What is a cyclist and… are you one?

mrfree wrote:

More thoughtless comments from a posh, pro helmet-law twat.

I think even now Wiggo would balk at being referred to as posh.

I'm a member of BC and I went through a red light this morning [whoopsie-emoticon]

Jimbonic wrote:

I'm Brian and so is my wife

Mr Wiggins clearly meant to refer to all users of vehicles having less than four wheels: he really shouldn't be taken so literally, you know...

hairyairey wrote:

Being the pedant I am, surely we should be called cyclers not cyclists? After all if a racist hates people of different race, a sexist hates people because of their sex so therefore...

I see your pedantry and raise you all in.

The suffix -ist means several things (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-ist) and while I'd prefer the meaning "a person with a particular creative or academic role e.g. artist, violinist, botanist", I think the alternative meaning "a person who holds bigoted, partial views" may also apply. (However there isn't the associated "cyclism" so maybe that doesn't apply).

Anyhow, I'd say that you're more an etymologist or grammarist (if that's even a word) than a pedant.

The _Kaner wrote:

I am Spartacyclist!

No; I am Spartacyclist!

alansmurphy wrote:

According to this site it seems that being a cyclist is someone that wants to jump on anything said by one of our finest! Yes Brad speaks from a priviliged position, and probably doesn't want to be lumped in with every Herbert on a bike, quite frankly nor do I. The reference to British Cycling is perhaps a little specific but he was probably referring to those of us who take an active interest. Do I consider myself different to a lady nipping to the shops with a basket on the front, yes; to a pannier carrying blackpool illuminations commuter, yes. I take an active interest; equipment, technique, training etc. It doesn't make me think i am superior, a person could be in several categories (i commute by day and sportive by weekend). I think Brad is simply pointing out that there's plenty of sub categories, differences within categories etc. All are not the same.

You can easily contrast the comments made on Chris Boardman's statements and Brad's statements. A lot of us don't like what Brad is saying as it's not helpful and directs attention away from the actual, real problem of deaths on our roads.

I'm quite happy to be included in the large cross-section of society known as "cyclists". I feel some connection with anyone who enjoys riding a bike, no matter whether they're a lycra-clad olympic champions, or a five year old girl on a pink bike with stabilisers. Brad can include/exclude himself in any group that he wants, but I don't think his comments are helpful and are at best a time-wasting distraction.

kie7077 wrote:

Mindless criticism of red light jumpers, the simple fact is traffic lights were not made for cyclists, they were made for motor vehicles and then imposed upon cyclists in a rudimentary manner, so many road rules are like this, one way roads, no turn left/right, all to deal with motor vehicle problems and then thoughtlessly applied to cyclists who simply don't need them.

Do we consider people not to be drivers if they only drive occasionally? If they're not members of an auto-club? If they drive badly?

Regardless of whether you like the rules of the road they exist, and they are to be obeyed. Just because you don't like red lights, or not being able to turn right or left sometimes doesn't give you the right to ignore those rules.

These rules certainly haven't been applied 'thoughtlessly' either, they've just been applied according to the needs at the time - given the growth of cycling in the UK someone's noticed the need for change, as there's an increasing number of cycle exemptions popping up in London which give cyclists the right to turn where vehicles can't, and even run in both directions on a One Way street, so things are changing for us.

STiG911 wrote:

kie7077 wrote:

Mindless criticism of red light jumpers, the simple fact is traffic lights were not made for cyclists, they were made for motor vehicles and then imposed upon cyclists in a rudimentary manner, so many road rules are like this, one way roads, no turn left/right, all to deal with motor vehicle problems and then thoughtlessly applied to cyclists who simply don't need them.

Do we consider people not to be drivers if they only drive occasionally? If they're not members of an auto-club? If they drive badly?

Regardless of whether you like the rules of the road they exist, and they are to be obeyed. Just because you don't like red lights, or not being able to turn right or left sometimes doesn't give you the right to ignore those rules.

These rules certainly haven't been applied 'thoughtlessly' either, they've just been applied according to the needs at the time - given the growth of cycling in the UK someone's noticed the need for change, as there's an increasing number of cycle exemptions popping up in London which give cyclists the right to turn where vehicles can't, and even run in both directions on a One Way street, so things are changing for us.

 'needs at the time' I don't agree that the infrastructure created was the one that was 'needed' something a lot better could have been created but wasn't because it was thoughtless like I said  and if it wasn't thoughtless to start with then why did they need to change it later? You don't create cycling infrastructure because there are cyclists, you create cycling infrastructure to encourage cycling - and it works. Enfield mini-holland is a good example of this, 0% modal share cycling, that will likely change a lot if the planned changes go through.

I don't agree that we should blindly follow laws, have you ever complained that a taxi didn't have a bale of hay, have you ever stopped anyone eating mince pies on cristmas day?

I'll decide for myself whether or not laws make sense and whether or not I think they apply to me as a cyclist when they were clearly written for people driving motor vehicles.

kie7077 wrote:

STiG911 wrote:

kie7077 wrote:

Mindless criticism of red light jumpers, the simple fact is traffic lights were not made for cyclists, they were made for motor vehicles and then imposed upon cyclists in a rudimentary manner, so many road rules are like this, one way roads, no turn left/right, all to deal with motor vehicle problems and then thoughtlessly applied to cyclists who simply don't need them.

Do we consider people not to be drivers if they only drive occasionally? If they're not members of an auto-club? If they drive badly?

Regardless of whether you like the rules of the road they exist, and they are to be obeyed. Just because you don't like red lights, or not being able to turn right or left sometimes doesn't give you the right to ignore those rules.

These rules certainly haven't been applied 'thoughtlessly' either, they've just been applied according to the needs at the time - given the growth of cycling in the UK someone's noticed the need for change, as there's an increasing number of cycle exemptions popping up in London which give cyclists the right to turn where vehicles can't, and even run in both directions on a One Way street, so things are changing for us.

 'needs at the time' I don't agree that the infrastructure created was the one that was 'needed' something a lot better could have been created but wasn't because it was thoughtless like I said  and if it wasn't thoughtless to start with then why did they need to change it later? You don't create cycling infrastructure because there are cyclists, you create cycling infrastructure to encourage cycling - and it works. Enfield mini-holland is a good example of this, 0% modal share cycling, that will likely change a lot if the planned changes go through.

I don't agree that we should blindly follow laws, have you ever complained that a taxi didn't have a bale of hay, have you ever stopped anyone eating mince pies on cristmas day?

I'll decide for myself whether or not laws make sense and whether or not I think they apply to me as a cyclist when they were clearly written for people driving motor vehicles.

Sounds like civil disobedience to me.

I agree; the laws don't seem to be protecting vulnerable road users so why should vulnerable road users care about following them?

kie7077 wrote:

 'needs at the time' I don't agree that the infrastructure created was the one that was 'needed' something a lot better could have been created but wasn't because it was thoughtless like I said  and if it wasn't thoughtless to start with then why did they need to change it later? You don't create cycling infrastructure because there are cyclists, you create cycling infrastructure to encourage cycling - and it works. Enfield mini-holland is a good example of this, 0% modal share cycling, that will likely change a lot if the planned changes go through.

I don't agree that we should blindly follow laws, have you ever complained that a taxi didn't have a bale of hay, have you ever stopped anyone eating mince pies on cristmas day?

I'll decide for myself whether or not laws make sense and whether or not I think they apply to me as a cyclist when they were clearly written for people driving motor vehicles.

I said the rules were created according to the need, not the infrastructure. The infrastructure, since you mention it, has to be designed or changed according to need for the majority at the time like it or not, but IS changing and I believe I noted that. Look at the amount of cycle lanes have been put in place in the last year or two, and how many are due to come online soon.

Frankly I'd like to see almost no cars or lorries on London streets as it'd be a far nicer place for everyone (and given that air quality has been in the toilet for so long I'd like to think we're not too far from a bigger crack-down) but the physical layout of London and other cities in the UK make it a difficult task to overcome.

It's not about blindly following laws either -  you should adhere to the ones which apply to you where and when you are. Stating that you'll decide for yourself is unbelievably arrogant and simply feeding the notion that all cyclists are law-breakers.