What is a cyclist?

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 21:38:06 +0100, "Brimstone"
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:24:38 +0100, "Brimstone"
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:07:06 +0100, "Brimstone"
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:48:30 +0100, "Brimstone"
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:02:17 +0100, "Brimstone"
wrote:

In which case it shouldn't be on the road at all should it?

It wasn't, was it?

Did you not notice the bit where I said "at all"?

For clarification, that means the trailer should never be on
the road, under any circumstance.

Why?

Because if it's not easily visible to other road users then it
presents a danger to them and you.

Who said that it was not easily visible to other road users?

You did.

When?

Can't you remember what you posted earlier and what started this
sub-thread?

I can recall very clearly. The fact that I used a motor vehicle to
pick up five bikes because I would feel uncomfortable hauling an
unladen trailer.

Now, can you also remember why you would feel unconfortable hauling an
unladen trailer?

Yes.

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 21:38:06 +0100, "Brimstone"
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:24:38 +0100, "Brimstone"
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:07:06 +0100, "Brimstone"
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:48:30 +0100, "Brimstone"
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:02:17 +0100, "Brimstone"
wrote:

In which case it shouldn't be on the road at all should it?

It wasn't, was it?

Did you not notice the bit where I said "at all"?

For clarification, that means the trailer should never be on
the road, under any circumstance.

Why?

Because if it's not easily visible to other road users then it
presents a danger to them and you.

Who said that it was not easily visible to other road users?

You did.

When?

Can't you remember what you posted earlier and what started this
sub-thread?

I can recall very clearly. The fact that I used a motor vehicle to
pick up five bikes because I would feel uncomfortable hauling an
unladen trailer.

Now, can you also remember why you would feel unconfortable hauling
an unladen trailer?

Yes.

Excellent!

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 22:10:39 +0100, "Brimstone"
wrote:

Now, can you also remember why you would feel unconfortable hauling
an unladen trailer?

Yes.

Excellent!

Have you a point to make?

On Sep 11, 8:04*am, 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. 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.


I don't use it as an excuse. I use it to keep fit because I find it
more interesting than a gym or swimming, more challenging too. The
fact it's greener than a car doesn't come into it.

Mike P

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 22:10:39 +0100, "Brimstone"
wrote:

Now, can you also remember why you would feel unconfortable hauling
an unladen trailer?

Yes.

Excellent!

Have you a point to make?

That if you can remember why you felt it unsafe to use your trailer then you
will remember why it shouldn't be on the road, at all.

Or to spell it out for you, if you're worried about someone hitting you from
behind, make sure that people can see the trailer.

On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 23:03:12 +0100, "Brimstone"
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 22:10:39 +0100, "Brimstone"
wrote:

Now, can you also remember why you would feel unconfortable hauling
an unladen trailer?

Yes.

Excellent!

Have you a point to make?

That if you can remember why you felt it unsafe to use your trailer then you
will remember why it shouldn't be on the road, at all.

Nonsense.

Or to spell it out for you, if you're worried about someone hitting you from
behind, make sure that people can see the trailer.

Would you fail to notice this?
www.britishschoolofcycling.com/photos/trailer

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 23:03:12 +0100, "Brimstone"
wrote:

Tom Crispin wrote:
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 22:10:39 +0100, "Brimstone"
wrote:

Now, can you also remember why you would feel unconfortable
hauling an unladen trailer?

Yes.

Excellent!

Have you a point to make?

That if you can remember why you felt it unsafe to use your trailer
then you will remember why it shouldn't be on the road, at all.

Nonsense.

Or to spell it out for you, if you're worried about someone hitting
you from behind, make sure that people can see the trailer.

Would you fail to notice this?
www.britishschoolofcycling.com/photos/trailer

I think the trailer could be easily missed, hence my suggestion of a board
with lights and markers.
..

On 12 Sep, 08:51, Tom Crispin
wrote:
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:47:42 -0700 (PDT), Doug
wrote:

I think that I have only used my car five times so far this year, one
of which was for under five miles, but I did have five children's
bicycles in the boot.

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

It's absurd to define a cyclist by their driving habits.

Would you define a motorist by their aviation habits?

No is the ratio of one mode compared to another. You don't mention
your car mileage but it looks small compared to your cycling mileage.
On the other hand I would guess that a majority here who criticise
cyclists, on this cycling newsgroup, drive much further than they
cycle.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On 12 Sep, 10:45, "Brimstone" wrote:
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?

Its more usual to have a slender flagpole with a little pennant at the
top.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

On 12 Sep, 12:19, Alistair Gunn wrote:
Marc twisted the electrons to say:

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

Or maybe just one, that changes to meet the required division?

Hmm ... *Is someone who's travelled ~3000km in the past year whilst
driving and ~1600km in the same time period whilst cycling a motorist or
a cyclist?

Motorist.

OTOH, is someone who's made 15 car journeys in the last 12
months but made 140 bicycle journeys a motorists of a cyclist?

Depends how far they drove or cycled. It could be 140 trips to the
nearby newsagent and 15 car journeys to, say, India.

I think the logical argument is that whilst they where driving they where
a motorist, and whilst they where cycling they where a cyclist but what's
the illogical answer?

Yours is the illogical answer because it takes no account of which
mode is dominant. Obviously it depends on which they do most in terms
of distance covered by the chosen mode of travel.

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