What is a cyclist?

On 11 Sep, 08:53, Ben C wrote:
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.

I disagree. There may be many reasons why cyclists cycle. I cycle
partly for health reasons, partly to keep fit, and partly because it
is green. A cyclist is simply someone who cycles. Nothing more,
nothing less.

Ben C wrote:
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?

Well, it looks like we are all about to subsidise the air-travel
companies in order for them to reduce thier carbon-footprint.
Not - reduce the plane travel - no, that eats in to profits. We are to
maintain the standard of living that Branson and others have come to
expect. Those who do not fly are also included in coughing up to
subsidise air travel.


--

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

Ben C wrote:
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.

I never did get a reply from a local Friends of the Earth person about
the processes involved in converting ore in to aluminium, of the carbon
fibre processes and the sterile environment required to make electronic
components. Nor was there anything about the hazardous waste from these
proceses.

Bamboo bikes stuck together with fish-glue?
Nah, we'd still need to sort out metals for some components.

The smug ****er round here who knows he is green is a ****e cyclist.
Maybe I just don't like evangelists in any form ;-)

--

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

On 2009-09-11, Keitht KeithT wrote:
Ben C wrote:
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.

I never did get a reply from a local Friends of the Earth person about
the processes involved in converting ore in to aluminium, of the carbon
fibre processes and the sterile environment required to make electronic
components. Nor was there anything about the hazardous waste from these
proceses.

Bamboo bikes stuck together with fish-glue?
Nah, we'd still need to sort out metals for some components.

The smug ****er round here who knows he is green is a ****e cyclist.

When you say "round here" do you mean in RL?

Maybe I just don't like evangelists in any form ;-)

I would ride my bike even if it was bad for the environment. That is why
I am a cyclist.

I'm actually thinking of getting some "global warming denier" jerseys
made up to reduce typecasting.

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:02:00 +0100, Keitht KeithT wrote:

Bamboo bikes stuck together with fish-glue?

Cheese glue would be better - I think it would hold up better
to the stresses.

--
Andy Leighton =
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 07:19:45 -0500, Andy Leighton
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:02:00 +0100, Keitht KeithT wrote:

Bamboo bikes stuck together with fish-glue?

Cheese glue would be better - I think it would hold up better
to the stresses.

Vegetarians would object to one; vegans would object to t'other.

On 11 Sep, 08:51, Ben C wrote:
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?

Travel is a form of consumerism which wastes non-renewable energy and
pollutes. Also it tends to trash the environment at tourist hot-spots.
Those who benefit financially from the tourist trade usual do so at
the expense of their environment. There can be no doubt that humans
love to move around a lot and this may be attributable to the hunter-
gatherer instinct but technology has provided a way of proliferating
travel to the extent that it has become a very serious threat to the
environment.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
Travel broadens the damage.

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,

No he does not.

Tom, is that motorists do feel
a little guilty these days of greater environmental awareness

I don't feel guilty of my car use.
and
maybe take refuge in cycling as an excuse.

More likely not.

What better greenwash than
to be regarded as a regular cyclist

Why can't a cyclist use a car?

while sneaking around furtively in
your car!

Who is sneaking, certainly no Tom

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.


Moving the goalposts again, the clue is in the subject (that you posted)
No mention of a 'truly green cyclist'

Yet another case of Doug is losing an argument lets change the thread &
hope nobody notices.
--

Tony Dragon

Doug wrote:
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.

It is only obvious to you.

--

Tony Dragon

Brimstone 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

What is your evidence for that Doug and who decides into which
category an individual should be placed?

No response Doug?