What is a cyclist?

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:15:20 +0100, Tony Dragon
wrote:

Not bad then. I think I might class you as a real cyclist.

I bet he feels over the moon about that.

Oh yes. It gives me a nice warm glow and makes me feel all gooey
inside!

On 12 Sep, 06:50, Doug wrote:
On 11 Sep, 17:42, BrianW wrote:



On 11 Sep, 16:14, Doug wrote:

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.

Couldn't agree more. �For example, see this pic of some irresponsible
individual riding a two stroke motorbike in the Sahara Desert. �Just
think of the CO2 involved in transporting that person there, plus the
pollution caused by the motorbike in a fragile environment. �What sort
of person would do that, Doug?

http://www.pnony.org.uk/maroc.html

Its the person you are obsessed with and in love with and stalk on the
internet isn't it, Brian?

Nope. You have in the past admitted that the person in the pic is you.

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 20:30:44 +0100, "Brimstone"
wrote:

No. I would have preferred to haul the bikes by bike. Safety
concerns over hauling an unladen trailer caused me to use the motor
vehicle.

I'm interested to learn what these safety concerns might be.

A numpty motorist, not paying proper attention, and ramming the
trailer.

Surely you would have it properly marked, perhaps with a board across the
back with lights and other markers, to ensure it is as visible as is humanly
possible?

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:15:20 +0100, Tony Dragon
wrote:

Not bad then. I think I might class you as a real cyclist.

I bet he feels over the moon about that.

Oh yes. It gives me a nice warm glow and makes me feel all gooey
inside!

Congratulations Tom, you're one of the few to win Doug's approval. Whether
you want it or not.

Brimstone wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:15:20 +0100, Tony Dragon
wrote:

Not bad then. I think I might class you as a real cyclist.

I bet he feels over the moon about that.
Oh yes. It gives me a nice warm glow and makes me feel all gooey
inside!

Congratulations Tom, you're one of the few to win Doug's approval. Whether
you want it or not.



Doug once classed me as a " real cyclist" but that was under a different
measurement regime.It seems he has more than one standard.

Marc wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:15:20 +0100, Tony Dragon
wrote:

Not bad then. I think I might class you as a real cyclist.

I bet he feels over the moon about that.
Oh yes. It gives me a nice warm glow and makes me feel all gooey
inside!

Congratulations Tom, you're one of the few to win Doug's approval.
Whether you want it or not.



Doug once classed me as a " real cyclist" but that was under a different
measurement regime.It seems he has more than one standard.

You know, I have never noticed that. ;-)

--

Tony Dragon

Marc wrote:
Brimstone wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:15:20 +0100, Tony Dragon
wrote:

Not bad then. I think I might class you as a real cyclist.

I bet he feels over the moon about that.
Oh yes. It gives me a nice warm glow and makes me feel all gooey
inside!

Congratulations Tom, you're one of the few to win Doug's approval.
Whether you want it or not.



Doug once classed me as a " real cyclist" but that was under a
different measurement regime.It seems he has more than one standard.

I have heard it suggested that there are "two sorts" of most things.

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 23:32:34 +0100, JNugent
wrote:

I'm interested to learn what these safety concerns might be.

A numpty motorist, not paying proper attention, and ramming the
trailer.
A valid concern, as my friend could testify. He was riding a tandem on his
own, and had to stop due to traffic in front of him. The car behind rammed
him, thinking he was on a conventional length bike.
You use the very Dougite term "rammed" (which implies a deliberate act).

The context of 'rammed' was given in my message: "A numpty motorist,
not paying proper attention, and ramming the trailer."

You use the very Dougite term "rammed" (which implies a deliberate act).

Tom Crispin wrote:

JNugent wrote:

I won't.

Only 5/10 for English.
"I shan't" is the more correct version.

Other than Godwin's Law, a spelling flame is a surest sign that an
argument has been won.

It wasn't a spelling flame (it wasn't a flame at all, except in your
imagination).

You spelled "won't" correctly. But it is not the best word for your context.
It's a common enough error. Mistaking faulty grammar or syntax for incorrect
spelling is not such a common error.

Doug wrote:
On 11 Sep, 23:30, JNugent wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
JNugent wrote:
Don't apologise.
I won't.
Only 5/10 for English.

"I shan't" is the more correct version.

But well done for not apologising. Using a car for any journey is absolutely
nothing to apologise for, and others have no right whatsoever to bully you
into feeling guilty about it.

Why not?

I laid that out quite clearly. I fully support TC's right to use his car.