"scotty72" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:
[email protected]...
>
> Resound Wrote:
>> Ah, nothing like taking what someone says and turning it into an
>> unreasonable absolute so you can use it as a handy strawman.Good point,
>> so don't do it to me. You have yourself constructed a very
> clear dichotomy here - so don't play all sweet and innocent 
>
>> Zebee didn't
>> say they shouldn't be there. She said if they are there then it should
>> be
>> clear *why*.
> Let me retort with my own polarising statement.... So what you're
> saying here is that before any group of cyclists decide to go for a
> ride, we must demontrate a clear purpose - otherwise our activities
> should be deemed illegal. Kinda rules my daughters rides out because
> she just likes to ride "around".
And we're back to the daft absolute functioning as strawman. My comments did
not apply to casual groups simply riding along and you knew it. Way to
introduce small children into the argument to make it all appear more
ludicrous, by the way, but it was more than a trifle transparent. If your
daughter and her friends were riding in a group in order to protest
something then yes, my comments would apply to them.
>
>> A protest cannot and will not achieve its aims unless *other*
>> people know why it's being held. If there's a large group of cyclists
>> very
>> clearly saying "We need lanes too, don't renege on the agreement."
>> then they
>> have a purpose and send a useful message.
> Totally disagree. CM is there to show that uncatered for bikes can mix
> with traffic in a way which is unpleasant for all. They don't need a
> clear purpose. They have the right to just ride in the same way that is
> you just decide to drive a car around and around the block - no-one will
> try to arrest you. However, when people complain that all these bikes
> are in the way - then the BUGs look far more reasonable to deal with
> simply because CM are there. If the radicals are there, then the
> moderates become the radicals.
>
If you want to show that "uncatered for bikes can mix with traffic in a way
which is unpleasant for all" then you need to make that message clear.
Motorists won't see "uncatered for bikes", they'll just see "bikes". Now
bikes do indeed have "right to just ride in the same way that is you just
decide to drive a car around and around the block". Exactly the same way, in
fact. Try running red lights and corking intersections with cars and see how
long you last befoe the police wave you down for a little chat. The argument
that you're making other cycling groups seem reasonable is sophistry of the
least credible order. Someone who has no sympathy for cycling is NOT going
to go to the effort of making that comparison. They're going to do a very
basic bike=different=bad equation and use CM to justify their prejudice.
Don't even think about trying to suggest that their attitude isn't your
problem, because it's their attitude which means there's a large enough
segment of the community who don't want resources allocated to cycling
infrastructure in the first place.
>
>> It there's a large group of
>> cyclists which aren't putting forward any clear message to someone who
>> hasn't got any links to the cycling community and really couldn't care
>> less
>> at that point then they're not going to *get* the message. They'll
>> just see
>> a group clogging the roads to no good purpose and put a tick in the
>> "Cyclists are a nuisance" box.
> Exactly. They see that something needs to be done. Then because CM are
> a 'bunch of leftie loonies" - the BUGS step in as the voices of reason.
>
>
>> That doens't enhance the chances of cyclists
>> being taken seriously by the wider community.
> Yes it does - clearly... The BUGs condemn the mass and state that they
> are a silly minority. We will help you silence these people - just give
> us a little-bitty lane.
So are the BUGs meant to associate with the CM or not? If they're
associated, then the BUGs lose their credibility because they're all just
part of that rabble which deliberately clogs the street to no good purpose.
If they're not associated then how are the BUGs credibly supposed to
influence the CM which is in any case meant to be a spontaneous event. Or a
purposeful protest depending on your argument at the time, it seems.
>> By all means, protest. If I
>> was in Sydney I'd join you. But please, PLEASE make sure the casual
>> passerby
>> can EASILY work out why you're there so that the message received is
>> positive, not negative.That is the domain of the BUG.
>
> Think of CM as the fire - without the fire who needs the hero fireman.
>
You really don't see what's wrong with deliberately setting up cyclists as a
bogeyman for the general public, do you? Every time a CM goes ahead, the
media doesn't issue forth with "These cyclists need better infrastructure so
that they can share the road more effectively with us.". It's a great deal
simpler than that. The argument from them, every single time, is that
cyclists on the roads is a bad thing, look at them, get them off the bloody
roads. And Joe and Joanne Average are right there agreeing with them because
they haven't heard the reasoned arguments to the contrary and aren't in a
position where they'd be receptive to them in the first place. All this sort
of deliberate provocation does is ramp up the antagonism between cyclists
and motorists and promote the us vs. them culture which we should be doing
everything in our power to stamp out. The cars aren't going away (for quite
some considerable time at least), and neither are we. Road usage should be a
co-operative venture, not a combative or competitive one.
