What is a cyclist?

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:57:37 +0100, Paul Luton
wrote:

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 am not a number! I am a free man!

Guy

well indeed, I suspect that a lot of us who would say we are cyclist do
because it's a hobby, I happen to ride to work but it's largly as it's
such short distance that it would wreak the car, and I can roll though a
royal park, the hybrid I use is horrible but for a 2 mile potter it's
not a issue.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 00:03:44 -0700 (PDT), Doug
wrote:

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.

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.

You do talk ******** sometimes Doug.

A couple of years ago I clocked up over 6,000 miles on my bikes and
15,000 miles in my car. But my car mileage included a trip London -
Pyrenees - Paris - Britanny - London, and two return trips to the
Scottish Highlands. I probaly used my car fewer than 50 days over the
year, and my bikes on over 300 days over the year.

I would certainly class myself as a cyclist over motorist.

On 11 Sep, 04:51, Tom Crispin
wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 00:03:44 -0700 (PDT), Doug
wrote:



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.

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.

You do talk ******** sometimes Doug.

A couple of years ago I clocked up over 6,000 miles on my bikes and
15,000 miles in my car. *But my car mileage included a trip London -
Pyrenees - Paris - Britanny - London, and two return trips to the
Scottish Highlands. *I probaly used my car fewer than 50 days over the
year, and my bikes on over 300 days over the year.

I would certainly class myself as a cyclist over motorist.

But what you have to take into account, Tom, is that motorists do feel
a little guilty these days of greater environmental awareness and
maybe take refuge in cycling as an excuse. What better greenwash than
to be regarded as a regular cyclist while sneaking around furtively in
your car!

Surely a truly green cyclist would never dream of using a car?

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

On 10 Sep, 17:58, Tony Dragon wrote:
Doug 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.

The categories exist already but the distinctions are often blurred
and vary depending on vested interests.


Are you saying that a person can not be both a cyclist & a motorist?

No but if they are a motorist they are less of a cyclist, obviously.

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

On 11 Sep, 01:05, Martin 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'.

Why does it have to be distance, why not time. If a person travels 120
miles a week by car and 100 miles by bike, they could easily achieve the
car distance in 2 hours yet the bike distance would take many cyclists
over 5 hours. They would spend longer in the saddle, than at the wheel.

Because travel is consumerist and bad for the planet. So the further
you travel the worse it is. From that point of view walking is best
and most natural, of course, with cycling a close second.

It could also be how they treat their cycles are car. e.g. do they spend
more time maintaining the bike than the car?

Bike maintenance is much simpler and cheaper.

Would a qualitative guide be far better than a quantitative measurement.
e.g. Does the person regard themselves as a cyclist, or a motorist, or
both, or neither.

Motorists have a tendency to use their cycling as a form of greenwash
and as an excuse.

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.

Doug wrote:
On 11 Sep, 04:51, Tom Crispin
wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 00:03:44 -0700 (PDT), Doug
wrote:



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.

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.

You do talk ******** sometimes Doug.

A couple of years ago I clocked up over 6,000 miles on my bikes and
15,000 miles in my car. But my car mileage included a trip London -
Pyrenees - Paris - Britanny - London, and two return trips to the
Scottish Highlands. I probaly used my car fewer than 50 days over the
year, and my bikes on over 300 days over the year.

I would certainly class myself as a cyclist over motorist.

But what you have to take into account, Tom, is that motorists do feel
a little guilty these days of greater environmental awareness and
maybe take refuge in cycling as an excuse. What better greenwash than
to be regarded as a regular cyclist while sneaking around furtively in
your car!

Surely a truly green cyclist would never dream of using a car?

******** upon bollock.

On 10 Sep, 07:19, Doug wrote:

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?

No, it depends what they are suing at the time. Someone driving a car
is a motorist. Someone riding a bike is a cyclist. Someone sleeping in
bed is neither.

Ian

Doug wrote:

Because travel is consumerist and bad for the planet. So the further
you travel the worse it is. From that point of view walking is best
and most natural, of course, with cycling a close second.

Then how do you explain the fact that people were travelling long before the
age of the consumer Doug?

On 2009-09-11, Doug wrote:
On 11 Sep, 01:05, Martin 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'.

Why does it have to be distance, why not time. If a person travels 120
miles a week by car and 100 miles by bike, they could easily achieve the
car distance in 2 hours yet the bike distance would take many cyclists
over 5 hours. They would spend longer in the saddle, than at the wheel.

Because travel is consumerist and bad for the planet.

What harm exactly does travel do to the planet? Are you concerned we're
going to wear it out by driving across it too much?

On 2009-09-11, Doug wrote:
[...]
But what you have to take into account, Tom, is that motorists do feel
a little guilty these days of greater environmental awareness and
maybe take refuge in cycling as an excuse. What better greenwash than
to be regarded as a regular cyclist while sneaking around furtively in
your car!

Surely a truly green cyclist would never dream of using a car?

Being a cyclist has NOTHING to do with being green. If you ride a bike
because you think it's green, then you are not a cyclist.