity · 21 posts · 794 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
7 December 2005
Last activity
15 January 2006
Original author
Kinetic
Posts
21
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
794
Views / 30 days
9

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 21
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. So what kind of people are all those lycra louts? Were you ever one
    yourself?
    Have ever fallen prey to the following ways of thinking:

    1. If society treats me like a criminal, then I shall become one.

    2. Motorists treat me like scum, therefore motorists deserve to be
    treated likewise.

    3. The road is a jungle anyway, so sod it.

    4. If I break a traffic law (and the action does not involve
    pedestrians) I'm only putting myself into danger, not others, and I
    only have myself to blame, not others. It's a private decision.
    Therefore I have a moral right to break a traffic law when I decide it
    is fit to do so.

    5. If all those idiots causing the traffic jam were using bikes instead
    of a cars they wouldn't be holding me up. I'm on a bike and not holding
    anyone up. Therefore I have the right to squeeze through the gaps at
    high velocity.

    6. Cycling on the pavement is bad, but it is ultimately the motorists'
    fault, not mine, since it is they who are bullying me off the road.

    7. Bicycles and cars are such fundamentally different vehicles that
    different rules should apply to cyclists and motorists. Red lights
    should mean give way signs for cyclists and cycling against a one way
    street should be legal by default (after all there is still enough
    space for cars to squeeze past).

    8. Stopping at a red light and accelerating again demands high physical
    exertion. It means losing all that valuable momentum! Engine-powered
    vehicles don't experience this problem. Therefore, I have the right to
    go over a red pelican crossing once all the pedestrians have cleared.

    9. I forgot to charge my batteries, but if as long as I watch out I'll
    be ok without lights.

    10. When going over a roundabout I aways take the right lane. I'd
    rather cut others than be cut.

    11. If I indicate a right turn using a hand signal, I'll no doubt be
    undertaken aggresively from the left, and be pushed against a oncoming
    bus. Better to dispense with hand signals alltogether and confuse
    drivers behind me with wobbling instead.

  2. Kinetic said:

    a lot of [censored]...

    And the question should be why do even care how other folks ride?
    Surprisenly there are [censored] in all walks of life and I manage not
    to feel responsible for their actions when they occur within a
    hobbie/sport/activity I do. So when I see someone get cut up by a car
    in traffic I assume an [censored] in a car and not all drivers are
    [censored].When another surfer bashes into a people swimming in the
    surf, I don't feel the need to run and apologise on behalf of all
    surfers.

    So in answer to your questions, no I never feel I have the RIGHT to do
    any of the things listed, but sometimes I just don't give a f$%k. So if
    you catch hopping the curb can assume at that moment in time I'm acting
    the [censored] and you're opinion of my actions is worthless to me.

    Laters,

    Marz

  3. Kinetic said:

    So what kind of people are all those lycra louts? Were you ever one
    yourself?

    Don't feed the trolls folks.

    --
    Arthur Clune

  4. Arthur Clune said:

    Don't feed the trolls folks.

    Not even for sport? I feel we could have some fun with this one.

    d.

  5. Arthur Clune said:
    Kinetic said:

    So what kind of people are all those lycra louts? Were you ever one
    yourself?

    Don't feed the trolls folks.

    I think that this one was sincere and asking an interesting question. Still,
    it's difficult to judge why people drive like arses.

    I think probably the easiest thing to say is that lycra louts are neither
    thinking of how they appear nor the consequences of how they ride. Maybe
    it's best to say that they're in a kind of walking mode.

    --
    Ambrose

  6. Kinetic said:

    7. ..and cycling against a one way
    street should be legal by default (after all there is still enough
    space for cars to squeeze past).

    I cycle the wrong way up a one-way street on a daily basis: it's not a
    short-cut by any means, but the alternative is a right turn at the top
    of a steep climb, where invariably, having signalled and positioned
    myself for the turn, I am overtaken by cars in a desperate hurry to get
    to the red light that is around the next (tight, blind, left-hand)
    bend.

    The one-way street on the other hand is a quiet residential street with
    virtually no traffic on it, so I choose to break the law as my personal
    safety is at risk on the 'legal' route.

    It should also be noted that some countries (Germany, for example)
    allows cycles to use one-way streets in both directions, so this UK law
    is a matter of local convention rather than a hard fact of road safety.

  7. Kinetic said:

    8. Stopping at a red light and accelerating again demands high physical
    exertion. It means losing all that valuable momentum! Engine-powered
    vehicles don't experience this problem. Therefore, I have the right to
    go over a red pelican crossing once all the pedestrians have cleared.

    Nah. I quite happily stop at red lights. Good chance for a breather.
    When I am tempted not to is where there is a sequence of lights a
    couple of hundred yards apart timed so that a vehicle travelling at
    30mph gets green all the way along but a bike gets a series of reds.

    Iain

  8. sothach said:

    It should also be noted that some countries (Germany, for example)
    allows cycles to use one-way streets in both directions, so this UK law
    is a matter of local convention rather than a hard fact of road safety.

    Out of interest, do you write off all law that is not globally
    recognised as a mere "matter of local convention"?

    Rape? A mere matter of local convention - doesn't really matter.
    Torture? Likewise.

    regards, Ian SMith
    --
    |\ /| no .sig
    |o o|
    |/ \|

  9. sothach said:


    It should also be noted that some countries (Germany, for example)
    allows cycles to use one-way streets in both directions, so this UK law
    is a matter of local convention rather than a hard fact of road safety.

    Good point. In fact many, if not most, of our plethora of "road safety"
    inspired regulations are not replicated in some country or other. So
    why don't we just ignore the rules which we personally find
    inconvenient, providing, of course, that we can identify a country
    somewhere in the world where that rule isn't present. Why stop at road
    safety rules?

    --
    Matt B

  10. Matt B said:

    sothach wrote:

    So why don't we just ignore the rules which we personally find
    inconvenient, providing, of course, that we can identify a country
    somewhere in the world where that rule isn't present.

    No, I ignore the rules I find personally lethal. If pulled for it I
    will pay the fine and continue to do it. The alternative would be to
    stop cycling and buy a car.
    As for inconvenience, I already have to cycle over twice the distance I
    would in a car, to avoid bad junctions and places where my fellow road
    users put me at risk.

  11. Ian Smith said:
    sothach said:

    It should also be noted that some countries (Germany, for example)
    allows cycles to use one-way streets in both directions, so this UK law
    is a matter of local convention rather than a hard fact of road safety.

    Out of interest, do you write off all law that is not globally
    recognised as a mere "matter of local convention"?

    No. You misunderstand my point. In a few countries still, road users
    drive on the left by convention (upheld by traffic law) - this does not
    mean that driving on the left is intriniscally safer than driving on
    the right, just that it has become the convention. Even without the
    law it would be unwise not to drive on the left, because that is where
    other road users will expect you to be. Two-way cycling on one-way
    streets is a similar case, as is pavement cycling. There are countires
    where pavement cycling is legal, common and causes zero incidents.

    Quoted message said:

    Rape? A mere matter of local convention - doesn't really matter.
    Torture? Likewise.

    I would categorise those acts as - along with things like excessive
    speed and drunk driving - universally undesireable. To turn that
    around, the UN should be prosecutuing the UK for allowing cars drivers
    on drive on the left, or Germany for allowing contra-flow cycling on
    one-way streets.

  12. sothach said:
    Matt B said:

    sothach wrote:

    So why don't we just ignore the rules which we personally find
    inconvenient, providing, of course, that we can identify a country
    somewhere in the world where that rule isn't present.

    No, I ignore the rules I find personally lethal.

    Can you itemise which rules are lethal?

    Quoted message said:

    If pulled for it I
    will pay the fine and continue to do it.

    An attitude which is surely not acceptable in a democracy such as ours.
    Shouldn't you be imprisoned until society is confident that you have
    reformed your views, and we are safe from you in the future?

    Quoted message said:

    The alternative would be to
    stop cycling and buy a car.

    You are suggesting that it is not possible for a cyclist to be a decent
    law abiding citizen?

    Quoted message said:

    As for inconvenience, I already have to cycle over twice the distance I
    would in a car, to avoid bad junctions and places where my fellow road
    users put me at risk.

    Describe such junctions and places.

    --
    Matt B

  13. In message id <[email hidden]>
    on 9 Dec 2005 00:43:21 -0800, sothach wrote in uk.rec.cycling :

    Quoted message said:


    Ian Smith said:
    sothach said:

    It should also be noted that some countries (Germany, for example)
    allows cycles to use one-way streets in both directions, so this UK law
    is a matter of local convention rather than a hard fact of road safety.

    Out of interest, do you write off all law that is not globally
    recognised as a mere "matter of local convention"?

    No. You misunderstand my point. In a few countries still, road users
    drive on the left by convention (upheld by traffic law) - this does not
    mean that driving on the left is intriniscally safer than driving on
    the right, just that it has become the convention.

    Please elaborate. You may be surprised at the number of countries that
    drive on the left.

    Is there any data to indicate that driving on the left or right is any
    safer than the other?

    IMO the point should be that once a rule is set in place, it needs to
    be observed by ALL to make it functional.

  14. John Blake said:


    Please elaborate. You may be surprised at the number of countries
    that drive on the left.

    Is there any data to indicate that driving on the left or right is
    any safer than the other?

    IMO the point should be that once a rule is set in place, it needs to
    be observed by ALL to make it functional.

    Reminds me of the April 1 newspaper story that to improve European
    integration all countries would move to driving on the right, but that
    to ease the administrative burden, only buses and taxis would change
    over for the first six months.

    There is an interesting history of who drives where and why at
    http://users.pandora.be/worldstandards/driving%20on%20the%20left.htm
    One third of the world's population drive on the left, two thirds on the
    right.

    --
    Tony

    "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
    right."
    - Lord Hailsham

  15. Tony Raven said:


    One third of the world's population drive on the left, two thirds on the
    right.

    Doesn't that depend on the weather and the time of day? It has been
    said that the Maltese drive on the left in the towns and in the shade
    outside.

    ...d

  16. John Blake said:

    In message id <[email hidden]>
    on 9 Dec 2005 00:43:21 -0800, sothach wrote in uk.rec.cycling :

    Quoted message said:
    Ian Smith said:

    On 8 Dec 2005 06:09:39 -0800, sothach <[email hidden]> wrote:

    > It should also be noted that some countries (Germany, for example)
    > allows cycles to use one-way streets in both directions, so this UK law
    > is a matter of local convention rather than a hard fact of road safety.

    Out of interest, do you write off all law that is not globally
    recognised as a mere "matter of local convention"?

    No. You misunderstand my point. In a few countries still, road users
    drive on the left by convention (upheld by traffic law) - this does not
    mean that driving on the left is intriniscally safer than driving on
    the right, just that it has become the convention.

    Please elaborate. You may be surprised at the number of countries that
    drive on the left.

    Is there any data to indicate that driving on the left or right is any
    safer than the other?

    I'm sure the Swedes looked into this a few years back and decided that
    driving on the left was actually safer. I think they hypothesised that
    it's because the majority of the population is right handed and, in the
    event of a possible collision, tend to veer left. They considered
    swapping over but decided it would cost too much.

    druidh

  17. druidh said:
    John Blake said:

    In message id <[email hidden]>
    on 9 Dec 2005 00:43:21 -0800, sothach wrote in uk.rec.cycling :

    Quoted message said:

    Ian Smith wrote:

    >On 8 Dec 2005 06:09:39 -0800, sothach <[email hidden]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >> It should also be noted that some countries (Germany, for example)
    >> allows cycles to use one-way streets in both directions, so this UK law
    >> is a matter of local convention rather than a hard fact of road safety.
    >
    >Out of interest, do you write off all law that is not globally
    >recognised as a mere "matter of local convention"?

    No. You misunderstand my point. In a few countries still, road users
    drive on the left by convention (upheld by traffic law) - this does not
    mean that driving on the left is intriniscally safer than driving on
    the right, just that it has become the convention.

    Please elaborate. You may be surprised at the number of countries that
    drive on the left.

    Is there any data to indicate that driving on the left or right is any
    safer than the other?

    I'm sure the Swedes looked into this a few years back and decided that
    driving on the left was actually safer. I think they hypothesised that
    it's because the majority of the population is right handed and, in the
    event of a possible collision, tend to veer left. They considered
    swapping over but decided it would cost too much.

    they swapped from left to right about 40 years ago; after a referendum
    had turned down the idea

  18. On 14 Jan 2006 07:19:33 -0800, "MartinM" <[email hidden]> said
    in <[email hidden]>:

    Quoted message said:

    they swapped from left to right about 40 years ago; after a referendum
    had turned down the idea

    And promptly had the safest year of driving since records began. The
    answer is obviously that we should switch from left to right hand
    driving at least annually.

    Guy
    --
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    "To every complex problem there is a solution which is
    simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

  19. Just zis Guy said:

    On 14 Jan 2006 07:19:33 -0800, "MartinM" <[email hidden]> said
    in <[email hidden]>:

    Quoted message said:

    they swapped from left to right about 40 years ago; after a referendum
    had turned down the idea

    And promptly had the safest year of driving since records began. The
    answer is obviously that we should switch from left to right hand
    driving at least annually.

    yebbut it only works if you all change, unlike the clown who drove 5
    miles down the northbound A23 last week (in a southbound stylee). One
    occasion where the adjacent psychlepath might have helped.

  20. Just zis Guy said:

    On 14 Jan 2006 07:19:33 -0800, "MartinM" <[email hidden]> said
    in <[email hidden]>:

    Quoted message said:

    they swapped from left to right about 40 years ago; after a referendum
    had turned down the idea

    And promptly had the safest year of driving since records began. The
    answer is obviously that we should switch from left to right hand
    driving at least annually.

    Perhaps if we removed the rules altogether and let everyone drive
    whichever side they fancied ;-)

    --
    Tony

    "The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
    right."
    - Lord Hailsham

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.