Bez wrote:Again, I don’t think anyone’s condemning it, just questioning it.
And again, just as a service connection is a very different type of connection, so is a local one: families often remain in the same locality, and those localities will have been built and influenced by the people who lost their lives.
It’s well known that humans respond very differently to the number and identifiability of people they are guided to care about (which is why when charities these days ask for your money they often give great prominence to individuals in need, and less to the overall scale of the cause). So it’s perfectly understandable that people focus on small groups.
It’s just that being ”a cyclist” seems a very arbitrary connection. I personally can’t grasp why the fact that I ride a bicycle should be a thing that connects me to a number of individuals who have their lives. To be blunt, as someone who has a great fondness not only for bicycles but also for sausage rolls, it seems broadly similar to suggesting that I focus my debt of gratitude on all those who quite liked sausage rolls.
TL;DR: it’s not the focus on a subset of those who gave their lives that I find odd, but the tenuous nature of this particular link by which some people determine that subset. YMMV.
This is what I cannot understand... it has nothing to do with being a cyclist.
With so many groups, regiments, ships , factories, companies, villages (ad Infinitum) it is specific...
We are an organisation which is recognising the sacrifice of “100 FELLOW MEMBERS OF THIS ORGANISATION”
Those members may have driven cars, busses, tanks, airships, planes, ships...or been one of the many cyclist battalions...the common factor and the one being remembered is that they were members of the CTC