Espirit de corps



Status
Not open for further replies.
"Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> We're talking about aggression here, not negative feelings. The first couple of paragraphs of the
> Conclusions section of the TRL report read:

> "This project was commissioned following previous research for DfT that investigated attitudes to
> cycle use. A key finding of that work was that some cycle users reported significant conflict
> with motor vehicle users and some believed that motorists' approach to cycle users was one of
> hostility or even
active
> aggression. A primary objective of this research has been to investigate
the
> accuracy of that impression. In relation to that assertion, this research has not identified any
evidence
> of aggression towards cyclists among any significant number of drivers."

I know - I have read the report.

The generality of drivers endanger cyclists only because they don't know any better, but there is a
minority who do it deliberately. There is also a definite tendency even among those who in their
saner moments wouldn't dream of uttering such foolishness to use it as a way of hitting back when
they know they are in the wrong. Like the woman who ventured the opinion that her dooring one of The
Regulars was his fault for not wearing a helmet.

There is an undoubted tendency in the press to blame cyclists for all the world's ills. This is
completely unrelated to the fact that the journos are sitting in their expensive penis extensions
going nowhere while the cyclists are making rapid and trouble-free progress, obviously.

There is a tendency, seen on uk.tosspot and elsewhere, to believe that a cyclist's responsibility
not to hold up following traffic carries greater weight than a driver's responsibility to apply due
care and attention. We "force" people into dangerous overtaking manoeuvres.

There is a strong tendency for drivers to believe that where cycyle "facilites" exist we MUST use
them. I have been harangued more than once for failing to use shared-use footpaths alongside wide
urban roads with no problem passing. I'm not causing anybody any inconvenience, but I don't think
it's appropriate for a grown man moving at speeds over 20mph to be riding on the pavement,
especially when it will make my journey slower and less safe.

Nobody's saying that these are majority views, but they are views held by a highly vocal minority,
very much like the speedophiles with their camera obsessions, and their loudness and repetiveness
moves the mainstream of acceptable opinion in their direction. If the Daily Mail can say all
cyclists are red-light-running scofflaws who should be run over, surely that validates my view that
this particular cyclist should get out of my way immediately, and if he won't then it's his fault if
I overtake dangerously.

Is it really like that? I don't know. I don't understand what goes on in the "mind" of someone who
would rather risk three people's lives than be ten seconds late in the traffic jam which exists
every single morning without fail a few hundred yards ahead.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
 
"Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

The TRL
> report appears to have tested the thesis that drivers are aggressive
towards
> cyclists and found that, whilst drivers can be negative towards drivers,
the
> thesis is unsubstantiated.

Sigh. Of course, I meant to write, "whilst drivers can be negative towards cyclists".

Stupid me.
___
Michael MacClancy
 
"Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> We're talking about aggression here, not negative feelings. The first couple of paragraphs of the
> Conclusions section of the TRL report read:

> "This project was commissioned following previous research for DfT that investigated attitudes to
> cycle use. A key finding of that work was that some cycle users reported significant conflict
> with motor vehicle users and some believed that motorists' approach to cycle users was one of
> hostility or even
active
> aggression. A primary objective of this research has been to investigate
the
> accuracy of that impression. In relation to that assertion, this research has not identified any
evidence
> of aggression towards cyclists among any significant number of drivers."

I know - I have read the report.

The generality of drivers endanger cyclists only because they don't know any better, but there is a
minority who do it deliberately. There is also a definite tendency even among those who in their
saner moments wouldn't dream of uttering such foolishness to use it as a way of hitting back when
they know they are in the wrong. Like the woman who ventured the opinion that her dooring one of The
Regulars was his fault for not wearing a helmet.

There is an undoubted tendency in the press to blame cyclists for all the world's ills. This is
completely unrelated to the fact that the journos are sitting in their expensive penis extensions
going nowhere while the cyclists are making rapid and trouble-free progress, obviously.

There is a tendency, seen on uk.tosspot and elsewhere, to believe that a cyclist's responsibility
not to hold up following traffic carries greater weight than a driver's responsibility to apply due
care and attention. We "force" people into dangerous overtaking manoeuvres.

There is a strong tendency for drivers to believe that where cycyle "facilites" exist we MUST use
them. I have been harangued more than once for failing to use shared-use footpaths alongside wide
urban roads with no problem passing. I'm not causing anybody any inconvenience, but I don't think
it's appropriate for a grown man moving at speeds over 20mph to be riding on the pavement,
especially when it will make my journey slower and less safe.

Nobody's saying that these are majority views, but they are views held by a highly vocal minority,
very much like the speedophiles with their camera obsessions, and their loudness and repetiveness
moves the mainstream of acceptable opinion in their direction. If the Daily Mail can say all
cyclists are red-light-running scofflaws who should be run over, surely that validates my view that
this particular cyclist should get out of my way immediately, and if he won't then it's his fault if
I overtake dangerously.

Is it really like that? I don't know. I don't understand what goes on in the "mind" of someone who
would rather risk three people's lives than be ten seconds late in the traffic jam which exists
every single morning without fail a few hundred yards ahead.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I know - I have read the report.
>
> The generality of drivers endanger cyclists only because they don't know
any
> better, .........

snip

> Is it really like that? I don't know.

So why do you tend to argue as if it is like that? Adopting the opposite pole in any argument
doesn't always help to win it. People are fed up of politicians who use this tactic and its use here
is equally unpleasant. Continually pointing out the extremes doesn't help. Everyone knows that the
truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Just my opinion.
___
Michael MacClancy
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I know - I have read the report.
>
> The generality of drivers endanger cyclists only because they don't know
any
> better, .........

snip

> Is it really like that? I don't know.

So why do you tend to argue as if it is like that? Adopting the opposite pole in any argument
doesn't always help to win it. People are fed up of politicians who use this tactic and its use here
is equally unpleasant. Continually pointing out the extremes doesn't help. Everyone knows that the
truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Just my opinion.
___
Michael MacClancy
 
Michael MacClancy wrote:

>> Is it really like that? I don't know.

> So why do you tend to argue as if it is like that?

Beacsue if it isn't, a lot of people are doing an awfully good job of making it look as if it is.

I think I know what the problem is. Driving is a process of frustration and contraint, where the
promise off freedom and open roads made in the ads is never delivered. Just watch people squeeze
out drivers who try to merge, watch them block junctions to stop one car getting into the queue
ahead of them.

You buy the Nobshrinka 3000 because the ads say you'll be able to drive at a hundred and thirty
round mountain passes and shag Claudia Schiffer, and when you drive it out of the showroom you
discover that you've just flushed a couple of grand down the toilet and you're still stuck in the
same traffic jam with only Terry Wogan for company. Who wouldn't get angry. So every item of
constraint prompts frustrtation out of all proportion. When one of those "obstacles" then shows that
it is quicker than you through the traffic, that adds insult to injury. And when you are trapped in
the cage the frustration feeds on itself. Now add the anonymity factor - watch people in their cars
picking their noses and doing other embarrassing things - it's private space, so we assume that
nobody can see us.

So I genuinely do believe that drivers are worse than cyclists in this rerspect, because they are
much more likely to be stressed, angry, feel anonymous, be envious and threatened by someone who has
not only opted out of the cager game of mine-is-bigger-than-yours, but who can often get around
quicker. And even when the cyclists can't get around quicker - and this is the really subversive bit
- they don't seem to care awfully much. No depreciation, no fuel costs, we get fitter, we enjoy the
journey. Threat, threat, threat. Undermining a whole value system.

And don't forget that men in particular are highly competitive. They see their mating prospects as
being tied up in their display of plumage, in this case their car. Why else do people pay such huge
sums for new cars every three years, when a car will easily last ten? Worse still is the competition
between company car drivers to get the better badge, the "executive" model. And then along comes a
cyclist, who apparently doesn't buy into that whole thing. It's a slap in the face for one of your
most expensive lifestyle choices. It reminds you that yes, we are burning irreplaceable fossil
fuels, yes, we do have quite a bit of evidence for human-generated global warming, yes, the traffic
jam would vanish if everybody went by bike instead, yes, you do have to spend an hour in the gym
every day to work off the stress, flab and general grot of modern life.

Men also tend to invest the work they do with immense importance. If I don't get to the office by
9:00 then the guy from Bloggs Paper will beat me to that call and sell his paper to the customer
instead of me selling mine. Crisis! Disaster!

You might write all that off as distortion, but really it isn't. I've exaggerated a bit because I
use colourful language but the fundamentals are absolutely true. When I get overtaken by a woman
driver she's far less likely to be too fast, too close, and to cut in before she's past. Women are
less likely to demonstrate their complete mastery of the craft of driving by passing with an inch to
spare and a forty-tonne artic coming the other way. Women do other things, but they are much less
likely (IME) to show the kind of aggression and impatience which cause me serious danger.

None of this requires malice. None of it requires conscious prejudice. It is the nature of prejudice
that much of it is unconscious, and often only revealed under stress. Ask people if they are racist,
and most are not. Do they live next door to someone of a different race? Are their friends white or
black? Now that is a serious point, no exaggeration for comic effect. I do believe that there is a
strong subconscious prejudice at work agaisnt cyclists, because they are subverting a system whose
weaknesses are so obvious that advertisers and drivers have to work really hard to stop us feeling
uneasy about them.

I am by nature a moderate person, a Liberal-Democrat voter and a natural Guardian reader. I don't
buy conspiracy theories and I don't believe politicians, althoguh I always want to believe I can. I
am a daily cyclist and I see too much stupidly, dangerousl;y aggressive driving to think thatit's
just lapses of judgement. I sincerely believe that there's a fundamental flaw in the value system of
a fairly large body of drivers.

One reason I believe it is because I have felt (and still do) the same problem. I have to work hard
when I'm driving not to get sucked into the whole jostling-for-position thing, not to compete. I
used to drive at insane speeds in my £30,000 company car - and how pleased was I when I got the 2.5
20-valve model instead of the 2.0? Oh yes, I've been there. Perhaps this skews my perspective.
Perhaps I was (am) unusual in feeling these things. But listening to reps in hotels comparing their
cars, I really don't think I was that unusual.

Right, that was a long-winded answer, and make of it what you will.

--
Guy
===
WARNING: May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
 
Michael MacClancy wrote:

>> Is it really like that? I don't know.

> So why do you tend to argue as if it is like that?

Beacsue if it isn't, a lot of people are doing an awfully good job of making it look as if it is.

I think I know what the problem is. Driving is a process of frustration and contraint, where the
promise off freedom and open roads made in the ads is never delivered. Just watch people squeeze
out drivers who try to merge, watch them block junctions to stop one car getting into the queue
ahead of them.

You buy the Nobshrinka 3000 because the ads say you'll be able to drive at a hundred and thirty
round mountain passes and shag Claudia Schiffer, and when you drive it out of the showroom you
discover that you've just flushed a couple of grand down the toilet and you're still stuck in the
same traffic jam with only Terry Wogan for company. Who wouldn't get angry. So every item of
constraint prompts frustrtation out of all proportion. When one of those "obstacles" then shows that
it is quicker than you through the traffic, that adds insult to injury. And when you are trapped in
the cage the frustration feeds on itself. Now add the anonymity factor - watch people in their cars
picking their noses and doing other embarrassing things - it's private space, so we assume that
nobody can see us.

So I genuinely do believe that drivers are worse than cyclists in this rerspect, because they are
much more likely to be stressed, angry, feel anonymous, be envious and threatened by someone who has
not only opted out of the cager game of mine-is-bigger-than-yours, but who can often get around
quicker. And even when the cyclists can't get around quicker - and this is the really subversive bit
- they don't seem to care awfully much. No depreciation, no fuel costs, we get fitter, we enjoy the
journey. Threat, threat, threat. Undermining a whole value system.

And don't forget that men in particular are highly competitive. They see their mating prospects as
being tied up in their display of plumage, in this case their car. Why else do people pay such huge
sums for new cars every three years, when a car will easily last ten? Worse still is the competition
between company car drivers to get the better badge, the "executive" model. And then along comes a
cyclist, who apparently doesn't buy into that whole thing. It's a slap in the face for one of your
most expensive lifestyle choices. It reminds you that yes, we are burning irreplaceable fossil
fuels, yes, we do have quite a bit of evidence for human-generated global warming, yes, the traffic
jam would vanish if everybody went by bike instead, yes, you do have to spend an hour in the gym
every day to work off the stress, flab and general grot of modern life.

Men also tend to invest the work they do with immense importance. If I don't get to the office by
9:00 then the guy from Bloggs Paper will beat me to that call and sell his paper to the customer
instead of me selling mine. Crisis! Disaster!

You might write all that off as distortion, but really it isn't. I've exaggerated a bit because I
use colourful language but the fundamentals are absolutely true. When I get overtaken by a woman
driver she's far less likely to be too fast, too close, and to cut in before she's past. Women are
less likely to demonstrate their complete mastery of the craft of driving by passing with an inch to
spare and a forty-tonne artic coming the other way. Women do other things, but they are much less
likely (IME) to show the kind of aggression and impatience which cause me serious danger.

None of this requires malice. None of it requires conscious prejudice. It is the nature of prejudice
that much of it is unconscious, and often only revealed under stress. Ask people if they are racist,
and most are not. Do they live next door to someone of a different race? Are their friends white or
black? Now that is a serious point, no exaggeration for comic effect. I do believe that there is a
strong subconscious prejudice at work agaisnt cyclists, because they are subverting a system whose
weaknesses are so obvious that advertisers and drivers have to work really hard to stop us feeling
uneasy about them.

I am by nature a moderate person, a Liberal-Democrat voter and a natural Guardian reader. I don't
buy conspiracy theories and I don't believe politicians, althoguh I always want to believe I can. I
am a daily cyclist and I see too much stupidly, dangerousl;y aggressive driving to think thatit's
just lapses of judgement. I sincerely believe that there's a fundamental flaw in the value system of
a fairly large body of drivers.

One reason I believe it is because I have felt (and still do) the same problem. I have to work hard
when I'm driving not to get sucked into the whole jostling-for-position thing, not to compete. I
used to drive at insane speeds in my £30,000 company car - and how pleased was I when I got the 2.5
20-valve model instead of the 2.0? Oh yes, I've been there. Perhaps this skews my perspective.
Perhaps I was (am) unusual in feeling these things. But listening to reps in hotels comparing their
cars, I really don't think I was that unusual.

Right, that was a long-winded answer, and make of it what you will.

--
Guy
===
WARNING: May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I know - I have read the report.
>
> The generality of drivers endanger cyclists only because they don't know
any
> better, .........

snip

> Is it really like that? I don't know.

So why do you tend to argue as if it is like that? Adopting the opposite pole in any argument
doesn't always help to win it. People are fed up of politicians who use this tactic and its use here
is equally unpleasant. Continually pointing out the extremes doesn't help. Everyone knows that the
truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Just my opinion.
___
Michael MacClancy
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Michael MacClancy wrote:
>
> >> Is it really like that? I don't know.
>
> > So why do you tend to argue as if it is like that?
>
> Beacsue if it isn't, a lot of people are doing an awfully good job of
making
> it look as if it is.
>
> I think I know what the problem is. Driving is a process of frustration
and
> contraint, where the promise off freedom and open roads made in the ads is never delivered. Just
> watch people squeeze out drivers who try to merge, watch them block junctions to stop one car
> getting into the queue ahead of them.
>
> You buy the Nobshrinka 3000 because the ads say you'll be able to drive at
a
> hundred and thirty round mountain passes and shag Claudia Schiffer, and when you drive it out of
> the showroom you discover that you've just
flushed
> a couple of grand down the toilet and you're still stuck in the same traffic jam with only Terry
> Wogan for company. Who wouldn't get angry. So every item of constraint prompts frustrtation out of
> all proportion. When one of those "obstacles" then shows that it is quicker than you through
the
> traffic, that adds insult to injury. And when you are trapped in the cage the frustration feeds on
> itself. Now add the anonymity factor - watch people in their cars picking their noses and doing
> other embarrassing things - it's private space, so we assume that nobody can see us.
>
> So I genuinely do believe that drivers are worse than cyclists in this rerspect, because they are
> much more likely to be stressed, angry, feel anonymous, be envious and threatened by someone who
> has not only opted out of the cager game of mine-is-bigger-than-yours, but who can often get
> around quicker. And even when the cyclists can't get around quicker - and this is the really
> subversive bit - they don't seem to care awfully much. No depreciation, no fuel costs, we get
> fitter, we enjoy the journey. Threat, threat, threat. Undermining a whole value system.
>
> And don't forget that men in particular are highly competitive. They see their mating prospects as
> being tied up in their display of plumage, in this case their car. Why else do people pay such
> huge sums for new cars every three years, when a car will easily last ten? Worse still is the
> competition between company car drivers to get the better badge, the "executive" model. And then
> along comes a cyclist, who apparently doesn't buy into that whole thing. It's a slap in the face
> for one of your most expensive lifestyle choices. It reminds you that yes, we are burning
> irreplaceable fossil fuels, yes, we do have quite a bit of evidence for human-generated global
> warming, yes, the traffic jam would vanish if everybody went by bike instead, yes, you do have to
> spend an hour in the gym every day to work off the stress, flab and general grot of modern
life.
>
> Men also tend to invest the work they do with immense importance. If I don't get to the office by
> 9:00 then the guy from Bloggs Paper will beat
me
> to that call and sell his paper to the customer instead of me selling
mine.
> Crisis! Disaster!
>
> You might write all that off as distortion, but really it isn't. I've exaggerated a bit because I
> use colourful language but the fundamentals
are
> absolutely true. When I get overtaken by a woman driver she's far less likely to be too fast, too
> close, and to cut in before she's past. Women are less likely to demonstrate their complete
> mastery of the craft of driving by passing with an inch to spare and a forty-tonne artic coming
the
> other way. Women do other things, but they are much less likely (IME) to show the kind of
> aggression and impatience which cause me serious danger.
>
> None of this requires malice. None of it requires conscious prejudice.
It
> is the nature of prejudice that much of it is unconscious, and often only revealed under stress.
> Ask people if they are racist, and most are not. Do they live next door to someone of a different
> race? Are their friends white or black? Now that is a serious point, no exaggeration for comic
> effect. I do believe that there is a strong subconscious prejudice at
work
> agaisnt cyclists, because they are subverting a system whose weaknesses
are
> so obvious that advertisers and drivers have to work really hard to stop
us
> feeling uneasy about them.
>
> I am by nature a moderate person, a Liberal-Democrat voter and a natural Guardian reader. I don't
> buy conspiracy theories and I don't believe politicians, althoguh I always want to believe I can.
> I am a daily
cyclist
> and I see too much stupidly, dangerousl;y aggressive driving to think thatit's just lapses of
> judgement. I sincerely believe that there's a fundamental flaw in the value system of a fairly
> large body of drivers.
>
> One reason I believe it is because I have felt (and still do) the same problem. I have to work
> hard when I'm driving not to get sucked into the whole jostling-for-position thing, not to
> compete. I used to drive at insane speeds in my £30,000 company car - and how pleased was I when I
> got the 2.5 20-valve model instead of the 2.0? Oh yes, I've been there. Perhaps this skews my
> perspective. Perhaps I was (am) unusual in feeling these things. But listening to reps in hotels
> comparing their cars, I really don't think I was that unusual.
>
> Right, that was a long-winded answer, and make of it what you will.
>

I think I love you.
___
Michael MacClancy
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Michael MacClancy wrote:
>
> >> Is it really like that? I don't know.
>
> > So why do you tend to argue as if it is like that?
>
> Beacsue if it isn't, a lot of people are doing an awfully good job of
making
> it look as if it is.
>
> I think I know what the problem is. Driving is a process of frustration
and
> contraint, where the promise off freedom and open roads made in the ads is never delivered. Just
> watch people squeeze out drivers who try to merge, watch them block junctions to stop one car
> getting into the queue ahead of them.
>
> You buy the Nobshrinka 3000 because the ads say you'll be able to drive at
a
> hundred and thirty round mountain passes and shag Claudia Schiffer, and when you drive it out of
> the showroom you discover that you've just
flushed
> a couple of grand down the toilet and you're still stuck in the same traffic jam with only Terry
> Wogan for company. Who wouldn't get angry. So every item of constraint prompts frustrtation out of
> all proportion. When one of those "obstacles" then shows that it is quicker than you through
the
> traffic, that adds insult to injury. And when you are trapped in the cage the frustration feeds on
> itself. Now add the anonymity factor - watch people in their cars picking their noses and doing
> other embarrassing things - it's private space, so we assume that nobody can see us.
>
> So I genuinely do believe that drivers are worse than cyclists in this rerspect, because they are
> much more likely to be stressed, angry, feel anonymous, be envious and threatened by someone who
> has not only opted out of the cager game of mine-is-bigger-than-yours, but who can often get
> around quicker. And even when the cyclists can't get around quicker - and this is the really
> subversive bit - they don't seem to care awfully much. No depreciation, no fuel costs, we get
> fitter, we enjoy the journey. Threat, threat, threat. Undermining a whole value system.
>
> And don't forget that men in particular are highly competitive. They see their mating prospects as
> being tied up in their display of plumage, in this case their car. Why else do people pay such
> huge sums for new cars every three years, when a car will easily last ten? Worse still is the
> competition between company car drivers to get the better badge, the "executive" model. And then
> along comes a cyclist, who apparently doesn't buy into that whole thing. It's a slap in the face
> for one of your most expensive lifestyle choices. It reminds you that yes, we are burning
> irreplaceable fossil fuels, yes, we do have quite a bit of evidence for human-generated global
> warming, yes, the traffic jam would vanish if everybody went by bike instead, yes, you do have to
> spend an hour in the gym every day to work off the stress, flab and general grot of modern
life.
>
> Men also tend to invest the work they do with immense importance. If I don't get to the office by
> 9:00 then the guy from Bloggs Paper will beat
me
> to that call and sell his paper to the customer instead of me selling
mine.
> Crisis! Disaster!
>
> You might write all that off as distortion, but really it isn't. I've exaggerated a bit because I
> use colourful language but the fundamentals
are
> absolutely true. When I get overtaken by a woman driver she's far less likely to be too fast, too
> close, and to cut in before she's past. Women are less likely to demonstrate their complete
> mastery of the craft of driving by passing with an inch to spare and a forty-tonne artic coming
the
> other way. Women do other things, but they are much less likely (IME) to show the kind of
> aggression and impatience which cause me serious danger.
>
> None of this requires malice. None of it requires conscious prejudice.
It
> is the nature of prejudice that much of it is unconscious, and often only revealed under stress.
> Ask people if they are racist, and most are not. Do they live next door to someone of a different
> race? Are their friends white or black? Now that is a serious point, no exaggeration for comic
> effect. I do believe that there is a strong subconscious prejudice at
work
> agaisnt cyclists, because they are subverting a system whose weaknesses
are
> so obvious that advertisers and drivers have to work really hard to stop
us
> feeling uneasy about them.
>
> I am by nature a moderate person, a Liberal-Democrat voter and a natural Guardian reader. I don't
> buy conspiracy theories and I don't believe politicians, althoguh I always want to believe I can.
> I am a daily
cyclist
> and I see too much stupidly, dangerousl;y aggressive driving to think thatit's just lapses of
> judgement. I sincerely believe that there's a fundamental flaw in the value system of a fairly
> large body of drivers.
>
> One reason I believe it is because I have felt (and still do) the same problem. I have to work
> hard when I'm driving not to get sucked into the whole jostling-for-position thing, not to
> compete. I used to drive at insane speeds in my £30,000 company car - and how pleased was I when I
> got the 2.5 20-valve model instead of the 2.0? Oh yes, I've been there. Perhaps this skews my
> perspective. Perhaps I was (am) unusual in feeling these things. But listening to reps in hotels
> comparing their cars, I really don't think I was that unusual.
>
> Right, that was a long-winded answer, and make of it what you will.
>

I think I love you.
___
Michael MacClancy
 
Michael MacClancy wrote:

>> Is it really like that? I don't know.

> So why do you tend to argue as if it is like that?

Beacsue if it isn't, a lot of people are doing an awfully good job of making it look as if it is.

I think I know what the problem is. Driving is a process of frustration and contraint, where the
promise off freedom and open roads made in the ads is never delivered. Just watch people squeeze
out drivers who try to merge, watch them block junctions to stop one car getting into the queue
ahead of them.

You buy the Nobshrinka 3000 because the ads say you'll be able to drive at a hundred and thirty
round mountain passes and shag Claudia Schiffer, and when you drive it out of the showroom you
discover that you've just flushed a couple of grand down the toilet and you're still stuck in the
same traffic jam with only Terry Wogan for company. Who wouldn't get angry. So every item of
constraint prompts frustrtation out of all proportion. When one of those "obstacles" then shows that
it is quicker than you through the traffic, that adds insult to injury. And when you are trapped in
the cage the frustration feeds on itself. Now add the anonymity factor - watch people in their cars
picking their noses and doing other embarrassing things - it's private space, so we assume that
nobody can see us.

So I genuinely do believe that drivers are worse than cyclists in this rerspect, because they are
much more likely to be stressed, angry, feel anonymous, be envious and threatened by someone who has
not only opted out of the cager game of mine-is-bigger-than-yours, but who can often get around
quicker. And even when the cyclists can't get around quicker - and this is the really subversive bit
- they don't seem to care awfully much. No depreciation, no fuel costs, we get fitter, we enjoy the
journey. Threat, threat, threat. Undermining a whole value system.

And don't forget that men in particular are highly competitive. They see their mating prospects as
being tied up in their display of plumage, in this case their car. Why else do people pay such huge
sums for new cars every three years, when a car will easily last ten? Worse still is the competition
between company car drivers to get the better badge, the "executive" model. And then along comes a
cyclist, who apparently doesn't buy into that whole thing. It's a slap in the face for one of your
most expensive lifestyle choices. It reminds you that yes, we are burning irreplaceable fossil
fuels, yes, we do have quite a bit of evidence for human-generated global warming, yes, the traffic
jam would vanish if everybody went by bike instead, yes, you do have to spend an hour in the gym
every day to work off the stress, flab and general grot of modern life.

Men also tend to invest the work they do with immense importance. If I don't get to the office by
9:00 then the guy from Bloggs Paper will beat me to that call and sell his paper to the customer
instead of me selling mine. Crisis! Disaster!

You might write all that off as distortion, but really it isn't. I've exaggerated a bit because I
use colourful language but the fundamentals are absolutely true. When I get overtaken by a woman
driver she's far less likely to be too fast, too close, and to cut in before she's past. Women are
less likely to demonstrate their complete mastery of the craft of driving by passing with an inch to
spare and a forty-tonne artic coming the other way. Women do other things, but they are much less
likely (IME) to show the kind of aggression and impatience which cause me serious danger.

None of this requires malice. None of it requires conscious prejudice. It is the nature of prejudice
that much of it is unconscious, and often only revealed under stress. Ask people if they are racist,
and most are not. Do they live next door to someone of a different race? Are their friends white or
black? Now that is a serious point, no exaggeration for comic effect. I do believe that there is a
strong subconscious prejudice at work agaisnt cyclists, because they are subverting a system whose
weaknesses are so obvious that advertisers and drivers have to work really hard to stop us feeling
uneasy about them.

I am by nature a moderate person, a Liberal-Democrat voter and a natural Guardian reader. I don't
buy conspiracy theories and I don't believe politicians, althoguh I always want to believe I can. I
am a daily cyclist and I see too much stupidly, dangerousl;y aggressive driving to think thatit's
just lapses of judgement. I sincerely believe that there's a fundamental flaw in the value system of
a fairly large body of drivers.

One reason I believe it is because I have felt (and still do) the same problem. I have to work hard
when I'm driving not to get sucked into the whole jostling-for-position thing, not to compete. I
used to drive at insane speeds in my £30,000 company car - and how pleased was I when I got the 2.5
20-valve model instead of the 2.0? Oh yes, I've been there. Perhaps this skews my perspective.
Perhaps I was (am) unusual in feeling these things. But listening to reps in hotels comparing their
cars, I really don't think I was that unusual.

Right, that was a long-winded answer, and make of it what you will.

--
Guy
===
WARNING: May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Michael MacClancy wrote:
>
> >> Is it really like that? I don't know.
>
> > So why do you tend to argue as if it is like that?
>
> Beacsue if it isn't, a lot of people are doing an awfully good job of
making
> it look as if it is.
>
> I think I know what the problem is. Driving is a process of frustration
and
> contraint, where the promise off freedom and open roads made in the ads is never delivered. Just
> watch people squeeze out drivers who try to merge, watch them block junctions to stop one car
> getting into the queue ahead of them.
>
> You buy the Nobshrinka 3000 because the ads say you'll be able to drive at
a
> hundred and thirty round mountain passes and shag Claudia Schiffer, and when you drive it out of
> the showroom you discover that you've just
flushed
> a couple of grand down the toilet and you're still stuck in the same traffic jam with only Terry
> Wogan for company. Who wouldn't get angry. So every item of constraint prompts frustrtation out of
> all proportion. When one of those "obstacles" then shows that it is quicker than you through
the
> traffic, that adds insult to injury. And when you are trapped in the cage the frustration feeds on
> itself. Now add the anonymity factor - watch people in their cars picking their noses and doing
> other embarrassing things - it's private space, so we assume that nobody can see us.
>
> So I genuinely do believe that drivers are worse than cyclists in this rerspect, because they are
> much more likely to be stressed, angry, feel anonymous, be envious and threatened by someone who
> has not only opted out of the cager game of mine-is-bigger-than-yours, but who can often get
> around quicker. And even when the cyclists can't get around quicker - and this is the really
> subversive bit - they don't seem to care awfully much. No depreciation, no fuel costs, we get
> fitter, we enjoy the journey. Threat, threat, threat. Undermining a whole value system.
>
> And don't forget that men in particular are highly competitive. They see their mating prospects as
> being tied up in their display of plumage, in this case their car. Why else do people pay such
> huge sums for new cars every three years, when a car will easily last ten? Worse still is the
> competition between company car drivers to get the better badge, the "executive" model. And then
> along comes a cyclist, who apparently doesn't buy into that whole thing. It's a slap in the face
> for one of your most expensive lifestyle choices. It reminds you that yes, we are burning
> irreplaceable fossil fuels, yes, we do have quite a bit of evidence for human-generated global
> warming, yes, the traffic jam would vanish if everybody went by bike instead, yes, you do have to
> spend an hour in the gym every day to work off the stress, flab and general grot of modern
life.
>
> Men also tend to invest the work they do with immense importance. If I don't get to the office by
> 9:00 then the guy from Bloggs Paper will beat
me
> to that call and sell his paper to the customer instead of me selling
mine.
> Crisis! Disaster!
>
> You might write all that off as distortion, but really it isn't. I've exaggerated a bit because I
> use colourful language but the fundamentals
are
> absolutely true. When I get overtaken by a woman driver she's far less likely to be too fast, too
> close, and to cut in before she's past. Women are less likely to demonstrate their complete
> mastery of the craft of driving by passing with an inch to spare and a forty-tonne artic coming
the
> other way. Women do other things, but they are much less likely (IME) to show the kind of
> aggression and impatience which cause me serious danger.
>
> None of this requires malice. None of it requires conscious prejudice.
It
> is the nature of prejudice that much of it is unconscious, and often only revealed under stress.
> Ask people if they are racist, and most are not. Do they live next door to someone of a different
> race? Are their friends white or black? Now that is a serious point, no exaggeration for comic
> effect. I do believe that there is a strong subconscious prejudice at
work
> agaisnt cyclists, because they are subverting a system whose weaknesses
are
> so obvious that advertisers and drivers have to work really hard to stop
us
> feeling uneasy about them.
>
> I am by nature a moderate person, a Liberal-Democrat voter and a natural Guardian reader. I don't
> buy conspiracy theories and I don't believe politicians, althoguh I always want to believe I can.
> I am a daily
cyclist
> and I see too much stupidly, dangerousl;y aggressive driving to think thatit's just lapses of
> judgement. I sincerely believe that there's a fundamental flaw in the value system of a fairly
> large body of drivers.
>
> One reason I believe it is because I have felt (and still do) the same problem. I have to work
> hard when I'm driving not to get sucked into the whole jostling-for-position thing, not to
> compete. I used to drive at insane speeds in my £30,000 company car - and how pleased was I when I
> got the 2.5 20-valve model instead of the 2.0? Oh yes, I've been there. Perhaps this skews my
> perspective. Perhaps I was (am) unusual in feeling these things. But listening to reps in hotels
> comparing their cars, I really don't think I was that unusual.
>
> Right, that was a long-winded answer, and make of it what you will.
>

I think I love you.
___
Michael MacClancy
 
In article <[email protected]>, one of infinite monkeys at the keyboard of "Just
zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I had a motorcyclist wave with both feet recently. I think that was comedy: I was riding the
> recumbent at the time :)

Was that on a motorised 'bent - harley-davidson or similar?

--
Finally, someone takes a stand against Humbug. Three cheers for Austrian shop workers!
 
Richard Goodman wrote: to 'proceed' over it. Not worth trying on as a
> defence, I should think!
>
> Rich
>
>
>

Whatever, dude.
 
Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Michael MacClancy wrote:
>>
>> >> Is it really like that? I don't know.
>>
>> > So why do you tend to argue as if it is like that?
>>
>> Beacsue if it isn't, a lot of people are doing an awfully good job of
> making
>> it look as if it is.
>>
[Huge hopefully non-selective snip]
>
> I think I love you.

I think I do tooo!

Trev

But I still think things are not as bad as all that, either way. That's people, sadly, and if it
wasn't for cars it'd be horses, or cows or trophy wives and husbands. No point has been that we're
all as bad as each other, more or less. I'm a fat ******* on a (admittedly no-sus, with slicks)
MTB, and I can hear the sniffs of the roadies as they wizz past me at 20mph plus. I sniff at the
stealth pavement granny-squashing red-light jumpers as they wizz past me with their squeaky chains
and baggy jeans.

This thread started because someone asked about espirit de corps amongst cyclists. I moaned that
there is too much "us and them" when it comes to cyclists and others, and I don't believe cyclists
have all that much of a moral high ground to stand on. While it is true that they are on the
recieving end of a disproportionate amount of the danger in shared road use, that's not *ipso facto*
(and I hope I've used the Latin correctly) the motorist's fault, but simply a side-effect of the
imbalance of masses of your average motor car compared with your average bike. I don't believe
motorists are in general more aggressive than bike riders.

You yourself, Guy, said that you believed your attitude changes when you're in a car. Of course it
does. Mine does too. When I either drive to work or cycle I take more or less the same route, and my
perception of the hazards is markedly different, and I am aware of that because I do both things.
Often the differences are subtle, in the sense that on approching a certain corner, for example, it
seems to be plenty wide enough in a car to overtake a bike, whereas I know that on a bike I ****
myself if someone does try to overtake me on that corner.

I at least do both things. How can I expect someone who never rides to understand my (riding)
perspecitve? I don't see how I can, and although you might argue that better training might make a
difference it never can without the direct experience. I can't expect everybody to take a week off
driving and ride a bike to work, can I? Where does that stop? Can I expect, for example, for
cyclists to take a week off and go back to horses for a week, so they understand the concerns of the
horsey lot? Or electronic engineers to take a week of work and run a Yorkshire hill farm so they
understand the concerns of the impoverished Yorkshire hill farmer?

Now I'm starting to blather, and that's not suprising considering the time especially given that
it's a Friday night or more precicely a Saturday morning. What the world needs now, is love, sweet
love, doo do do doo dooo doo, de do, do de dum ;-)

Night night,

Trev
 
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 16:21:34 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "PK" <[email protected]>
wrote this:-

>Some months ago i posted about two instances of cyclist putting me in danger (one pavement cyclist
>who all but hit me travelling at speed and another who almost hit my daughter on a pelican
>crossing) there were numerous posts in defence of the pavement cyclist and a good few in mitigation
>for the pelican guy.

My impression is that in the cycling groups one sees far more intolerance of bad cycling than one
sees intolerance of bad motoring in motoring groups. I often notice comments from what one could
call the cycling lobby against the sorts of thing you mention, but comments about bad motoring seem
to be few and far between by what one could call the motoring lobby.

--
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.
 
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 00:20:16 +0000, Trevor Barton <[email protected]> wrote:

> While it is true that they are on the recieving end of a disproportionate amount of the danger in
> shared road use, that's not *ipso facto* (and I hope I've used the Latin correctly) the motorist's
> fault, but simply a side-effect of the imbalance of masses of your average motor car compared with
> your average bike.

Cyclists are at fault in less than one in four cases where they are seriously injured, according to
Plod. If you are cyclist you tend to have a rather keener insight into the consequences of
cluslessness than if you are a driver.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
 
Just zis Guy, you know? blathered on a bit:
>
> One reason I believe it is because I have felt (and still do) the same problem. I have to work
> hard when I'm driving not to get sucked into the whole jostling-for-position thing, not to
> compete. I used to drive at insane speeds in my £30,000 company car - and how pleased was I when I
> got the 2.5 20-valve model instead of the 2.0? Oh yes, I've been there. Perhaps this skews my
> perspective. Perhaps I was (am) unusual in feeling these things. But listening to reps in hotels
> comparing their cars, I really don't think I was that unusual.
>

Its a bit of an addiction thing, one that is used by the majority of the adult population.

Recently (inspired by you) I tried to keep within the speed limit all the time.

This came up in a gossip at work, the usual 'speed cameras are so unfair, they cause accidents' sort
of stuff. People just didn't believe you could 'give up' speeding.

I happen to drink very little alcohol, I'm not agin it, I just don't enjoy it that much, it makes me
fall asleep, I wake up feeling shite and the kids still want dealing with. Again people find it hard
to believe you don't join in the socially approved addiction.

I do play loud music, take drugs, and eat butter and full fat cream, honest.

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this: Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Travis44
Drum and Bugle Corps perform a musical show entitled "Le Tour: Every Second Counts"
Replies
0
Views
866
Bike Cafe
Travis44
Travis44
PeaceCorpsBiker
Advice Needed: Help Peace Corps Morocco volunteers get a good bike
Replies
0
Views
2K
Bike buying advice
PeaceCorpsBiker
PeaceCorpsBiker
B
  • Locked
Lots of Press Corps Friends
Replies
4
Views
551
Road Cycling
Jeff Jones
J
Top Bottom Back