Wiggins engaging mouth before brain again

[Jaded]

For every fuckwit "helmet saved my life" comment on a news story there is an equivalent fuckwit "pavement cyclist put my mother/wife/self/blow up doll in hospital" post on another story.

[Wycombewheeler]

I reckon the Hope Vision 1 is a triumph of build quality over optical design... but the cycle lighting arms race has been discussed to death elsewhere.

When's the last time you heard anyone shouting at a motorist for excessively bright lights, thobut?

When I had a crap front light, drivers would never dip their lights when I was approaching,  now most of them do. Sometimes they need a bit of prompting by my turning my light to full power. If our lights are too bright it's because we have been forced that way by drivers who don't respect us or couldn't see us otherwise.

Car lights are still brighter.

[Oscar's dad]

I think Brad's point was that we all need to behave. Drivers and cyclists. All of us.

Well, erm, yes. Does that need to be stated? But again, we have that weird equivalence. Cyclists misbehaving have quantifiably far fewer consequences (effectively none) than drivers misbehaving. Police no longer have to crack down on the scourge of pavement cyclists because there's no pavement left for to cycle on. Because cars. Cars that drive on the pavements. All the fucking time. And occasionally they run over and injure or kill pedestrians. Not to mention they make pavements unusable for able-bodied people, and well, if you're blind or in a wheelchair, that's a big fuck-you from the driver. They have 'nowhere to park' of course, so it's obviously not their fault.

Go stand at any set of lights in London (and I'm sure it's not unique to London), you won't have to wait to count several cars going through a red light.

These are people doing things in vehicles that often weigh several tonnes and are grossly overpowered. But yet again, it's cyclists that have to somehow agree to behave? Or we have some 'everyone play nice'. Truth is, you don't have to play nice if you have three tonnes of high powered car.

I think there's every chance that we're vehemently agreeing 

[clarion]

For every fuckwit "helmet saved my life" comment on a news story there is an equivalent fuckwit "pavement cyclist put my mother/wife/self/blow up doll in hospital" post on another story.

Not so.  In fact, the story is usually "pavement cyclist nearly put my mother/wife/self/blow up doll in hospital"  As in: No, they didn't.

[ian]

For every fuckwit "helmet saved my life" comment on a news story there is an equivalent fuckwit "pavement cyclist put my mother/wife/self/blow up doll in hospital" post on another story.

Not so.  In fact, the story is usually "pavement cyclist nearly put my mother/wife/self/blow up doll in hospital"  As in: No, they didn't.

My former boss had her arm broken by a cycle courier hopping onto the same bit pavement she was currently occupying. She didn't appreciate the irony, but his delivery was for her.

[Bledlow]

I'm not responsible for what other cyclists do. The mere fact that we use the same method to get around doesn't somehow quantum entangle our fates. I don't control their behaviour at traffic lights or what they have for tea.

And yeah, yet again we're missing the ball. Drivers break the rules all the time, they speed, they jump lights, they drive on the pavement, and we have yet another discussion of what cyclists do. Yeah, a lot of cyclists are cunts, I can agree. But so are a lot of drivers, and only one set are doing in large, heavy, high powered vehicles that kill and maim thousands of people every year. Which one should we worry about. The cyclists apparently. They're a bit rude. Sometimes. Oh my giddy sense of proportion.

^^^^Wot e sed^^^^

Truth.

[BrianI]

Wiggins' latest lecture to people who ride their bikes for other reasons than making money...

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sir-bradley-wiggins-warns-london-s-cyclists-stop-riding-dangerously-or-face-crackdown-a3202296.html

Includes this classic line:  "they’re not cyclists as such, they are not membership holders of British Cycling."

I know he won a big race once and has some medals for riding around in circles, but since when did that make him a road safety expert?

(I'm sure it's pure coincidence, by the way, that the piece was written by the paper's motoring correspondent)

So to be a "Cyclist"™®© according to Wiggins you need to be a member of " British Cycling"™®©?

So what are these non members of British Cycling doing when they ride their bicycles for utility/commuting/pleasure? That's right,they are cycling, although not "Cycling"™®© according to Wiggins

[Hot Flatus]

I'm not sure that riding a bike like a total cunt in London really helps in the battle to encourage considerate driving from...err...drivers, and to that end Wiggins is right. Ian is right, the potential for damage is far greater from cars,  but that is why cyclists need to model considerate road use.  It's a question of pragmatism, because the alternative is a lose-lose situation.

I think there is a subset of the cycling community, some of whom are present here, who's attitude is "fuck them". I don't see that as helpful, and whilst Ian may not be responsible for the actions of other cyclists, he will be treated as part of the subset of 'cyclists' by other road users, and therefore has a reason to concern himself with the behaviour of other members of this subset.

This morning I found myself with a tailback of vehicles because the lead vehicle was a learner driver who was too nervous to attempt an overtake. I could have said "fuck them" and carried on with an  increasingly angry  group of drivers behind me, but I didn't.  I pulled over and let them pass. It cost me 8 seconds. Every one of the following cars acknowledged me with a wave.

Will that act of consideration of other road users lead to reciprocal consideration? Maybe. Maybe not. But I know for sure what the alternative would have lead to.

[Cpt Sisko]

I'm not sure that riding a bike like a total cunt in London really helps in the battle to encourage considerate driving from...err...drivers, and to that end Wiggins is right. Ian is right, the potential for damage is far greater from cars,  but that is why cyclists need to model considerate road use.  It's a question of pragmatism, because the alternative is a lose-lose situation.

I think there is a subset of the cycling community, some of whom are present here, who's attitude is "fuck them". I don't see that as helpful, and whilst Ian may not be responsible for the actions of other cyclists, he will be treated as part of the subset of 'cyclists' by other road users, and therefore has a reason to concern himself with the behaviour of other members of this subset.

This morning I found myself with a tailback of vehicles because the lead vehicle was a learner driver who was too nervous to attempt an overtake. I could have said "fuck them" and carried on with an  increasingly angry  group of drivers behind me, but I didn't.  I pulled over and let them pass. It cost me 8 seconds. Every one of the following cars acknowledged me with a wave.

Will that act of consideration of other road users lead to reciprocal consideration? Maybe. Maybe not. But I know for sure what the alternative would have lead to.

White Van Man, Boy Racer or Chelsea Tractor Driver; it doesn't take many to give the group the reputation, but it does take a long time to lose it. At the moment I think cyclist are creating their own bad name, and that reputation is spreading way beyond the urban environment.

I live in a small market town that doesn't have a proper traffic light controlled junction, (we do have a whole four traffic light pedestrian controlled crossings), but the number of people (non cyclist) that go on to make a derogatory remark about cyclist behaviour when I tell them that I cycle is amazing. As the saying goes, Physician Heal Thyself.

[Si S]

I think there is a subset of the cycling community, some of whom are present here, who's attitude is "fuck them". I

 
Fuck who?

Dickheads on bikes, motorists or the majority of the population?

If the first I'm reminded of a conversation I had with a local club rider on a Sunday morning some years ago. After riding for a while the subject turned to commuting, turned out we used the same roads and I moaned about a certain road, his response was 'that's why I commute on a hybrid, I can jump the kerbs to avoid the traffic and lights. He took offence when asked if he wore his club colours for that. A BC affiliated club, a 'cyclist' by Brad's definition.

If the second, most of us are motorists too.

The third? Yeah probably guilty as charged. 

In your example I would have done the same, frequently do, especially for HGV's.

If you behave like a twat.....

The problem is broad brushstrokes generate clicks and sculpt opinion.

[Hot Flatus]

"Fuck motorists ".

The problem is, those broad brushstrokes are largely created by commentators in London, whether it be Clarkson, James Martin, Nigel Havers or Matthew Parris. It's all about London, which curiously is also reflected in Wiggins's comments. I've never seen such cuntish cycling as that practised in London. So on that basis, in so far as it actually affects me, I'm with Wiggins on his comments.

[ian]

I'm not sure that riding a bike like a total cunt in London really helps in the battle to encourage considerate driving from...err...drivers, and to that end Wiggins is right. Ian is right, the potential for damage is far greater from cars,  but that is why cyclists need to model considerate road use.  It's a question of pragmatism, because the alternative is a lose-lose situation.

I think there is a subset of the cycling community, some of whom are present here, who's attitude is "fuck them". I don't see that as helpful, and whilst Ian may not be responsible for the actions of other cyclists, he will be treated as part of the subset of 'cyclists' by other road users, and therefore has a reason to concern himself with the behaviour of other members of this subset.

Try thinking this through. You think that if you're mugged by a black person, that random other law-abiding black people should apologize and agree that the black community should do a bit more to avoid being criminals? You think that's a reasonable point of view? That when some bloke blows up a Baghdad marketplace, a community in Luton should apologize? The fact that someone has the same skin colour, religion, or mode of transport doesn't entwine them in communal responsibility. I'm not responsible for a courier hopping through a green pedestrian crossing. I'm responsible for what I do. We often have words for people who make the kind of assumptions you describe.

But I mostly don't fucking care. Because it doesn't matter what cyclists do. No one dies from mild annoyance. Not even – more's the pity – Daily Mail readers. We keep tolerating this kind of shit, running through these kinds of arguments, being so neutral – oh let's not upset the drivers – and the bullies always win. And the bullies aren't on bikes or walking on their own feet. So the next time someone asks a high profile cyclist these kinds of things, then perhaps they should say it like it is. Drivers will kill around 1700 people this year. They'll maim a hundred thousand. Disrupt the lives of millions. And you're fucking asking about cyclists running a red light again? Stop having this discussion. Stop pretending it's equal. It isn't.

[Hot Flatus]

Your first paragraph is nonsense. Nobody is asking you to apologise for others. In fact Wiggins isn't adressing you at all, nor me.

Yes, drivers will kill many people, and the majority of those people will be themselves and other drivers. Your point is a complete red herring.

[Oscar's dad]

What Wiggins is talking about is moulding opinions by setting an example, he is also showing an understanding of human nature.

If you want someone to treat you better don't routinely piss them off. It's very important that drivers show more consideration to vulnerable road and pavement users because a car does cause huge amounts of damage when it hits you. If cyclists show more consideration to motorists they MIGHT change their opinion. Then again they might not but what has the cyclist got to lose by trying?

Ideally there would be a police officer or CCTV camera on hand to nick every offending motorist but there isn't. So let's try making the roads safer ourselves by moulding opinions and changing behaviours using our postive actions: a smile, a wave, a quiet word, perhaps a more robust one sometimes. What have we to lose?  8 seconds in the example above.

[ian]

Your first paragraph is nonsense. Nobody is asking you to apologise for others. In fact Wiggins isn't adressing you at all, nor me.

Yes, drivers will kill many people, and the majority of those people will be themselves and other drivers. Your point is a complete red herring.

It so absolutely isn't. It's a sleight of hand that you're perpetuating. That someone misbehaves while riding a bike is entirely irrelevant. We're again stuck having the wrong discussion. It shouldn't be about cyclists and what some of them do and don't do.

[Oscar's dad]

Your first paragraph is nonsense. Nobody is asking you to apologise for others. In fact Wiggins isn't adressing you at all, nor me.

Yes, drivers will kill many people, and the majority of those people will be themselves and other drivers. Your point is a complete red herring.

It so absolutely isn't. It's a sleight of hand that you're perpetuating. That someone misbehaves while riding a bike is entirely irrelevant. We're again stuck having the wrong discussion. It shouldn't be about cyclists and what some of them do and don't do.

I think you're inferring the discussion should be about what motor vehicle drivers do and you're 1 million % right.  That discussion is going on right now.  Is the discussion delivering the results we want?  Not really.  Should the discussion be more widely held?  Definitely!  Etc, etc, etc.

But what Brad is saying, albeit in perhaps a clumsy way, is that cyclists have a part to play in making our roads safer.  Yes the onus is on motor vehicle drivers but cyclists can't totally absolve themselves of responsibility, behave like twats and believe their selfish actions are irrelevant.

[ian]

Then Bradley should stop saying whatever he's trying to saying. Because people on bikes, no matter how they behave, aren't making the roads any less safe. Stop putting the onus on people on bikes. Nothing they do matters in this debate.

[Oscar's dad]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree ian.

[Karla]

What Wiggers is doing is making the conversation all about misdemeanours by people on bikes.  He's turning the focus of the road safety argument onto cyclists' perceived sins.  He's giving people the subliminal message that cyclists are rule-breakers (and therefore somehow responsible for their own downfall)

If you were a company bidding for a contract with another company, and one of your salesmen was currently undergoing disciplinary proceedings for some mismemeanour or other, would you introduce him to the other company as "Hi, this is Jim, he's currently on a disciplinary"? 

No?  If not, you understand there's a difference between what you do behind closed doors and what you do when facing the wider public.  That's what's at play here, and it's why Wiggle should shut up.

[simonp]

On the way to work today a car came up my left hand side as I was going right at a roundabout, changed lane across my path into the lane I was in, then encroached on the left lane, then back into the middle lane. Then finally veered left into the left turn lane ahead, crossing another lane in the process. At no point did they indicate. They could have stayed in the same lane throughout, which was clear, until reaching the left turn lane they were headed for.

I suppose it was my fault they exhibited such lazy lane discipline, as I'm a cyclist. Except I was in my car. Car driving standards are generally very poor and focusing on poor cycling not only damages the safety of good cyclists but also everyone else.

[mattc]

What Wiggins is talking about is moulding opinions by setting an example, he is also showing an understanding of human nature.

If you want someone to treat you better don't routinely piss them off. It's very important that drivers show more consideration to vulnerable road and pavement users because a car does cause huge amounts of damage when it hits you. If cyclists show more consideration to motorists they MIGHT change their opinion. Then again they might not but what has the cyclist got to lose by trying?

Sometimes "not pissing them off" is not the best way to guarantee good conduct. (There are many examples in life: bullies, rape of women in short skirts ... I could find some more inflammatory examples if you like!)

And its impossible to "not piss off" most drivers. My experience of rants from colleagues, and actual motorists yelling at me on the road, is that we commit one crime above all others:
Being On The Road in Front of Them.

[Oscar's dad]

What Wiggins is talking about is moulding opinions by setting an example, he is also showing an understanding of human nature.

If you want someone to treat you better don't routinely piss them off. It's very important that drivers show more consideration to vulnerable road and pavement users because a car does cause huge amounts of damage when it hits you. If cyclists show more consideration to motorists they MIGHT change their opinion. Then again they might not but what has the cyclist got to lose by trying?

Sometimes "not pissing them off" is not the best way to guarantee good conduct. (There are many examples in life: bullies, rape of women in short skirts ... I could find some more inflammatory examples if you like!)

And its impossible to "not piss off" most drivers. My experience of rants from colleagues, and actual motorists yelling at me on the road, is that we commit one crime above all others:
Being On The Road in Front of Them.

I don't think I'm suggesting that appeasement works in every circumstance, who was that British PM who returned from Nazi Germany thinking he's avoided another WW?

In some situations a cheery wave won't cut it.  That's not to say that it won't work in other situations.

I have shouted at stupid drivers, peds looking with their ears not their eyes and stepping out in front of me, I have robustly spoken to drivers, I have yet to report one to the police but I'm sure it will happen one day, I have seen fellow cyclists knocked off by cars driven by twats.

But I have also smiled, said or waved a thank you etc.

You deal with each different situation differently and, you hope, appropriately.

This debate is surprisingly hard work.

[TimC]

It's hard work because there are (at least) two subjects being argued, and conflation of the two is, at best, awkward. The point that people, whatever their mode of transport is, should be patient, tolerant and accommodating instead of impatient, intolerant and selfish is a metaphor for life, unarguable (and, in view of human nature, hopeless!). The other point that cyclists are not responsible for the vast majority of deaths and injuries on the road, no matter how stupid some are, is also unarguable. So to make an argument between those two points is futile. It doesn't follow that lack of responsibility for carnage implies that it's undesirable to be polite, but it's of limited relevance to the most salient point: cyclists do not kill or maim others, on the whole. But neither do the vast majority of drivers. So to take issue with any entire group because of the actions of some both misses the points that none of us is responsible for the actions of others, and that generalisations are often unhelpful.

[Oscar's dad]

My memory is terrible and I've only just remembered that last year I got taken out by a twatish driver.  No harm was done but it was an unpleasant experience.  I'm not living in la-la land in case you thought I was. I do understand that a cheery wave isn't the cure for all evils.

[Karla]

It's hard work because there are (at least) two subjects being argued, and conflation of the two is, at best, awkward. The point that people, whatever their mode of transport is, should be patient, tolerant and accommodating instead of impatient, intolerant and selfish is a metaphor for life, unarguable (and, in view of human nature, hopeless!). The other point that cyclists are not responsible for the vast majority of deaths and injuries on the road, no matter how stupid some are, is also unarguable. So to make an argument between those two points is futile. It doesn't follow that lack of responsibility for carnage implies that it's undesirable to be polite, but it's of limited relevance to the most salient point: cyclists do not kill or maim others, on the whole. But neither do the vast majority of drivers. So to take issue with any entire group because of the actions of some both misses the points that none of us is responsible for the actions of others, and that generalisations are often unhelpful.

I think the third point is to realise what messages we send out. 

If we state, in a public forum and from a position of celebrity or authority:

"Cyclists should stop jumping red lights (etc)".

The message we send out between the lines is:

Cyclists do all sorts of bad things like jump red lights, and need reprimanding.

Is this really so hard to grasp?