Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dreaded cyclists

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    A strange one, cyclist killed by guided bus in Cambridge:
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-45514309

    This is the approximate location, a guided busway with a pavement/cycle track beside it. Crucially there's no fence to stop pedestrians or cyclist crossing over into the bus lanes.
    https://goo.gl/maps/fqAKtSwfLct

    I'll be interested to hear what happened if we ever do, I assume some kind of medical condition. There's no reason to cross but as I said no barrier.

    Comment


      Originally posted by Matt2000 View Post
      A strange one, cyclist killed by guided bus in Cambridge:
      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-45514309
      The choice of words is curious and indicative of what I said earlier:

      You said:

      "cyclist killed by guided bus"

      The newspaper said:

      "A cyclist has died after being hit by a bus"

      Both of you put the active role on the bus, and you went even further by saying "killed", a word that generates the idea of guilt.

      Yet, we don't know what happened, so what is more correct is to say, as the Cambridge Police put it:

      "a cyclist has collided with a guided bus and lost his life"

      ---

      The idea that "the bus" was the active role and "the bus" ended a life, or even "killed" is something that you have acquired through endless repetition of how weak, feeble and defenseless cyclists are, exposed to the will of others and in need of constant protection.

      Well, no...

      The idea that a cyclist is always completely blameless has grown into the majority of people, but it is wrong, and we should abandon it.


      By the way, this is not necessarily conscious, but the unconscious use of words tells a lot.

      Going fast out of rage, pride or boredom is like buying a ticket to crash.

      Comment


        Originally posted by SirEdward View Post
        I (and everyone else) am constantly being told that cyclists are "the good guys" who save the world, and the cars are evil people to harass and bash as much as possible. This has gone on so much that people has started to believe that.
        Hmm, maybe I'm wrong, but "transportation mode X is better for the environment" in my book is not "people who use transportation mode X are better people". Yes, there are some people who believe that, but there are others who believe the car is superior to everything else. The truth lies somewhere inbetween, there are good reasons to use a bicycle, there are other good reasons to use a car. Once again a generalization which only perpetuates the (IMHO wrong) view of "car drivers vs. cyclists". Many cyclists are car drivers as well, but when you don't cycle at all there is a chance that you can't put yourself in the other position. I don't want to say that you can't ever, but it seems you are affixed to that idea of "cyclists want to abolish cars altogether" which for the majority isn't true.

        Originally posted by SirEdward View Post
        For this reason, many cyclists got bolder and bolder and now ask for a better treatment.
        Well, cyclists are asking for a better treatment because they were treated like shit in the last 50 years since the car really caught on, at least everywhere else than in the Netherlands and Copenhagen.

        Originally posted by SirEdward View Post
        The two a**holes I found on my way were doing exactly that. They believed they were better than the rest and that they deserved to cross on a red light, without a care.
        Err, that's not what cyclists generally want, that would be preposterous. They/we usually "just" want to cycle without being threatened to be injured or killed by car and lorry drivers who either don't pay attention (for example by being on the phone) or don't care about others and overtake with inches to spare. I know of course that the majority of car and lorry drivers do tend to respect the safety of other road users, but that minority which doesn't respect the safety of other road users really threaten their/our lives.

        Originally posted by SirEdward View Post
        Unfortunately I broke their wet dream and they got furious, because I tried to smash their delusion.
        Which is fair.

        Originally posted by SirEdward View Post
        A delusion fed by infinite amounts of constant public reinforcement of the thing.
        There is public reinforcement of "cyclists should be allowed to run red lights"? That's new to me...
        Why E10? I'm driving E46...

        Comment


          Originally posted by Eye-Q View Post
          [...] Once again a generalization which only perpetuates the (IMHO wrong) view of "car drivers vs. cyclists". Many cyclists are car drivers as well, but when you don't cycle at all there is a chance that you can't put yourself in the other position. I don't want to say that you can't ever, but it seems you are affixed to that idea of "cyclists want to abolish cars altogether" which for the majority isn't true.
          But this is not what I said. I agreed specifically on the fact that cyclists are the same people who drive (in a broad, inclusive sense), and that for this reason they should be treated equally, while the general perception is that the cyclists are "the good guys" and drivers "the bad guys".

          By what you said it appears that you categorized me according not to what I said but to what you think I am.

          If you don't believe me, read again my words (and not just from yesterday) and see for yourself that I don't want cyclists to be abolished, only that they take their responsabilities for what they do (including safety) and that they are punished when they do wrong.

          Well, cyclists are asking for a better treatment because they were treated like shit in the last 50 years since the car really caught on, at least everywhere else than in the Netherlands and Copenhagen.
          No they are not.

          The problem is that the cities we live in are designed for cars (no, not the roads, the entire cityies - roads just follow naturally), and bicycles are incredible bad at being cars. So they have been abandoned.

          Now (in the last 15 years?), because of pollution and overpopulation, there is a push to increase the use of bicycles (to fight those two problems). Except, they'd be a total failure on their own because cities are not designed for them (again, not roads, but cities).

          So they have been "incentivised" in foolish ways: speed limits (that should exist considering the physics of the vehicle) have never been put in place, rather car's limits have been reduced; the cycle paths design mostly has gigantic flaws, the bigger of which is they put the bulk of safety on the vehicle with the less manouverability and the less visibility, because cars are baaaaaaaaad (I tell you! Baaaaaaaaaad); cyclists, which have been growing in numbers are not held accountable for what they do, not even for the most dangerous of behaviours, rather they are petted and aknowledged in even the most disgusting of their behaviours

          In this regard, I admire you for trying to stick to rules, and it shows that this is heavy on you, because you see what a colossal prick you could have been and yet you chose not to only to be constantly reminded that other cyclists around you get away with basically everything (even murder - see the NY case). Yet it's wrong to fight me, you should fight those a**holes throwing such a bad light on cyclists.

          Err, that's not what cyclists generally want, that would be preposterous. They/we usually "just" want to cycle without being threatened to be injured or killed by car and lorry drivers who either don't pay attention (for example by being on the phone) or don't care about others and overtake with inches to spare.
          I want that too, yet cars and bicycles are not designed to be on the road together. I support the creation of -completely- separated cycle paths, outside of the road.

          In the meantime, I constantly find cyclists using the road instead of -usable- cycle paths because... they are quicker this way... Your honest hopes are being run over by bicycles' wheels.

          Plus, if distance is this important, why on earth bicycles try to squeeze to my right when I am waiting to turn right with my right indicator on? Why is safe distance only important when the cyclist are overtaken and not when they swoosh in traffic like wet fishes? This is hypocrisy.

          I'm not saying that this justifies people not caring, but rest assured that when I see cyclists behaving badly, I treat them with the same safeness and care I'd use with motorbikes, not with the extra care I would grant them in normal conditions.

          I know of course that the majority of car and lorry drivers do tend to respect the safety of other road users, but that minority which doesn't respect the safety of other road users really threaten their/our lives.
          Then why this discussion, which started with "hey, look at these two a**holes cyclists, I'd like cyclists to be treated eqaul to me and being punished when they are being dangerous" ended up in a "you are considering all cyclists as bad people"?

          There is public reinforcement of "cyclists should be allowed to run red lights"? That's new to me...
          Actually, there is. Last year the municipality here made a campaign against undisciplined cyclists. In a day, they issued 140 tickets for riding in the wrong way, running red lights, ignoring yield signs...

          In the same day, they issued 100 tickets to drivers illegally using the phone or doing the same things as the cyclists.

          Cylists raised their voices, complaining; drivers stayed silent. Or at least the newspaper only gave voice to cyclists, lamenting that "yes, they do bad things, but it is because they don't have safe paths!".

          And it's not like our municipality is not thinking of the cyclists; levels of pollution have risen up like crazy because of the sheer amount of traffic lights built to allow crossing and traffic congestion has shot up because of roads being narrowed to allow the construction of cycle lanes or paths. Not counting the ridiculous lack of parking.

          Source: https://www.ilrestodelcarlino.it/bol...isti-1.3516255

          No driver could even -dare- to say something similar. Imagine a driver saying that they run a red light because there are too many, and useless. It is true, yet they would be massacred; and rightly so. It is DANGEROUS!

          This needs to be valid for cyclists too. SAFETY must be prioritized. Safety, awareness, accountability.

          For this, I suggest New cycle lane and paths design, speed limits, better education and registration of bycicles.
          Going fast out of rage, pride or boredom is like buying a ticket to crash.

          Comment


            Originally posted by SirEdward View Post

            The choice of words is curious and indicative of what I said earlier:

            You said:

            "cyclist killed by guided bus"

            The newspaper said:

            "A cyclist has died after being hit by a bus"

            Both of you put the active role on the bus, and you went even further by saying "killed", a word that generates the idea of guilt.

            Yet, we don't know what happened, so what is more correct is to say, as the Cambridge Police put it:

            "a cyclist has collided with a guided bus and lost his life"

            ---

            The idea that "the bus" was the active role and "the bus" ended a life, or even "killed" is something that you have acquired through endless repetition of how weak, feeble and defenseless cyclists are, exposed to the will of others and in need of constant protection.

            Well, no...

            The idea that a cyclist is always completely blameless has grown into the majority of people, but it is wrong, and we should abandon it.


            By the way, this is not necessarily conscious, but the unconscious use of words tells a lot.
            You're kidding me, right? I'm happy to hear you explain how the cyclist would end up dead if the bus hadn't hit him. I highly doubt that the cyclist hitting the bus would cause the problem. At no point did I blame the bus either, you've imagined that one. I'm almost certain that the cyclist was to blame here for the accident occurring, but he was certainly killed - made dead - by what the bus physically did to his body.

            Sorry I stumbled in this thread while you're on your high horse, I don't give a fuck about this ranting about some minor incident and just came to post something relevant to this thread. I'll see myself out and shall not return.

            Comment


              Originally posted by Eye-Q View Post
              Hmm, maybe I'm wrong, but "transportation mode X is better for the environment" in my book is not "people who use transportation mode X are better people". Yes, there are some people who believe that, but there are others who believe the car is superior to everything else. The truth lies somewhere inbetween, there are good reasons to use a bicycle, there are other good reasons to use a car. Once again a generalization which only perpetuates the (IMHO wrong) view of "car drivers vs. cyclists". Many cyclists are car drivers as well, but when you don't cycle at all there is a chance that you can't put yourself in the other position. I don't want to say that you can't ever, but it seems you are affixed to that idea of "cyclists want to abolish cars altogether" which for the majority isn't true.
              You have freely admitted to participating in and defended Critical Mass, something that disrupts traffic and causes massive headaches for everyone who is not part of CM. Tell me again how cyclists are not entitled assholes.

              To Ed's point had there been a CM like movement from any kind of motorized vehicle they would be lambasted by EVERYONE. In fact this has happened with take over the streets shit where both car folks and bikers completely disown the idiots doing it.
              Err, that's not what cyclists generally want, that would be preposterous. They/we usually "just" want to cycle without being threatened to be injured or killed by car and lorry drivers who either don't pay attention (for example by being on the phone) or don't care about others and overtake with inches to spare. I know of course that the majority of car and lorry drivers do tend to respect the safety of other road users, but that minority which doesn't respect the safety of other road users really threaten their/our lives.
              Motorcyclists face similar perils and yet there are no special motorcycle only lanes, special left turn boxes or special lights for them (I know that's not everywhere). You want to be treated like the rest of traffic and yet you don't want to accept same responsibilities. If I want to be on the road with a motorized vehicle it is mandatory that I am licensed to operate said vehicle, that I carry insurance on that vehicle and that I have understanding of all the rules of the road. You are not required to have any of that and you want to be treated as equal? No, you are nothing but an impediment and a second class road user. Don't like? Don't ride a bicycle in traffic, no one is making you.
              Last edited by prizrak; September 14th, 2018, 4:27 PM.
              ScarFace88 - "So you're a dildo?"

              Comment


                Originally posted by Matt2000 View Post

                You're kidding me, right? I'm happy to hear you explain how the cyclist would end up dead if the bus hadn't hit him. I highly doubt that the cyclist hitting the bus would cause the problem. At no point did I blame the bus either, you've imagined that one. I'm almost certain that the cyclist was to blame here for the accident occurring, but he was certainly killed - made dead - by what the bus physically did to his body.

                Sorry I stumbled in this thread while you're on your high horse, I don't give a fuck about this ranting about some minor incident and just came to post something relevant to this thread. I'll see myself out and shall not return.
                It's not high horses, it's how language influences thought. It's not the word per se, it's the implications tied to it. (to get an idea of what I'm talking about, this is a good start: https://theconversation.com/how-the-...he-world-40721)

                Apart from that, you said or done nothing wrong, I was just highlighting ways of thinking inside an exchange that was already going on, so I'm sorry I get you in if you were only passing by and wasn't taking part in it. You happened to represent a great example.
                Last edited by SirEdward; September 14th, 2018, 2:02 PM.
                Going fast out of rage, pride or boredom is like buying a ticket to crash.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Matt2000 View Post

                  You're kidding me, right? I'm happy to hear you explain how the cyclist would end up dead if the bus hadn't hit him. I highly doubt that the cyclist hitting the bus would cause the problem. At no point did I blame the bus either, you've imagined that one. I'm almost certain that the cyclist was to blame here for the accident occurring, but he was certainly killed - made dead - by what the bus physically did to his body.

                  Sorry I stumbled in this thread while you're on your high horse, I don't give a fuck about this ranting about some minor incident and just came to post something relevant to this thread. I'll see myself out and shall not return.
                  His point is more psychological/linguistic than physical. If you say "man killed by bus" it makes "man" the passive object being acted upon, with the bus being the actor. This creates a logical connection in your mind that puts the onus for what happened on the bus.

                  I absolutely read your headline (before reading the article) as it being bus driver's fault.
                  ScarFace88 - "So you're a dildo?"

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X