What’s smug and deserves to be decapitated?

On 28/05/2020 14:27, JNugent wrote:
On 28/05/2020 13:39, Kelly wrote:
JNugent wrote:

On 28/05/2020 08:35, Kelly wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:

On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 9:24:47 PM UTC+1, Kelly wrote:
And
this, apparently, because he felt cyclists needed to be punished for
supposedly littering the countryside with plastic drinks bottles.

The same cyclists that also lob McDonalds bags, KFC trays, Monster
energy drinks, fag packets, empty Stella cans, crisp packets,
chocolate bar wrappers, Red Bull cans and fast food detritus out of
their drivers' windows?

Cyclists are a minority group that still remain an easy target for
just about anyone.

Quote:
... cyclists – the one heterogeneous, harmless minority who it is
seemingly still fine to denigrate, dismiss and generally invent facts
about.
Unquote

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ok-to-demonise


Don't you think it would be less easy to "demonise" cyclists if they
(the majority of cyclists) simply behaved better and committed fewer
traffic offences?

Isn't the problem that there are three groups of people involved here,
pedestrians, cyclists and drivers - with each having different
self-interests?

No. I don't expect cyclists to yield their legal rights to me. In the
same way, I don't expect them not to concede mine, whether I am walking
or driving.

There is no way they are all going to see things the
same way, and they are going to rely on a degree of goodwill from each
other for things to work out optimally.

I have been a member of all three of those groups and am still a member
of two of them. I see no conflict of interest in expecting all road
users to obey the law and (thereby) behave in a predictable and safe
manner.

Ignoring traffic lights, pedestrian-only rules and one-way working is
totally unacceptable, as I am sure you will agree.

So when a member of one group has bad will towards another group, then
the group towards which the bad will is direct will forever have very
many of their actions being seen in their worst possible lights by
that member. When someone has enough bad will towards you, they can
take almost anything you do the wrong way. Thus you have non-cyclist
pedestrians and drivers tending to have less goodwill (to actual bad
will) directed at cyclists. And you have pedestrians and drivers who
also cycle, tending to have more goodwill directed towards cyclists.
Unfortunately that still leaves cyclist in the minority with all the
bad will that ensues. That's a difficult disadvantage for cyclist to
overcome.

It's still something for cyclists as a group (and the forces of law and
order, of course) to address. It's no use any cyclist expecting
unbounded personal goodwill when the experience of most other road users
is that cyclists invariably behave selfishly and badly (with many of
them seeming to "think" that they have some sort of right so to behave).

I would really like to be able to be more conciliatory on this issue,
but proportions really don't play the part they do with other road user
groups because it's the majority of cyclists who behave badly.


Wrong.

Cyclists Break Far Fewer Road Rules Than Motorists, Finds New Video Study
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlton...w-video-study/


--
Bod

On Thursday, May 28, 2020 at 3:18:22 PM UTC+1, Bod wrote:

Wrong.

Cyclists Break Far Fewer Road Rules Than Motorists, Finds New Video Study
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlton...w-video-study/

Obviously, when you look at this lot!

Speeding, parking the wrong way at night, on yellow lines, on zig zags, outside schools, pavement parking, obstructing traffic by inconsiderate parking, driving while drunk, on mobile phones, with no car tax, no licence, no insurance, no MOT, illegal plates, overtaking on double lines, due care, bald tyres, faulty brakes, one eyed monsters, no rear lights, no brake lights, no indicators, fog light abuse, faulty steering, windscreen obscuration, darkly tinted windows, child seat abuse, no seatbelts, insecure load, one way street abuse, amber/red light jumping, cycle box abuse, bus lane abuse, box junction abuse, death by dangerous driving, excess smoke and noise from exhaust, duff suspension, leaking oil, cash for crash fiddles, underage child in front, lights causing glare, over weight limit, ignoring no entry signs, parking without permit, not having control of your vehicle, improper use of horn, using horn at night, no in date photo licence, no licence application after long ban, without prescribed eyewear, failing to stop for police/lollipop/zebra etc - ran out of space.

JNugent wrote:

On 28/05/2020 13:39, Kelly wrote:
JNugent wrote:

On 28/05/2020 08:35, Kelly wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:

On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 9:24:47 PM UTC+1, Kelly wrote:
And
this, apparently, because he felt cyclists needed to be punished for
supposedly littering the countryside with plastic drinks bottles.

The same cyclists that also lob McDonalds bags, KFC trays, Monster energy drinks, fag packets, empty Stella cans, crisp packets, chocolate bar wrappers, Red Bull cans and fast food detritus out of their drivers' windows?

Cyclists are a minority group that still remain an easy target for
just about anyone.

Quote:
... cyclists – the one heterogeneous, harmless minority who it is
seemingly still fine to denigrate, dismiss and generally invent facts
about.
Unquote

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ok-to-demonise

Don't you think it would be less easy to "demonise" cyclists if they
(the majority of cyclists) simply behaved better and committed fewer
traffic offences?

Isn't the problem that there are three groups of people involved here,
pedestrians, cyclists and drivers - with each having different
self-interests?

No. I don't expect cyclists to yield their legal rights to me. In the
same way, I don't expect them not to concede mine, whether I am walking
or driving.

There is no way they are all going to see things the
same way, and they are going to rely on a degree of goodwill from each
other for things to work out optimally.

I have been a member of all three of those groups and am still a member
of two of them. I see no conflict of interest in expecting all road
users to obey the law and (thereby) behave in a predictable and safe manner.

Ignoring traffic lights, pedestrian-only rules and one-way working is
totally unacceptable, as I am sure you will agree.

So when a member of one group has bad will towards another group, then
the group towards which the bad will is direct will forever have very
many of their actions being seen in their worst possible lights by
that member. When someone has enough bad will towards you, they can
take almost anything you do the wrong way. Thus you have non-cyclist
pedestrians and drivers tending to have less goodwill (to actual bad
will) directed at cyclists. And you have pedestrians and drivers who
also cycle, tending to have more goodwill directed towards cyclists.
Unfortunately that still leaves cyclist in the minority with all the
bad will that ensues. That's a difficult disadvantage for cyclist to
overcome.

It's still something for cyclists as a group (and the forces of law and
order, of course) to address. It's no use any cyclist expecting
unbounded personal goodwill when the experience of most other road users
is that cyclists invariably behave selfishly and badly (with many of
them seeming to "think" that they have some sort of right so to behave).

I would really like to be able to be more conciliatory on this issue,
but proportions really don't play the part they do with other road user
groups because it's the majority of cyclists who behave badly.

Okay - thanks for putting across your point of view so clearly. Plenty
to reflect on once again.

On 28/05/2020 12:07, JNugent wrote:
On 28/05/2020 11:59, TMS320 wrote:

On 27/05/2020 21:39, JNugent wrote:

Serious question: would you rather people didn't tell the truth when
expressing their opinions so that cyclists could remain unaware of
the opprobrium in which they are held by a significant proportion of
the population?

If the talk was about groups of foreigners in this country it would
get shut down long before it got to fantasies about bombing a
gathering place.

"If"...

But it isn't.

What's that about "bombing", by the way (assuming you haven't just made
it up)?

Look up 'hypothetical'.

On 28/05/2020 15:18, Bod wrote:
On 28/05/2020 14:27, JNugent wrote:
On 28/05/2020 13:39, Kelly wrote:
JNugent wrote:

On 28/05/2020 08:35, Kelly wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:

On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 9:24:47 PM UTC+1, Kelly wrote:
And
this, apparently, because he felt cyclists needed to be punished for
supposedly littering the countryside with plastic drinks bottles.

The same cyclists that also lob McDonalds bags, KFC trays, Monster
energy drinks, fag packets, empty Stella cans, crisp packets,
chocolate bar wrappers, Red Bull cans and fast food detritus out
of their drivers' windows?

Cyclists are a minority group that still remain an easy target for
just about anyone.

Quote:
... cyclists – the one heterogeneous, harmless minority who it is
seemingly still fine to denigrate, dismiss and generally invent facts
about.
Unquote

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ok-to-demonise


Don't you think it would be less easy to "demonise" cyclists if they
(the majority of cyclists) simply behaved better and committed fewer
traffic offences?

Isn't the problem that there are three groups of people involved here,
pedestrians, cyclists and drivers - with each having different
self-interests?

No. I don't expect cyclists to yield their legal rights to me. In the
same way, I don't expect them not to concede mine, whether I am
walking or driving.

There is no way they are all going to see things the
same way, and they are going to rely on a degree of goodwill from each
other for things to work out optimally.

I have been a member of all three of those groups and am still a
member of two of them. I see no conflict of interest in expecting all
road users to obey the law and (thereby) behave in a predictable and
safe manner.

Ignoring traffic lights, pedestrian-only rules and one-way working is
totally unacceptable, as I am sure you will agree.

So when a member of one group has bad will towards another group, then
the group towards which the bad will is direct will forever have very
many of their actions being seen in their worst possible lights by
that member. When someone has enough bad will towards you, they can
take almost anything you do the wrong way. Thus you have non-cyclist
pedestrians and drivers tending to have less goodwill (to actual bad
will) directed at cyclists. And you have pedestrians and drivers who
also cycle, tending to have more goodwill directed towards cyclists.
Unfortunately that still leaves cyclist in the minority with all the
bad will that ensues. That's a difficult disadvantage for cyclist to
overcome.

It's still something for cyclists as a group (and the forces of law
and order, of course) to address. It's no use any cyclist expecting
unbounded personal goodwill when the experience of most other road
users is that cyclists invariably behave selfishly and badly (with
many of them seeming to "think" that they have some sort of right so
to behave).

I would really like to be able to be more conciliatory on this issue,
but proportions really don't play the part they do with other road
user groups because it's the majority of cyclists who behave badly.


Wrong.

Cyclists Break Far Fewer Road Rules Than Motorists, Finds New Video Study
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlton...w-video-study/

Forbes is a magazine about money, isn't it?

On 28/05/2020 17:41, TMS320 wrote:

On 28/05/2020 12:07, JNugent wrote:
On 28/05/2020 11:59, TMS320 wrote:
On 27/05/2020 21:39, JNugent wrote:

Serious question: would you rather people didn't tell the truth when
expressing their opinions so that cyclists could remain unaware of
the opprobrium in which they are held by a significant proportion of
the population?

If the talk was about groups of foreigners in this country it would
get shut down long before it got to fantasies about bombing a
gathering place.

"If"...

But it isn't.

What's that about "bombing", by the way (assuming you haven't just
made it up)?

Look up 'hypothetical'.

So you lied about the "bombing" as well.

On 28/05/2020 19:33, JNugent wrote:
On 28/05/2020 17:41, TMS320 wrote:
On 28/05/2020 12:07, JNugent wrote:
On 28/05/2020 11:59, TMS320 wrote:
On 27/05/2020 21:39, JNugent wrote:

Serious question: would you rather people didn't tell the truth
when expressing their opinions so that cyclists could remain
unaware of the opprobrium in which they are held by a significant
proportion of the population?

If the talk was about groups of foreigners in this country it would
get shut down long before it got to fantasies about bombing a
gathering place.

"If"...

But it isn't.

What's that about "bombing", by the way (assuming you haven't just
made it up)?

Look up 'hypothetical'.

So you lied about the "bombing" as well.

You don't know when to stop.

On 28/05/2020 20:49, TMS320 wrote:
On 28/05/2020 19:33, JNugent wrote:
On 28/05/2020 17:41, TMS320 wrote:
On 28/05/2020 12:07, JNugent wrote:
On 28/05/2020 11:59, TMS320 wrote:
On 27/05/2020 21:39, JNugent wrote:

Serious question: would you rather people didn't tell the truth
when expressing their opinions so that cyclists could remain
unaware of the opprobrium in which they are held by a significant
proportion of the population?

If the talk was about groups of foreigners in this country it would
get shut down long before it got to fantasies about bombing a
gathering place.

"If"...

But it isn't.

What's that about "bombing", by the way (assuming you haven't just
made it up)?

Look up 'hypothetical'.

So you lied about the "bombing" as well.

You don't know when to stop.

Fortunately, I don't lie.

Unlike you.

On Thu, 28 May 2020 10:56:41 GMT, JNugent
wrote:
[]

Don't you think it would be less easy to "demonise" cyclists if they
(the majority of cyclists) simply behaved better and committed fewer
traffic offences?

But they do (behave well); it's your selective view that's being reinforced
by the transgressors - you discount the ordinary well-behaved. We all
believe what we want, and the brain rewards re-inforcement; we fool
ourselves.

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.

On Thu, 28 May 2020 18:31:59 GMT, JNugent
wrote:

On 28/05/2020 15:18, Bod wrote:

[Let's get this a bit neater]

Cyclists Break Far Fewer Road Rules Than Motorists, Finds New Video
Study
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlton...ists-break-far
-fewer-road-rules-than-motorists-finds-new-video-study/

Forbes is a magazine about money, isn't it?


Did you read it? Do you not want to believe it?


--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.