|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Attitude to Outgroups
On 29/05/2020 11:08, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
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. It is obvious that you are fooling *yourself*, but, please, don't be obtuse. Cycling along footways is not good behaviour. Passing through red traffic lights is not good behaviour. Ignoring one-way working (whether on rhe footway or the carriageway) is not good behaviour. It is objectively correct to see all those as bad behaviour (and each of them is also a traffic offence). Let us see whether you can reasonably disagree with that without resorting to the standard "Cyclists must be allowed to do as they like" attitude. Additionally, in current conditions, passing pedestrians with less than six feet of clearance - particularly on a footway - is *terrible* behaviour. |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
What’s smug and deserves to be decapitated?
On 29/05/2020 11:10, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
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? Forbes is an American magazine about money, isn't it? What is its expertise in UK road traffic law? |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
What’s smug and deserves to be decapitated?
On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 9:24:47 PM UTC+1, Kelly wrote:
Rod Liddle has to be a real second rater, though. It was well over a decade ago that Matthew Parris wrote 'the most complained about story of the year'. His article in The Times in which he suggested piano wire should be strung across country lanes to decapitate cyclists prompted almost 600 protests to the Press Complaints Commission. How come nearly all of these "string up cyclists" merchants are pasty, whey-faced obese white men? They must hate people thinner and happier than them so much that they want to kill and seriously injure them. I feel sorry for them. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
What’s smug and deserves to be decapitated?
On Fri, 29 May 2020 13:38:19 GMT, JNugent
wrote: On 29/05/2020 11:10, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote: 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...yclists-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? Forbes is an American magazine about money, isn't it? What is its expertise in UK road traffic law? Is this answer a question with a question week? -- Bah, and indeed, Humbug. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
What’s smug and deserves to be decapitated?
On 29/05/2020 16:26, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
On Fri, 29 May 2020 13:38:19 GMT, JNugent wrote: On 29/05/2020 11:10, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote: 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...yclists-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? Forbes is an American magazine about money, isn't it? What is its expertise in UK road traffic law? Is this answer a question with a question week? It looks like it. OK: I'll make a statement. When and if someone can demonstrate to me that Forbes magazine has any expertise at all in UK road traffic law, and that it does not simply run articles dashed off by trendy New York Times or Washington Post Lycranazis whose heads are full of Monbigotry, I *might* deign to have a look at it. Don't read too much into "might". Until then, no thanks, any more than I would consult Cycling Weekly on moral philosophy or the Daily Mirror on macroeconomics. PS: What is a "video study"? Is it like that thing on Channel 4 where (some) people sitting on sofas watch other people sitting on sofas watching TV or videos? |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
What’s smug and deserves to be decapitated?
Simon Mason wrote:
On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 9:24:47 PM UTC+1, Kelly wrote: Rod Liddle has to be a real second rater, though. It was well over a decade ago that Matthew Parris wrote 'the most complained about story of the year'. His article in The Times in which he suggested piano wire should be strung across country lanes to decapitate cyclists prompted almost 600 protests to the Press Complaints Commission. How come nearly all of these "string up cyclists" merchants are pasty, whey-faced obese white men? They must hate people thinner and happier than them so much that they want to kill and seriously injure them. I feel sorry for them. I have reached that same conclusion. The problem "string up cyclists" merchants have with cyclists is really their problem, not mine. It transpires that this Rod Liddle guy, who wrote a few days ago that he finds it 'tempting' to stretch piano wire across the road to target cyclists, has past form in expressing his animosity to cyclists. This includes a The Spectator article he wrote in which he came out with: Quote Like many people, I am worried that too few cyclists are being killed on our roads each year... My concern is that if killing cyclists is no longer allowable in a free country, then it is the thin end of the wedge and it may be that, down the line, cycling will become an 'acceptable' pursuit for normal people. Unquote What would be the point in trying to explain you are a responsible cyclist to someone like that? I think you have it spot on with people who take their cyclist hatred to such extremes - feel sorry for them. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
What’s smug and deserves to be decapitated?
On Friday, May 29, 2020 at 5:31:40 PM UTC+1, Kelly wrote:
Simon Mason wrote: On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 at 9:24:47 PM UTC+1, Kelly wrote: Rod Liddle has to be a real second rater, though. It was well over a decade ago that Matthew Parris wrote 'the most complained about story of the year'. His article in The Times in which he suggested piano wire should be strung across country lanes to decapitate cyclists prompted almost 600 protests to the Press Complaints Commission. How come nearly all of these "string up cyclists" merchants are pasty, whey-faced obese white men? They must hate people thinner and happier than them so much that they want to kill and seriously injure them. I feel sorry for them. I have reached that same conclusion. The problem "string up cyclists" merchants have with cyclists is really their problem, not mine. It transpires that this Rod Liddle guy, who wrote a few days ago that he finds it 'tempting' to stretch piano wire across the road to target cyclists, has past form in expressing his animosity to cyclists. This includes a The Spectator article he wrote in which he came out with: Quote Like many people, I am worried that too few cyclists are being killed on our roads each year... My concern is that if killing cyclists is no longer allowable in a free country, then it is the thin end of the wedge and it may be that, down the line, cycling will become an 'acceptable' pursuit for normal people. Unquote What would be the point in trying to explain you are a responsible cyclist to someone like that? I think you have it spot on with people who take their cyclist hatred to such extremes - feel sorry for them. Me too - there used to be troll called "Mr Cheerful" here who used to delight in posting stories where young cyclists were killed by cars. There are some sick people about for sure. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Attitude to Outgroups
On 29/05/2020 14:37, JNugent wrote:
On 29/05/2020 11:08, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote: 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.Â* We all believe what we want, and the brain rewards re-inforcement; we fool ourselves. It is obvious that you are fooling *yourself*, but, please, don't be obtuse. Cycling along footways is not good behaviour. Passing through red traffic lights is not good behaviour. Ignoring one-way working (whether on rhe footway or the carriageway) is not good behaviour. It is objectively correct to see all those as bad behaviour (and each of them is also a traffic offence). You sound as though road law is a set of school rules: "You're a naughty boy: don't run in the corridors, do your tie up properly and get a haircut." Also, "bad behaviour" and "not good behaviour" are not the same thing. Let us see whether you can reasonably disagree with that without resorting to the standard "Cyclists must be allowed to do as they like" attitude. Yawn. Additionally, in current conditions, passing pedestrians with less than six feet of clearance - particularly on a footway - is *terrible* behaviour. This is the only law pedestrians can break. Noticeably more are breaking it than they were a few weeks ago. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Attitude to Outgroups
On 29/05/2020 23:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 29/05/2020 14:37, JNugent wrote: On 29/05/2020 11:08, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote: 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.Â* We all believe what we want, and the brain rewards re-inforcement; we fool ourselves. It is obvious that you are fooling *yourself*, but, please, don't be obtuse. Cycling along footways is not good behaviour. Passing through red traffic lights is not good behaviour. Ignoring one-way working (whether on rhe footway or the carriageway) is not good behaviour. It is objectively correct to see all those as bad behaviour (and each of them is also a traffic offence). You sound as though road law is a set of school rules: "You're a naughty boy: don't run in the corridors, do your tie up properly and get a haircut." You seem to "think" that compliance with the law is merely an option to be considered. Other people need and deserve to be protected from you. Also, "bad behaviour" and "not good behaviour" are not the same thing. shrug Cyclists (or the majority of them today) behave badly. That's the only way to describe it. Let us see whether you can reasonably disagree with that without resorting to the standard "Cyclists must be allowed to do as they like" attitude. Yawn. I was already well aware that you do not accept that cyclists are under a duty to comply with the law or to consider others. Additionally, in current conditions, passing pedestrians with less than six feet of clearance - particularly on a footway - is *terrible* behaviour. This is the only law pedestrians can break. Noticeably more are breaking it than they were a few weeks ago. Does that make it alright for you to do it? |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Attitude to Outgroups
JNugent wrote:
Cyclists (or the majority of them today) behave badly. That's the only way to describe it. Quote: ....the idea that the UK is menaced by an advancing tide of reckless cyclists ignores the fact that cycling levels across the country have stayed largely static for years, and remain pitifully low, at about 1% or so for all trips. ....the pandemic of avoidable ill-health caused by sedentary lifestyles will, if unchecked, pretty soon bankrupt the NHS and social care systems. ...the best way to get people active is exercise which forms part of their everyday life, such as active travel, and that cycling is ideal for this. About 85,000 people in England and Wales die each year from illness connected to inactive living. Obsessing about the supposed dangers caused by cycling, rather than the many, provable benefits it brings, strikes me as extremely odd. Unquote. https://www.theguardian.com/environm...kless-cyclists |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why is hi-vis clothing easier to see? What’s so special about the colour? | Max Demian | UK | 37 | September 5th 19 08:43 AM |
Dog walker almost decapitated by lorry that passes inches from herhead | Bod[_5_] | UK | 1 | June 13th 16 10:49 PM |
Arrogant, abusive and oh-so smug . | Mrcheerful[_3_] | UK | 32 | December 8th 12 02:58 PM |
That's my smug moment for the year. | wafflycat | UK | 22 | March 19th 07 02:01 PM |
Smug | archierob | UK | 4 | September 13th 05 01:40 PM |