What is a cyclist?

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:06:04 +0100, "Brimstone"
wrote:

It's interesting is it not that Doug, who claims to abhor discrimination,
wants to create artificial catergories which is the first step towards
discrimination.

Isn't that always the case? Look at anti-racism, gay rights, or any of
a plethora of activisms and the message is nearly always the same: "We
want to be treated equally, so the first thing you have to do is
recognise that we're different and grant us special privileges".

On 10 Sep, 13:06, "Brimstone" wrote:
Paul Luton wrote:
Doug wrote:
On this newsgroup are motorists who also claim to be cyclists but who
are highly critical of cyclists, which casts doubt on their claim to
be cyclists. So what, for the purposes of debate here, might qualify
as a cyclist?

May I suggest the following: 'If a person travels further each year
on a cycle than they do in a car then they can be regarded as a
genuine cyclist'.

Now, take some examples for evaluation. Someone commutes to work on a
bicycle but at the weekend bombs around in a car for fun. Conversely,
a person commutes by car but bombs around for fun and exercise at the
weekend on a cycle. What are they primarily, motorist or cyclist? It
surely depends how far they travel on each?

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

I am a human being ! Labelling people as cyclists, motorists etc just
suggests (incorrectly) that these are types of people so we get "
Council biased against motorists " as if it were a type of
discrimination.
I contend that Cycling facilities are mostly for "non-cyclists".
People who cycle already will go on cycling. People who don't need
encouragement.
All this despite the original source of "CTC".

It's interesting is it not that Doug, who claims to abhor discrimination,
wants to create artificial catergories which is the first step towards
discrimination.-

Even odder, though, is that Mr Bollen takes a perverse delight in
being victimised and discriminated against. So much so that he
actually creates new categories, into which he falls, that (in
BollenWorld) are victimised.

Mr Bollen is one truly screwed up old turd.

"Ace" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:06:04 +0100, "Brimstone"
wrote:

It's interesting is it not that Doug, who claims to abhor discrimination,
wants to create artificial catergories which is the first step towards
discrimination.

Isn't that always the case? Look at anti-racism, gay rights, or any of
a plethora of activisms and the message is nearly always the same: "We
want to be treated equally, so the first thing you have to do is
recognise that we're different and grant us special privileges".

Point of order : Doug ain't "We".

"Doug" wrote in message
...
On 10 Sep, 07:35, "mileburner" wrote:
"Doug" wrote in message

...

On this newsgroup are motorists who also claim to be cyclists but who
are highly critical of cyclists, which casts doubt on their claim to
be cyclists. So what, for the purposes of debate here, might qualify
as a cyclist?

May I suggest the following: 'If a person travels further each year on
a cycle than they do in a car then they can be regarded as a genuine
cyclist'.

Now, take some examples for evaluation. Someone commutes to work on a
bicycle but at the weekend bombs around in a car for fun. Conversely,
a person commutes by car but bombs around for fun and exercise at the
weekend on a cycle. What are they primarily, motorist or cyclist? It
surely depends how far they travel on each?

I think that when I ride my bike I qualify as a cyclist and when I drive
my
car I qualify as a motorist. As a cyclist who rides most days and
thousands
of miles a year I think that qualifys me as a fairly experienced cyclist.
I
may however drive more miles in a car but that does not negate the fact
that
I am a cyclist. Doug seems to think that cyclists and motorists are
mutually
exclusive: that you can only be one and not the other.

Nope, I contend that you are more one than another and that this
colours your judgement and opinions, bearing in mind that we are all
in competition for road space.

I seriously do not think there is "competition" for road space. So long as
the cyclist places himself in the proper position they have all the space
they need. Cars and other traffic may sometimes get in the way, but that is
just because it is traffic and all road users have to share the roads.

As an ex-motorist and now full-time cyclist I freely admit that I do
not like cars, or the widespread blight that their mass use brings,
though I do understand that in a few rare cases there is a need for
them. If I was still primarily a motorist no doubt my view would be
different and I might well also be tempted onto this cycling newsgroup
to roundly criticise cyclists. So it depends entirely, you see, where
you are coming from.

As a motorist and a cyclist, I too will freely admit that I do not like cars
and the widespread blight that their mass use brings. My view does not
change whether I am driving or cycling or if I do more than one or the
other.

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:54:43 +0100, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Ace" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:06:04 +0100, "Brimstone"
wrote:

It's interesting is it not that Doug, who claims to abhor discrimination,
wants to create artificial catergories which is the first step towards
discrimination.

Isn't that always the case? Look at anti-racism, gay rights, or any of
a plethora of activisms and the message is nearly always the same: "We
want to be treated equally, so the first thing you have to do is
recognise that we're different and grant us special privileges".

Point of order : Doug ain't "We".

Quite. And neither, normally, are the most vocal activists in other
areas. Sadly they often are the ones that make the news, and thereby
seek to polarise the world into "us" and "them".

Fortunately in this particular case it's unlikely that it will be
taken seriously.

On 10 Sep, 13:06, "Brimstone" wrote:
Paul Luton wrote:
Doug wrote:
On this newsgroup are motorists who also claim to be cyclists but who
are highly critical of cyclists, which casts doubt on their claim to
be cyclists. So what, for the purposes of debate here, might qualify
as a cyclist?

May I suggest the following: 'If a person travels further each year
on a cycle than they do in a car then they can be regarded as a
genuine cyclist'.

Now, take some examples for evaluation. Someone commutes to work on a
bicycle but at the weekend bombs around in a car for fun. Conversely,
a person commutes by car but bombs around for fun and exercise at the
weekend on a cycle. What are they primarily, motorist or cyclist? It
surely depends how far they travel on each?

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

I am a human being ! Labelling people as cyclists, motorists etc just
suggests (incorrectly) that these are types of people so we get "
Council biased against motorists " as if it were a type of
discrimination.
I contend that Cycling facilities are mostly for "non-cyclists".
People who cycle already will go on cycling. People who don't need
encouragement.
All this despite the original source of "CTC".

It's interesting is it not that Doug, who claims to abhor discrimination,
wants to create artificial catergories which is the first step towards
discrimination.

But that's /good/ discrimination. Discrimination /by/ Doug is /good/
discrimination. It's discrimination /against/ Doug that's bad
discrimination. Learn to discriminate!

Simon Brooke wrote:
On 10 Sep, 13:06, "Brimstone" wrote:
Paul Luton wrote:
Doug wrote:
On this newsgroup are motorists who also claim to be cyclists but
who are highly critical of cyclists, which casts doubt on their
claim to be cyclists. So what, for the purposes of debate here,
might qualify as a cyclist?

May I suggest the following: 'If a person travels further each year
on a cycle than they do in a car then they can be regarded as a
genuine cyclist'.

Now, take some examples for evaluation. Someone commutes to work
on a bicycle but at the weekend bombs around in a car for fun.
Conversely, a person commutes by car but bombs around for fun and
exercise at the weekend on a cycle. What are they primarily,
motorist or cyclist? It surely depends how far they travel on each?

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

I am a human being ! Labelling people as cyclists, motorists etc
just suggests (incorrectly) that these are types of people so we
get " Council biased against motorists " as if it were a type of
discrimination.
I contend that Cycling facilities are mostly for "non-cyclists".
People who cycle already will go on cycling. People who don't need
encouragement.
All this despite the original source of "CTC".

It's interesting is it not that Doug, who claims to abhor
discrimination, wants to create artificial catergories which is the
first step towards discrimination.

But that's /good/ discrimination. Discrimination /by/ Doug is /good/
discrimination. It's discrimination /against/ Doug that's bad
discrimination. Learn to discriminate!

fx: slaps forehead in frustration

Of course, you're absolutely right.

On 10 Sep, 11:50, "Simon Mason" wrote:
"Doug" wrote in message

...

On this newsgroup are motorists who also claim to be cyclists but who
are highly critical of cyclists, which casts doubt on their claim to
be cyclists. So what, for the purposes of debate here, might qualify
as a cyclist?

May I suggest the following: 'If a person travels further each year on
a cycle than they do in a car then they can be regarded as a genuine
cyclist'.

Well, I cycle 6000 miles a year to work, but drive 3500 miles in my 3 week
holiday, so still qualify.

So that is the only time you drive your car each year and that is your
car annual mileage?


--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

On 10 Sep, 12:08, Alistair Gunn wrote:
Simon Mason twisted the electrons to say:

Well, I cycle 6000 miles a year to work, but drive 3500 miles in my 3 week
holiday, so still qualify.

What if we include flights and/or ferry journeys? *Maybe you might turn
out to be an aviator or a sailor? *:-) *I know based on the "which mode
of transport did you travel the furthest" I'm definitely an aviator, but
then a return flight to Tasmania will do that for your milage total!

Should only apply to personal transport.

--
Car Free Cities
http://www.carfree.com/
Carfree Cities proposes a delightful solution
to the vexing problem of urban automobiles.

Doug wrote:
On 10 Sep, 12:08, Alistair Gunn wrote:
Simon Mason twisted the electrons to say:

Well, I cycle 6000 miles a year to work, but drive 3500 miles in my
3 week holiday, so still qualify.

What if we include flights and/or ferry journeys? Maybe you might
turn out to be an aviator or a sailor? :-) I know based on the
"which mode of transport did you travel the furthest" I'm definitely
an aviator, but then a return flight to Tasmania will do that for
your milage total!

Should only apply to personal transport.

Why the discrimination Doug?