Celebrity Practice What You Preach

[reohn2]

And I don't belong to any athletics organisation, so I'm not a pedestrian...

Face it most people join the AA for breakdown cover, I imagine BC members are more about the sporting entries, or maybe insurance (don't know what other benefits there are to membership)

I take it we're in agreement then

[[XAP]Bob]

Yes.

It's like claiming that strava heat maps are heat maps of cycling.
They are heat maps of a very specific subset of cyclist - and probably not the subset you need to build decent infrastructure for.

[Bez]

I agree with everything he says except…

May I be so bold as to try to change your mind?

http://singletrackworld.com/columns/201 ... he-idiots/

[reohn2]

I agree with everything he says except…

May I be so bold as to try to change your mind?

http://singletrackworld.com/columns/201 ... he-idiots/

Idiots are everywhere,I drive 12k miles a year and see my fair share,some of which I've posted about on here.
Wiggo's observations aren't out of place,because idiots ride bikes too,but pointing fingers at others isn't the answer when the subject is cycling and cyclists.I'll be the first to defend cyclists who break a law to save themselves from greater danger but I've seen some suicidal manoeuvres by cyclists who've seemed hell bent on proving a point,namely that they're idiots.
I don't condone idiotic behaviour by road users and most of all not by those using vehicles that have the potential to cause the most harm.
But unless we are blameless(although I admit no one's perfect), we can't point the finger at those who cause more damage than us.

[Bez]

OK. Here's where the significant problem is:

unless we are blameless, we can't point the finger at those who cause more damage than us.

There are two uses of "we" in that sentence. Could you define exactly to whom you refer, and whether that is the same in both cases?

[reohn2]

OK. Here's where the significant problem is:

unless we are blameless, we can't point the finger at those who cause more damage than us.

There are two uses of "we" in that sentence. Could you define exactly to whom you refer, and whether that is the same in both cases?

The 'we' I was referring to was cyclists as a collective.
Cyclists will be described as a collective by others as the great British public will describe any out group they see fit,immigrants,people on benefits,Muslims,Travellers,you name it.
I know it's not fair but it's the sad state we're in,and I know there's no collective motorist equivalent,because we're dealing with the majority that rule,but hey ho,I'll be grouped in with the outgroup known as cyclists,it's a burden I carry .
Until prejudice is eradicated it will be so.So I agree with Wiggo when he says that if cyclist don't stop doing what some of it's number are doing cycling will suffer.
But TBH I'd prefer to see police stopping them that do break the law and booking them(that includes all law breakers),but until then it'll carry on,and idiots on bikes will get us all a bad name.

[Bez]

The 'we' I was referring to was cyclists as a collective.

Then by your rule, I must be silent because someone else jumped a light. I must be silent until all people stop jumping lights.

And this will never happen. It cannot happen, because all humans are not impeccable adherents to the law. You're doing exactly what Wiggins is doing: binding the ability to point out issues or suggest solutions to a condition that is absolutely impossible to meet.

I know it's not fair but it's the sad state we're in

Then why would you take the same view? Why agree with him? You've said it's unfair, so why vindicate people who take this attitude of dooming a minority group to never being able to escape the problems they face?

Sure, some people will hate anyone on a bike and will cite idiots for it. They'll not care about people in cars and won't complain about idiots in cars. Not in the context of oppressing people in cars, anyway, because they're in cars too. They'll individualise those idiots in order to differentiate themselves; or, by preference, they'll seek the broadest group they can find which still differentiates them: old duffers, women drivers, boy racers, white van men, Audi drivers… anything that's an easy label that doesn't include themselves.

But to accept or to even slightly tolerate the principle that you can't complain until everyone else adheres to the law is solid gold lunacy.

Stop accepting this idiotic view of other people who can see only the minority being fallible, and who can't see the equal fallibility of the majority.

Agreeing with Wiggins just means you accept the whole principle, and if you want to be silent because all humans are not perfect, then fine, but any minority group that does too much of that is in for a very rough time indeed.

[Bicycler]

I agree with everything he says except…

May I be so bold as to try to change your mind?

http://singletrackworld.com/columns/201 ... he-idiots/

Preacher man

[reohn2]

The 'we' I was referring to was cyclists as a collective.

Then by your rule, I must be silent because someone else jumped a light. I must be silent until all people stop jumping lights.

And this will never happen. It cannot happen, because all humans are not impeccable adherents to the law. You're doing exactly what Wiggins is doing: binding the ability to point out issues or suggest solutions to a condition that is absolutely impossible to meet.

No perhaps I haven't made myself clear,I'll complain about idiots whatever mode they choose and that includes pedestrians,idiots are idiots,though some have the greater potential for harm and as such should carry the greater responsibility,but that doesn't absolve others with less potential,of their responsibility.
But by not not complaining about idiots because they use the same mode as I use and am enthusiastic about, it makes me part of their idiocy,and I won't defend their idiocy.

I know it's not fair but it's the sad state we're in

Then why would you take the same view? Why agree with him? You've said it's unfair, so why vindicate people who take this attitude of dooming a minority group to never being able to escape the problems they face?

I don't see it as 'dooming a minority' I see it as adhering to the law,I don't have a problem with that,I do have a problem with being blamed for other idiots behaviour though,and stand up for cycling and cyclists rights when I have the opportunity.
FWIW I believe an effective police force would go a long way to solving the sorry state of behaviour of road users,but until then we're stuck.
I will keep fighting against prejudice and standing up for what I believe to be right,that doesn't condone law breakers because they ride bikes,as much as it doesn't those drive cars,they're all people,and in amongst them are an element of idiots.

Sure, some people will hate anyone on a bike and will cite idiots for it. They'll not care about people in cars and won't complain about idiots in cars. Not in the context of oppressing people in cars, anyway, because they're in cars too. They'll individualise those idiots in order to differentiate themselves; or, by preference, they'll seek the broadest group they can find which still differentiates them: old duffers, women drivers, boy racers, white van men, Audi drivers… anything that's an easy label that doesn't include themselves.

I'm well a ware of the idiots and their self justification for being idiots,more than you'll ever know.
I lost a beautiful granddaughter( 19 years old and one of identical twins) to one such idiotic lunatic who felt himself above the law,and my only comfort is that when he killed her he killed himself in the process and so at least saved anyone else the pain my family constantly carry.And who if the police had done their job would never had been in a position to do what he did.

But to accept or to even slightly tolerate the principle that you can't complain until everyone else adheres to the law is solid gold lunacy.

Stop accepting this idiotic view of other people who can see only the minority being fallible, and who can't see the equal fallibility of the majority.

I don't.

Agreeing with Wiggins just means you accept the whole principle, and if you want to be silent because all humans are not perfect, then fine, but any minority group that does too much of that is in for a very rough time indeed.

I don't.
I'm sorry if to you I appear to have contradicted myself,IMO I haven't,I simply see things as they are and struggle with a way to right them.

[[XAP]Bob]

But what has been said isn't that we should comdemn all idiots

It's that we, as cyclists, can't complain about being hit by cars until *other* cyclists have altered their behaviour.


*THAT* is what is wrong with the statements. We should condemn all idiots, but that includes the speeding, texting, red light jumping, pavement mounting motorists - who do far more damage to society than the RLJ, pavement riding cyclists could ever hope to manage.

[reohn2]

But what has been said isn't that we should comdemn all idiots

It's that we, as cyclists, can't complain about being hit by cars until *other* cyclists have altered their behaviour.


*THAT* is what is wrong with the statements. We should condemn all idiots, but that includes the speeding, texting, red light jumping, pavement mounting motorists - who do far more damage to society than the RLJ, pavement riding cyclists could ever hope to manage.

Then I miss the point classically.

[hufty]

Geraint Thomas:

[Cyril Haearn]

Geraint Thomas:
THOMAS-Geraint317p-630x420.jpg

Looks like he is going uphill
Maybe he stops at the top to put it on

[bovlomov]

Although Wiggo's comments frequently get misinterpreted as calling for cycle helmet compulsion (forcing him to issue clarifications)

I don't think his comments were misinterpreted - but he was absolutely plastered.
He said that there have got to be laws, and then talked of 'legalising' helmets. He was struggling to dredge up the correct word from his memory, but in that context he can only of meant that helmets should be compulsory.

Meic's comment at the time:

You dont have to be tipsy to call for compulsory helmets,

but it helps.