Live blog: Deliveroo rider reveals all, Zwift will pay $25,000 towards medical bills of cyclist who lost his leg if 25,000 complete virtual climbing challenge, shoddy Christmas gift idea, cyclist hit by rocket fired from moving car + more

cyclesteffer wrote:

Whether Cycling should be classed as a hate crime was debated on this post - I still think it should be

https://road.cc/content/forum/241489-anti-cyclinganti-cyclist-hatred-hat...

Thanks, I missed that particular thread at the time.  No mention there of using the Public Order Act to prosecute anyone who causes cyclists harassment, alarm or distress, so should we be crowdfunding a prosecution as a test case?  Count me in for £50.

cyclesteffer wrote:

Whether Cycling should be classed as a hate crime

No, it shouldn't be, or we're all in trouble. I hope you mean "whether cycling should be classed as a protected category for hate crimes legislation".

cyclesteffer wrote:

Whether Cycling should be classed as a hate crime was debated on this post - I still think it should be

https://road.cc/content/forum/241489-anti-cyclinganti-cyclist-hatred-hat...

 

I have a bit of a problem with the whole category of 'hate crime' because it's potentially such a huge category.  I mean they've just said 'misogyny' should be included (and I bet a _lot_ of domestic violence and sexual crimes have some weird rage against women behind them), and that horrible mockery of the Grenfell fire victims recently seems to me to be a hate-crime directed at ethnic minorities and/or anyone poor in public housing.  Loads of attacks on disabled (especially mentally disabled) people seem to clearly meet the criteria, but I don't think the law recognises that yet.

  Vast numbers of crimes are clearly motivated partly by hatred of a particular group, cyclist-bashing is very clearly one of them, but I'm starting to think it might be easier to work out which few crimes against people are _not_ about group hatreds.

bike_food wrote:

Deliveroo video

"...could have used a moped...you can't run red lights like you can on a bicycle"

Yep, that was as far as I got before turning that little twerp off.

Zermattjohn wrote:

bike_food wrote:

Deliveroo video

"...could have used a moped...you can't run red lights like you can on a bicycle"

Yep, that was as far as I got before turning that little twerp off.

He earned £75 over the week. Mind you, his week was basically three days of doing deliveries for three or four hours a day. I'd say he earns a fair bit more from his YouTube channel. 

The world has gone ever-so-slightly mad.

brooksby wrote:

Quote:

"World's first two-in-one cycle backpack" launches on Kickstarter

Are they quite sure its the world's first two-in-one backpack?  I don't know about handlebar bag converters, but there are plenty of rear pannier converters already out there, IIRC.

Plenty of two in ones that can be a back pack or pannier, there are even pannier bags that are funky hand/shoulder bags, I bought one of my lady friend last xmas. Has proper rack hooks, sturdy carry handles and a shoulder strap. Lovely 70s design, waterproof and cost e £13

a1white wrote:

Reported the video to Facebook, apparently it does not break any community guidelines. Strange as this is one of facebook community guidelines:

Do not post:
Content depicting, admitting or promoting the following criminal acts committed by you or your associates

• Acts of physical harm committed against people

 

I've chased it up again. I'm sure if the person being targetted with explosives was not on a bike they would have taken the video down.

Presumably Facebook doesn't consider cyclists to be people?

Carior wrote:

a1white wrote:

Reported the video to Facebook, apparently it does not break any community guidelines. Strange as this is one of facebook community guidelines:

Do not post:
Content depicting, admitting or promoting the following criminal acts committed by you or your associates

• Acts of physical harm committed against people

 

I've chased it up again. I'm sure if the person being targetted with explosives was not on a bike they would have taken the video down.

Presumably Facebook doesn't consider cyclists to be people?

Time for roadcc to stop Facebook only competitions I think.

Grahamd wrote:

Carior wrote:

a1white wrote:

Reported the video to Facebook, apparently it does not break any community guidelines. Strange as this is one of facebook community guidelines:

Do not post:
Content depicting, admitting or promoting the following criminal acts committed by you or your associates

• Acts of physical harm committed against people

 

I've chased it up again. I'm sure if the person being targetted with explosives was not on a bike they would have taken the video down.

Presumably Facebook doesn't consider cyclists to be people?

Time for roadcc to stop Facebook only competitions I think.

a1white wrote:

For all we know the person on the bike might have been a pregnant woman. The sad thing is, reading the hate filled comments on the facebook video (which I have reported), as soon as the person is on a bike, they suddenly morph into an annonymous target that it is 'hillarious' to launch high explosives at.

Its happened before, hasn't it?  Wasn't there something a while back, where a cyclist was pushed off so he went into a hedge or a ditch. And apparently it was hilarous 

Not helped by how cyclists are portrayed in TV and films, is it?  Grant Peterson wrote something about how if you want to portray a adult male as a bit of a wimp or otherwise emasculated, or as an over-the-top exerciser, then you put them on a bike (see the 40 Year old Virgin, see Stuart from the Comic Book Store in the Big Bang Theory, etc etc etc).

PRSboy wrote:

I don't get how it can be allowed to make such comments about a group of people i.e cyclists when its punishable in law to make the same remarks about religious, physical or racial groups.

Because its not punishable by law to make those comments about cyclists. Religious groupings, gender/sexual identity, racial identity, even being a Goth (dress style/music, not sacking Rome) are "protected characteristics" but mode of transport is not.

brooksby wrote:

PRSboy wrote:

I don't get how it can be allowed to make such comments about a group of people i.e cyclists when its punishable in law to make the same remarks about religious, physical or racial groups.

Because its not punishable by law to make those comments about cyclists. Religious groupings, gender/sexual identity, racial identity, even being a Goth (dress style/music, not sacking Rome) are "protected characteristics" but mode of transport is not.

Fair enough, it just seems odd to me that you can't make nasty comments that incite hatred against people based on where they worship, but you can based on how they get there.

Its surprising to me when I'm driving my kids and their friends about how often the other children will make a remark about a cyclist holding us up.  You know full well that they are just echoing what their parents say and think.

Comments normalised in mainstream media is also influencing others as it makes it acceptable to hate "cyclists".

Today's derogatory comments poster is tomorrow's punishment passer etc.

PRSboy wrote:

brooksby wrote:

PRSboy wrote:

I don't get how it can be allowed to make such comments about a group of people i.e cyclists when its punishable in law to make the same remarks about religious, physical or racial groups.

Because its not punishable by law to make those comments about cyclists. Religious groupings, gender/sexual identity, racial identity, even being a Goth (dress style/music, not sacking Rome) are "protected characteristics" but mode of transport is not.

Fair enough, it just seems odd to me that you can't make nasty comments that incite hatred against people based on where they worship, but you can based on how they get there.

Its surprising to me when I'm driving my kids and their friends about how often the other children will make a remark about a cyclist holding us up.  You know full well that they are just echoing what their parents say and think.

Comments normalised in mainstream media is also influencing others as it makes it acceptable to hate "cyclists".

It is everywhere, in two broad flavours, I think.

There's the nasty shit on social media and BTL, which I'm sure does foster the attitude that results in pricks launching fireworks at people because they're on a bike. Hopefully we're looking at a small section of keyboard warriors and an even smaller section of mouth-breathers who'd ever turn it into anything real.

Then there's the widespread ignorance and misinformation which is EVERYWHERE (like the kids parroting their parents). I had a walk through Manchester city centre with our COO yesterday - this is the COO of the UK arm of an international bank, which in itself is just a title, but he's a clever bloke and a sound one at that. He knows I ride a bike so he was asking me about bike routes through town, and then opined about the challenges of retrofitting bike infrastructure onto roads designed for cars. I pointed out the couple of flaming flaws in that and he laughed at himself, but the point of this long and boring humblebrag about being cosy with the COO is to say it isn't just the S*n 'readers' who don't get bikes and cyclists.

At a time when active travel is the answer to at least a couple of major problems, the only way I can think of to tackle so much ignorance across the population is to pray to St Sir Lord Chris and hope Manchester is the next Amsterhagen.

davel wrote:

I had a walk through Manchester city centre with our COO yesterday - this is the COO of the UK arm of an international bank, which in itself is just a title, but he's a clever bloke and a sound one at that. He knows I ride a bike so he was asking me about bike routes through town, and then opined about the challenges of retrofitting bike infrastructure onto roads designed for cars. I pointed out the couple of flaming flaws in that

One of those flaws being that, in the centre of somewhere like Manchester which has been there a lot longer than there have been motor vehicles, the roads were not "designed for cars": the car-favouring infrastructure is retrofitted to the city layout that has been there for much longer.

rkemb wrote:

davel wrote:

I had a walk through Manchester city centre with our COO yesterday - this is the COO of the UK arm of an international bank, which in itself is just a title, but he's a clever bloke and a sound one at that. He knows I ride a bike so he was asking me about bike routes through town, and then opined about the challenges of retrofitting bike infrastructure onto roads designed for cars. I pointed out the couple of flaming flaws in that

One of those flaws being that, in the centre of somewhere like Manchester which has been there a lot longer than there have been motor vehicles, the roads were not "designed for cars": the car-favouring infrastructure is retrofitted to the city layout that has been there for much longer.

...and that roads were actually built for bikes.

ChrisB200SX wrote:

rkemb wrote:

davel wrote:

I had a walk through Manchester city centre with our COO yesterday - this is the COO of the UK arm of an international bank, which in itself is just a title, but he's a clever bloke and a sound one at that. He knows I ride a bike so he was asking me about bike routes through town, and then opined about the challenges of retrofitting bike infrastructure onto roads designed for cars. I pointed out the couple of flaming flaws in that

One of those flaws being that, in the centre of somewhere like Manchester which has been there a lot longer than there have been motor vehicles, the roads were not "designed for cars": the car-favouring infrastructure is retrofitted to the city layout that has been there for much longer.

...and that roads were actually built for bikes.

Nah, unless you mean that's another one of the flaws. In which case, aye

ChrisB200SX wrote:

...and that roads were actually built for bikes.

Roads were paved for bikes: mostly they were already built.