Cycling UK Forum

We are the pedestrian public.
We are car drivers.
Our food comes by lorries.
Our salad from Kenya by plane.

Deal with it all.

landsurfer wrote:We are the pedestrian public.
We are car drivers.
Our food comes by lorries.
Our salad from Kenya by plane.

Deal with it all.

The guy with the dog and the unpleasant vocabulary dealt with it his way, although what he was actually dealing with I don't know - most people would have apologised - we all have to live together and most people try to.
Er - landsurfer - we're not all motorists!

JohnW wrote:..
The villains of the piece (and destroyers of the peace) are motorists.

Right again

I have lots of friendly encounters with PoFs with dogs, children, I cycle slowly, use my friendly bell, doff my cap
Joggers are problematic, they do not slow down, go too fast, refuse to single out, -1

pjclinch wrote:It's not a Them and Us problem between cyclists and <insert other transport-using group of choice here>, it's a problem between reasonable people (be they on bikes, foot, in cars, whatever) and abject tossers.

The majority if the pedestrian public, dog-walkers included, are IME entirely reasonable and easy to co-exist with, so in those cases a non-issue. But the abject tosser element will be a problem because, well, because they're abject tossers. That is entirely independent of their transport modality, and you get some of them on bikes too.

Pete.

+1
That's the heart of the matter,some people are just selfish and abject tossers,end of,trying to reason with them is a waste of time and effort.

JohnW wrote:

landsurfer wrote:We are the pedestrian public.
We are car drivers.
Our food comes by lorries.
Our salad from Kenya by plane.

Deal with it all.

Er - landsurfer - we're not all motorists!

But we all benefit from the motor vehicle ....

reohn2 wrote:

pjclinch wrote:It's not a Them and Us problem between cyclists and <insert other transport-using group of choice here>, it's a problem between reasonable people (be they on bikes, foot, in cars, whatever) and abject tossers.

The majority if the pedestrian public, dog-walkers included, are IME entirely reasonable and easy to co-exist with, so in those cases a non-issue. But the abject tosser element will be a problem because, well, because they're abject tossers. That is entirely independent of their transport modality, and you get some of them on bikes too.

Pete.

+1
That's the heart of the matter,some people are just selfish and abject tossers,end of,trying to reason with them is a waste of time and effort.

It's true that one can differentiate humans along the lines of "more or less inclined to tosserate". However, this is not "independent of their transport modality".

There is certainly a lot about the car - as designed, marketed and driven - that amplifies the tosserating aspect of the drivers (sometimes the passengers also). The racing and mountain bike - as designed, marketed and ridden - also have a bit of this toss-amplification included. They are modes of transport that include the invitation and encouragement to go fast and to vie for supremacy with others.

Of course, one does not need to give in to their siren calls to increase one's inbuilt tosseration factor. But many do. Even the jogger may be induced to amplify his toss by the notion that he is an important sportyman on an important lose-my-blobs mission! Mere walkers seem inferior and should get out of the way. His running shoes and tracksuit have changed him!

Cars and other human technologies are not necessarily benign or neutral things, then. Their designers intend to offer the users a whold range of capabilities besides the putative or basic ones. In the case of the car, one is being sold an opportunity not just to go from A to B but to do so in a certain manner, inclusive of attitudes associated with self-centred little skinbags with an overinflated sense of their own self-importance.

Cugel

Cugel wrote:<SNIP>
It's true that one can differentiate humans along the lines of "more or less inclined to tosserate".

Can't argue with any of that,but,and there always is one,thankfully tosseration rates are in the minority of any given group or transport mode ,though the prospects for most damage apply to the motoring tosser.

whoof wrote:

pjclinch wrote:It's not a Them and Us problem between cyclists and <insert other transport-using group of choice here>, it's a problem between reasonable people (be they on bikes, foot, in cars, whatever) and abject tossers.

The majority if the pedestrian public, dog-walkers included, are IME entirely reasonable and easy to co-exist with, so in those cases a non-issue. But the abject tosser element will be a problem because, well, because they're abject tossers. That is entirely independent of their transport modality, and you get some of them on bikes too.

Pete.

Totally agree. I used shared paths 5 days a week to get to and fro work. I see ignorant, selfish and downright dangerous behaviour from pedestrians, cyclist, dog walkers, users of mobility scooters..... no one group has an monopoly on idiocy.

That's the absolute truth. My advice to the OP is forget it and move on.

Cugel wrote:There is certainly a lot about the car - as designed, marketed and driven - that amplifies the tosserating aspect of the drivers (sometimes the passengers also). The racing and mountain bike - as designed, marketed and ridden - also have a bit of this toss-amplification included. They are modes of transport that include the invitation and encouragement to go fast and to vie for supremacy with others.

Of course, one does not need to give in to their siren calls to increase one's inbuilt tosseration factor. But many do. [...]

I'm not sure about mountain bikes, but racing-derived bikes have more than an invitation and encouragement to go fast - they make it easier to do it, too. With its closer gearing, aggressively aerodynamic position (bar tops at saddle height) and lighter weight, my road bike makes basically one thing easy: it accelerates until the engine won't push it any faster. If I ride it through town, I find myself holding back the pedal pressure and riding the brakes at most times of day to avoid hurtling through junctions at unsafe speeds, even on the road, so generally I ride the roadsters around town because they're a bit more steady and enjoyable to cruise.

Hybrids and touring bikes also cruise more readily than road bikes, in my experience, but I don't find them as comfortable or blissful to ride. I can forget about the mechanics on a roadster and just enjoy the view. No need to guess the gear for pulling away when you reach a stop. Everything's just where I feel it ought to be and just works.

TrekMad wrote:Whilst out leisure cycling at the weekend on our local cycle path, came across a dog off its leash about 50 yards up the track with its owner dawdling behind going through the bramble bushes. The dog came straight at me so I slowed down and just as I stopped it made a lunge to nip me .

The owner saunters along and I explained, calmly what happened. He went ballistic. Effing and Jeffing, with the parting salvo: You #$**** ( cyclists) you want the roads, you want the pavements and now you want the #$****! paths!!!!

I just rode off but on reflection later, i could see how an uninformed pedestrian could come to this conclusion, that cyclists were everywhere and they wanted the best of all worlds.

Is he right, are we asking for too much?

A large frame mounted pump full of sand makes an excellent dog defence tool. Then the fool will have a vets bill to complain about.

Lance Dopestrong wrote:

TrekMad wrote:Whilst out leisure cycling at the weekend on our local cycle path, came across a dog off its leash about 50 yards up the track with its owner dawdling behind going through the bramble bushes. The dog came straight at me so I slowed down and just as I stopped it made a lunge to nip me .

The owner saunters along and I explained, calmly what happened. He went ballistic. Effing and Jeffing, with the parting salvo: You #$**** ( cyclists) you want the roads, you want the pavements and now you want the #$****! paths!!!!

I just rode off but on reflection later, i could see how an uninformed pedestrian could come to this conclusion, that cyclists were everywhere and they wanted the best of all worlds.

Is he right, are we asking for too much?

A large frame mounted pump full of sand makes an excellent dog defence tool. Then the fool will have a vets bill to complain about.

Ah ha! I see what you did there. As the Toad employs his car to see-orf the pesky cyclist by giving him a firm nudge, the cyclist can see-orf the pesky dawg with a similar bit of over-the-top violence. Of course, as with a Toad-cyclist confrontation, should you miss then you have escalated the situation and may find that it all ends very badly indeed! It can be difficult to pedal away when there's a set of dawg teef in one's ankle.

On the other hand, you will have let oot a bit of your want-to-be-violent pressure and this may save someone else from it down the road a bit.

Cugel

Cugel wrote:

reohn2 wrote:

pjclinch wrote:It's not a Them and Us problem between cyclists and <insert other transport-using group of choice here>, it's a problem between reasonable people (be they on bikes, foot, in cars, whatever) and abject tossers.

The majority if the pedestrian public, dog-walkers included, are IME entirely reasonable and easy to co-exist with, so in those cases a non-issue. But the abject tosser element will be a problem because, well, because they're abject tossers. That is entirely independent of their transport modality, and you get some of them on bikes too.

Pete.

+1
That's the heart of the matter,some people are just selfish and abject tossers,end of,trying to reason with them is a waste of time and effort.

It's true that one can differentiate humans along the lines of "more or less inclined to tosserate". However, this is not "independent of their transport modality".

There is certainly a lot about the car - as designed, marketed and driven - that amplifies the tosserating aspect of the drivers (sometimes the passengers also). The racing and mountain bike - as designed, marketed and ridden - also have a bit of this toss-amplification included. They are modes of transport that include the invitation and encouragement to go fast and to vie for supremacy with others.

Of course, one does not need to give in to their siren calls to increase one's inbuilt tosseration factor. But many do. Even the jogger may be induced to amplify his toss by the notion that he is an important sportyman on an important lose-my-blobs mission! Mere walkers seem inferior and should get out of the way. His running shoes and tracksuit have changed him!

Cars and other human technologies are not necessarily benign or neutral things, then. Their designers intend to offer the users a whold range of capabilities besides the putative or basic ones. In the case of the car, one is being sold an opportunity not just to go from A to B but to do so in a certain manner, inclusive of attitudes associated with self-centred little skinbags with an overinflated sense of their own self-importance.

Cugel

Yup! I’m going to quote you in future ‘tosseration/tosserate’ perfect!
You even came top in my google search, with tolerate and tessellate!!!

Phil Fouracre wrote:
Yup! I’m going to quote you in future ‘tosseration/tosserate’ perfect!
You even came top in my google search, with tolerate and tessellate!!!

Tessellated tosseration: the arrangement of MPs in that Parliament as they hoot and yammer; or issue noises often characteristed as "economical with the truth", as they jerk up and down within the serried ranks of leather benches.

Should we tolerate this tessellated tosseration? Alas, the alternatives may be worse!