Cycling UK Forum

Andrew Gillingham deserves a sainthood for his patience in the face of that storm of rubbish.

I fear I might have resorted to violence in the same situation.

I liked the piece.

As related elsewhere it shows a subtle change in attitude. We no longer have the loonie leftie cyclist howling against the common sense of the normalised behaviour of the masses and establishment; rather the loonie is quite clearly the any-cyclist ranting away at an ever higher pitch, going further into the twilight zone, while the calm, sensible establishment view is the pro-cycling one. And then Rees-Mogg puts the cherry on the top by giving the pompous, upper-class-tory-boy view.....I was just surprised that he didn't demand dedicated fox hunting lanes be built through London.

Si wrote:I liked the piece.

As related elsewhere it shows a subtle change in attitude. We no longer have the loonie leftie cyclist howling against the common sense of the normalised behaviour of the masses and establishment; rather the loonie is quite clearly the any-cyclist ranting away at an ever higher pitch, going further into the twilight zone, while the calm, sensible establishment view is the pro-cycling one. And then Rees-Mogg puts the cherry on the top by giving the pompous, upper-class-tory-boy view.....I was just surprised that he didn't demand dedicated fox hunting lanes be built through London.

Good point!

Puts the SPD is on the other foot

Si wrote:
As related elsewhere it shows a subtle change in attitude. We no longer have the loonie leftie cyclist howling against the common sense of the normalised behaviour of the masses and establishment....

Good observation.

kylecycler wrote:Damn! Thought you were going to tell us she'd died. Horrible woman. Even endorses and defends the production of veal.

Isn't veal a byproduct of the dairy industry?
It was a bit of a rant - unfortunately some cyclists make her points for her.
IMO pedestrians often get the worse of things- being herded to inconvenient crossings and always having to be aware that the pavement may not always be exclusively used by pedestrians.

ANTONISH wrote:

kylecycler wrote:Damn! Thought you were going to tell us she'd died. Horrible woman. Even endorses and defends the production of veal.

Isn't veal a byproduct of the dairy industry?
It was a bit of a rant - unfortunately some cyclists make her points for her.
IMO pedestrians often get the worse of things- being herded to inconvenient crossings and always having to be aware that the pavement may not always be exclusively used by pedestrians.

Sorry, it was just a personal opinion, nothing to do with cycling. It's just that, many years ago, a young lady called Louise, with absolutely no lead-up whatsoever - we hadn't even been talking about food - said to me, "Don't eat veal, by the way." She'd found out what it was and how it was produced and had taken it upon herself to tell everyone she met not to eat the stuff. Unfortunately that's what I associate with Janet Street-Porter - veal.

Actually I didn't know she was a cyclist so I take everything back. Nobody is beyond salvation.

ANTONISH wrote:IMO pedestrians often get the worse of things- being herded to inconvenient crossings and always having to be aware that the pavement may not always be exclusively used by pedestrians.

Nah, I don't buy that. Pedestrians are also victims of the tyranny of the motocracy but cyclists have it worse. Pedestrians mostly have pavements to their own exclusive use. Cyclists virtually never have their own exclusive space. Cycle tracks have the same kind of rubbish crossings that pedestrians have. I am confident that I could walk any road in the country that I am legally permitted to if I so wished, yet there are a good number I could not cycle on because of the danger. We don't have adults who feel unable to walk across town because of the perceived danger of doing so, yet huge proportions of the population feel unable to make ever simple journeys by cycle because of fear of being injured or killed. Pedestrians may use all of the rights of way network, any newly constructed cycle paths and all public space. Cyclists may use only a small proportion of the rights of way network and shared use cycle facilities are often poorly suited to their needs.

Bicycler wrote:

ANTONISH wrote:IMO pedestrians often get the worse of things- being herded to inconvenient crossings and always having to be aware that the pavement may not always be exclusively used by pedestrians.

Nah, I don't buy that. Pedestrians are also victims of the tyranny of the motocracy but cyclists have it worse. Pedestrians mostly have pavements to their own exclusive use. Cyclists virtually never have their own exclusive space. Cycle tracks have the same kind of rubbish crossings that pedestrians have. I am confident that I could walk any road in the country that I am legally permitted to if I so wished, yet there are a good number I could not cycle on because of the danger. We don't have adults who feel unable to walk across town because of the perceived danger of doing so, yet huge proportions of the population feel unable to make ever simple journeys by cycle because of fear of being injured or killed. Pedestrians may use all of the rights of way network, any newly constructed cycle paths and all public space. Cyclists may use only a small proportion of the rights of way network and shared use cycle facilities are often poorly suited to their needs.

Quite.
Any 'cycle paths' on the pavement here you have to give way to cars crossing them and pedestrians on them, whether they are down as shared or not, as pedestrians walk across the whole pavement regardless. On the off-road cycle tracks you still for all practical purposes have to give way to some extent to pedestrians and dogs. On the roads, the cars see to it that on the whole they are the boss, they park across cycle lanes and cut into them when it suits them.

There is not one single place I can think of here where a cyclist has either exclusive use or a right of way over everyone else. Not one.

Bicycler wrote:

ANTONISH wrote:IMO pedestrians often get the worse of things- being herded to inconvenient crossings and always having to be aware that the pavement may not always be exclusively used by pedestrians.

Nah, I don't buy that. Pedestrians are also victims of the tyranny of the motocracy but cyclists have it worse. Pedestrians mostly have pavements to their own exclusive use. Cyclists virtually never have their own exclusive space. Cycle tracks have the same kind of rubbish crossings that pedestrians have. I am confident that I could walk any road in the country that I am legally permitted to if I so wished, yet there are a good number I could not cycle on because of the danger. We don't have adults who feel unable to walk across town because of the perceived danger of doing so, yet huge proportions of the population feel unable to make ever simple journeys by cycle because of fear of being injured or killed. Pedestrians may use all of the rights of way network, any newly constructed cycle paths and all public space. Cyclists may use only a small proportion of the rights of way network and shared use cycle facilities are often poorly suited to their needs.

Absolutely spot on!
And it's a disgrace that it continues as it does,with cycling organisations(no names mentioned)folding meekly to the motoring bullies.

reohn2 wrote:

Bicycler wrote:

ANTONISH wrote:IMO pedestrians often get the worse of things- being herded to inconvenient crossings and always having to be aware that the pavement may not always be exclusively used by pedestrians.

Nah, I don't buy that. Pedestrians are also victims of the tyranny of the motocracy but cyclists have it worse. Pedestrians mostly have pavements to their own exclusive use. Cyclists virtually never have their own exclusive space. Cycle tracks have the same kind of rubbish crossings that pedestrians have. I am confident that I could walk any road in the country that I am legally permitted to if I so wished, yet there are a good number I could not cycle on because of the danger. We don't have adults who feel unable to walk across town because of the perceived danger of doing so, yet huge proportions of the population feel unable to make ever simple journeys by cycle because of fear of being injured or killed. Pedestrians may use all of the rights of way network, any newly constructed cycle paths and all public space. Cyclists may use only a small proportion of the rights of way network and shared use cycle facilities are often poorly suited to their needs.

Absolutely spot on!
And it's a disgrace that it continues as it does,with cycling organisations(no names mentioned)folding meekly to the motoring bullies.

And there are no cycling bullies riding through red lights on pedestrian crossings and riding too fast on shared use paths or cycling on dedicated pedestrian paths ?

ANTONISH wrote:And there are no cycling bullies riding through red lights on pedestrian crossings and riding too fast on shared use paths or cycling on dedicated pedestrian paths ?

But of course,and they need taking to task for it.
But one things for sure,they don't do anywhere near the damage to life and limb as the motorists who flout the law do,and get away with it daily.If not with the approval of the authorities then certainly the lack of adequate policing and penalties for such offenders.

I was quite surprised to find this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoating

AFAICS It covers all Street-Porter's criticisms and concerns and explains why she and others hold what are, after all, quite peculiar views. The negative attention currently given to cycling and the obsession about helmets is really rich ground for some psychological research but I think Wikipedia has got it broadly covered. I like the idea that drivers blame cyclists for the congestion caused by, well, drivers and that drivers feel that cyclists should wear helmets to protect them from the dangers created by, well, drivers. The chair of the discussion was clearly unable to see the irony of it all, if not the hilarity.

Thanks for that! Read a lot of that Wiki link, now I'm really depressed, if half of it is true, we really have got no chance of changing attitudes!!

reohn2 wrote:

Bicycler wrote:

ANTONISH wrote:IMO pedestrians often get the worse of things- being herded to inconvenient crossings and always having to be aware that the pavement may not always be exclusively used by pedestrians.

Nah, I don't buy that. Pedestrians are also victims of the tyranny of the motocracy but cyclists have it worse...

Absolutely spot on!
And it's a disgrace that it continues as it does,with cycling organisations(no names mentioned)folding meekly to the motoring bullies.

ANTONISH wrote:And there are no cycling bullies riding through red lights on pedestrian crossings and riding too fast on shared use paths or cycling on dedicated pedestrian paths ?

Of course there are inconsiderate cyclists. Where did either of us imply otherwise? For that matter there are inconsiderate pedestrians. Inconsiderate cyclists and the infinitely greater danger of motor vehicles haven't yet made walking the streets anywhere near as unfeasible to the average person as cycling.

Bicycler wrote:Of course there are inconsiderate cyclists. Where did either of us imply otherwise? For that matter there are inconsiderate pedestrians. Inconsiderate cyclists and the infinitely greater danger of motor vehicles haven't yet made walking the streets anywhere near as unfeasible to the average person as cycling.

Covered in the Wiki article:

Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung considered indeed that "there must be some people who behave in the wrong way; they act as scapegoats and objects of interest for the normal ones