A lycra lout's psyche

So what kind of people are all those lycra louts? Were you ever one
yourself?
Have ever fallen prey to the following ways of thinking:

1. If society treats me like a criminal, then I shall become one.

2. Motorists treat me like scum, therefore motorists deserve to be
treated likewise.

3. The road is a jungle anyway, so sod it.

4. If I break a traffic law (and the action does not involve
pedestrians) I'm only putting myself into danger, not others, and I
only have myself to blame, not others. It's a private decision.
Therefore I have a moral right to break a traffic law when I decide it
is fit to do so.

5. If all those idiots causing the traffic jam were using bikes instead
of a cars they wouldn't be holding me up. I'm on a bike and not holding
anyone up. Therefore I have the right to squeeze through the gaps at
high velocity.

6. Cycling on the pavement is bad, but it is ultimately the motorists'
fault, not mine, since it is they who are bullying me off the road.

7. Bicycles and cars are such fundamentally different vehicles that
different rules should apply to cyclists and motorists. Red lights
should mean give way signs for cyclists and cycling against a one way
street should be legal by default (after all there is still enough
space for cars to squeeze past).

8. Stopping at a red light and accelerating again demands high physical
exertion. It means losing all that valuable momentum! Engine-powered
vehicles don't experience this problem. Therefore, I have the right to
go over a red pelican crossing once all the pedestrians have cleared.

9. I forgot to charge my batteries, but if as long as I watch out I'll
be ok without lights.

10. When going over a roundabout I aways take the right lane. I'd
rather cut others than be cut.

11. If I indicate a right turn using a hand signal, I'll no doubt be
undertaken aggresively from the left, and be pushed against a oncoming
bus. Better to dispense with hand signals alltogether and confuse
drivers behind me with wobbling instead.

Kinetic wrote:
a lot of crap...

And the question should be why do even care how other folks ride?
Surprisenly there are arseholes in all walks of life and I manage not
to feel responsible for their actions when they occur within a
hobbie/sport/activity I do. So when I see someone get cut up by a car
in traffic I assume an arsehole in a car and not all drivers are
arseholes.When another surfer bashes into a people swimming in the
surf, I don't feel the need to run and apologise on behalf of all
surfers.

So in answer to your questions, no I never feel I have the RIGHT to do
any of the things listed, but sometimes I just don't give a f$%k. So if
you catch hopping the curb can assume at that moment in time I'm acting
the arsehole and you're opinion of my actions is worthless to me.

Laters,

Marz

Kinetic wrote:
So what kind of people are all those lycra louts? Were you ever one
yourself?

Don't feed the trolls folks.

--
Arthur Clune

Arthur Clune wrote:
Don't feed the trolls folks.

Not even for sport? I feel we could have some fun with this one.

d.

Arthur Clune wrote:
Kinetic wrote:
So what kind of people are all those lycra louts? Were you ever one
yourself?

Don't feed the trolls folks.

I think that this one was sincere and asking an interesting question. Still,
it's difficult to judge why people drive like arses.

I think probably the easiest thing to say is that lycra louts are neither
thinking of how they appear nor the consequences of how they ride. Maybe
it's best to say that they're in a kind of walking mode.


--
Ambrose

Kinetic wrote:
7. ..and cycling against a one way
street should be legal by default (after all there is still enough
space for cars to squeeze past).

I cycle the wrong way up a one-way street on a daily basis: it's not a
short-cut by any means, but the alternative is a right turn at the top
of a steep climb, where invariably, having signalled and positioned
myself for the turn, I am overtaken by cars in a desperate hurry to get
to the red light that is around the next (tight, blind, left-hand)
bend.

The one-way street on the other hand is a quiet residential street with
virtually no traffic on it, so I choose to break the law as my personal
safety is at risk on the 'legal' route.

It should also be noted that some countries (Germany, for example)
allows cycles to use one-way streets in both directions, so this UK law
is a matter of local convention rather than a hard fact of road safety.

Kinetic wrote:


8. Stopping at a red light and accelerating again demands high physical
exertion. It means losing all that valuable momentum! Engine-powered
vehicles don't experience this problem. Therefore, I have the right to
go over a red pelican crossing once all the pedestrians have cleared.

Nah. I quite happily stop at red lights. Good chance for a breather.
When I am tempted not to is where there is a sequence of lights a
couple of hundred yards apart timed so that a vehicle travelling at
30mph gets green all the way along but a bike gets a series of reds.

Iain

On 8 Dec 2005 06:09:39 -0800, sothach wrote:

It should also be noted that some countries (Germany, for example)
allows cycles to use one-way streets in both directions, so this UK law
is a matter of local convention rather than a hard fact of road safety.

Out of interest, do you write off all law that is not globally
recognised as a mere "matter of local convention"?

Rape? A mere matter of local convention - doesn't really matter.
Torture? Likewise.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

sothach wrote:

It should also be noted that some countries (Germany, for example)
allows cycles to use one-way streets in both directions, so this UK law
is a matter of local convention rather than a hard fact of road safety.

Good point. In fact many, if not most, of our plethora of "road safety"
inspired regulations are not replicated in some country or other. So
why don't we just ignore the rules which we personally find
inconvenient, providing, of course, that we can identify a country
somewhere in the world where that rule isn't present. Why stop at road
safety rules?

--
Matt B

Matt B wrote:
sothach wrote:

So why don't we just ignore the rules which we personally find
inconvenient, providing, of course, that we can identify a country
somewhere in the world where that rule isn't present.

No, I ignore the rules I find personally lethal. If pulled for it I
will pay the fine and continue to do it. The alternative would be to
stop cycling and buy a car.
As for inconvenience, I already have to cycle over twice the distance I
would in a car, to avoid bad junctions and places where my fellow road
users put me at risk.