Comment piece in Telegraoh on behaviour of cyclists

[David881]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... -like.html


Interesting to read the range of views in the comments section

[freiston]

Looks like an article designed to inflame - with comparisons of cyclists to "Corbyn acolytes", "militant breastfeeding mothers" and "uber-indulgent dog owners" (not that I have any problem with people who fit any of those descriptions). A whole paragraph dedicated to one sentence: "Today's cycling fraternity are aggressive, unreconstructed and utterly immutable when it comes to criticism of their form of transport.". I won't go on because I could more or less reproduce the whole article if I did.

Soon, the only thing distinguishing the Telegraph from the Express or the Mail will be its size (though the online version won't have this distinction).

I didn't read all the comments but a quick skim did demonstrate a more enlightened readership (in part) than the author.

[De Sisti]

Nothing new. Same old, same old. Let's move on.

[MikeF]

See viewtopic.php?f=7&t=100996.
She only cycles off road on Sundays.

[AndyHenderson]

I think the author might have read this...

https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.c ... -bicycles/

She's certainly keeping to the script.

https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com is a very thought-provoking blog, BTW.

Andy

[Vitara]

Also interesting to note re. Angela Epstein "last year was the ghost writer of The Art of the Loophole: Making the Law Work for You by celebrity lawyer Nick Freeman (published by Hodder & Stoughton)"

Whilst she hold cyclists in contempt & regarding them as lawbreakers she evidently thinks it quite acceptable to help motorists escape prosecution

[beardy]

Even country lanes have become no-go zones for motorists as hordes of cyclists take them over

which is a fiction not backed up by any fact, on the other hand how many roads are no-go zones for cyclists as hordes of motorists have taken them over? Well just about all of the major useful ones, A1 anybody??

Anyway everything that she says is rendered true and acceptable by these words sneaked in and easily missed.

Not all cyclists, you understand

[Psamathe]

Even country lanes have become no-go zones for motorists as hordes of cyclists take them over

which is a fiction not backed up by any fact, on the other hand how many roads are no-go zones for cyclists as hordes of motorists have taken them over? Well just about all of the major useful ones, A1 anybody??

Anyway everything that she says is rendered true and acceptable by these words sneaked in and easily missed.

Not all cyclists, you understand

I would think that the comment is from one bad experience being more memorable than the many many good/uneventful experiences. But it does happen. Within the last month when I was out on my bike I had to stop and pull-in for a group of cyclists who decided to take the entire road (single track road) and not even a thank you from them, their attitude being they expected every body and everything to get out of their way as what they were doing was far more important ... But in context, that one occasion was the only time it's happened where minor incidents with cars happen all the time (most rides - trivial things like driving up your bum whilst you are looking for a pull in to allow them to pass, oncoming car not slowing and giving you inadequate space, etc.).

In any large group of people there will always be a few inconsiderate ones who give everybody a bad name. One would hope that people writing in the press would appreciate this aspect of life and write accordingly - which means the author using rare/minority events to further her agenda or does not appreciate an important aspect of human behaviour.

Ian

[rmurphy195]

I don'tlike the "moral high ground" statement about "even when not wearing a helmet", though wearing headphones I do think is open to criticism.

[Bicycler]

I don'tlike the "moral high ground" statement about "even when not wearing a helmet", though wearing headphones I do think is open to criticism.

It goes a bit deeper than whether you consider helmets to be necessary or headphones to be acceptable. The underlying lie in the argument she is putting forward is that cyclists have to be faultless if they are to criticise bad driving. You or I not wearing a helmet removes our right to complain about being passed closely. If we wish to complain about drivers speeding we have to do something about all those cyclists running red lights etc. etc.

[Bicycler]

Just out of interest how frequently can one journalist get away with reproducing the same type of article?
July 2015: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/goodlife/117 ... -dont.html
October 2015: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... -like.html
Much of it is a simple re-hash. egs:
July:

What is it with some cyclists? Okay, not all of you. But at the very least those scary lycra-louts who regard the road as their own micro-universe. A place where they can duck and weave with impunity and without recourse to the law.

Astonishing, really, when you appreciate the vulnerability of the cyclist when riding next to a hulking 4 x 4s (guilty) or massive HGV. Indeed, 19,000 cyclists were killed or injured in road accidents in the UK each year while in 2014 a total of 13 cyclists were killed in London alone.

There's no doubt that cycling – when done safely is good for the nation. Indeed, a new report this week revealed that using the UK's network of cyclist-and bike-friendly paths helps save the nation £1m every day.

Yet the enduring and rising appeal of the bike as a form of transport - more than a million people have taken to cycling in the past five years – has also given way to an appalling sense of entitlement, resulting in some pretty terrifying road manoeuvres.

October:

Not all cyclists, you understand. Just those who think they own the road, can jump red lights or leap onto the pavement when it suits them and who weave in and out of traffic with the slipperiness of a Corbyn acolyte trying to rewrite his political past.
...
It's not that I don't understand the vulnerability of the cyclist: tragically, 19,000 cyclists are killed or injured in road accidents in the UK each year while in 2014 a total of 13 cyclists were killed in London alone.

There's no doubt that cycling, when done safely, is good for the nation. Indeed, a recent report revealed that using the UK's network of cyclist-and bike-friendly paths helps save the nation £1m every day. And it's fantastic for your health.
...
But the enduring appeal of the bike – more than a million people have taken to cycling in the past five years – has given way to a militant dogma which is unpleasant, unnecessary and utterly unpalatable.

If I were her employer I'd only pay her the once. Actually - scrub that - I wouldn't have paid her the once!

[Rabbit]

You know the sad thing is she probably doesn't even believe it herself - it's just a pay cheque, and I say that as a fellow journalist, but one who doesn't say things I don't believe (and that's the truth! But then I'm not a columnist for a national newspaper). The one cliche which she trots out - and many others have repeated - is the rude and inconsiderate behaviour that some cyclists display. Like all cliches it has a nugget of truth at its core and I suppose it's down to those who behave well to stand up and be counted and to prove her wrong. Smile, be courteous, give horses a wide berth and don't jump red lights...

[Rabbit]

Oh dear, not like this...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-34584344

[beardy]

Like this then instead?

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=100788&hilit=audi

[Rabbit]

No, not like either.