|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
What’s smug and deserves to be decapitated?
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. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
What’s smug and deserves to be decapitated?
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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
What’s smug and deserves to be decapitated?
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'. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
What’s smug and deserves to be decapitated?
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? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
What’s smug and deserves to be decapitated?
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. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
What’s smug and deserves to be decapitated?
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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
What’s smug and deserves to be decapitated?
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. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Attitude to Outgroups (was: What’s smug and deserves to be decapitated?
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. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
What’s smug and deserves to be decapitated?
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. |
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 01:58 PM |
That's my smug moment for the year. | wafflycat | UK | 22 | March 19th 07 01:01 PM |
Smug | archierob | UK | 4 | September 13th 05 01:40 PM |