Nuxx:F4948fa8-79b1-4011-b897-e29cda5e7989@k3g2000prl.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!k3g2000prl.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: 16% - is that all? Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 09:52:55 -0700 (PDT) References: <1c37463f-fc3e-4395-9a29-1a4b9182f5d3@x6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> <63c2a8c8-1629-4f90-8ef0-8701d7f2492a@q12g2000prb.googlegroups.com> <699685ab-9b44-4de1-8be1-70173f1d19d8@gu8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> Lines: 87 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.71.49.124 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1305737579 29815 127.0.0.1 (18 May 2011 16:52:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 16:52:59 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Squashme  Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: k3g2000prl.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=WrLs9woAAAD151hWKA9yknAtxFHW4kE4 User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:2.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0.1,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 5883 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:809756

On May 18, 5:07=A0pm, Squashme  wrote: > On May 18, 3:35=A0pm, Nuxx Bar  wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On May 17, 4:16=A0pm, Simon Mason  wrote: > > > > Well now, we have been duped by the helmet nazis into believing that > > > helmet compulsion is on the way by way of ubiquity. Apparently, > > > according to this snippet from a Sunday paper's helmet piece, a > > > whopping 84% of the country's cyclists do not wear a helmet. > > > Much more than 84% of drivers regularly exceed the speed limit. =A0But = I > > think you're going a bit far in (presumably) calling for speed limits > > to be abolished altogether. > > > Interesting what Nick Maclaren is saying in your "Another tin tack > > attack" thread over on URCM: that some of those claiming to speak for > > cyclists have created unnecessary friction between cyclists and > > motorists over the last 20 years by being more anti-motorist than they > > are pro-cyclist, i.e. supporting measures which make driving harder > > even when they make cycling harder, and opposing measures which make > > driving easier even when they make cycling easier as well. =A0This is > > very much what I think as well, and Nick thinks that such car-hating > > psycholists are the ones who have provoked the tack-leavers into > > action. > > > Could it be that the animosity generated against cyclists by the car- > > hating psycholist minority is also one reason why some people are so > > keen to support helmet compulsion? =A0I don't know, and I'm far from > > convinced that helmets aren't genuinely useful. =A0Nevertheless things > > will surely improve for drivers and cyclists alike once the car-haters > > STFU, and all cyclists concentrate on improving the cyclist's lot > > rather than creating conflict and making things unnecessarily and > > spitefully difficult for the motorist. > > > If you think that cyclists are unfairly despised and persecuted then > > how can you be so sure that that hasn't been caused by certain "pro- > > cycling" individuals/groups causing conflict with motorists, and > > always advocating the most anti-car "solution" to road safety > > "problems" without genuinely weighing up all the options? > > Do they bring it on themselves in a similar way to that in which black > radicals and "troublemakers" were said to actually cause > discrimination, prejudice and lynching in the US?

As it happens, no. Black people were just trying to get equal rights: they could hardly go about their cause without doing so. But when it comes to improving the lot of cyclists, there is a choice: do you 1) prioritise making things easier for cyclists, or 2) prioritise making things harder for motorists (and thereby create unnecessary conflict between cyclists and motorists)? Those cyclists/psycholists who, like Chapman and others here, choose option 2 are indeed bringing the "persecution" of cyclists (if indeed it exists) on themselves by not choosing option 1.

At the end of the day, as Nick Maclaren says, in the last 15-20 years more "cyclists" have gone for option 2. At the same time, cyclists have started to be despised more as an "out" group. I don't think it's a coincidence. Once the authorities are no longer persecuting the motorist, and cycling groups are no longer associated with said persecution, "ordinary" people will no longer despise cyclists. Once (some of) the cyclists stop attacking other transport modes which they see as morally inferior, users of those modes will stop attacking the cyclists back: the cyclists started it.

Those who really care about improving the lot of cyclists will therefore stop (for example) pretending that stupidly low speed limits are necessary for safety, and instead concentrate on (for example) getting rid of pointless traffic islands which are never used by pedestrians and which only serve to engineer unnecessary conflict between cyclists and motorists. Despite what some would like us to think, it's not a zero-sum game: improving things for cyclists does not necessarily involve making things harder for motorists, nor does improving things for motorists always involve making things harder for cyclists. We can, and should, all be striving towards making things easier for *all* modes of transport. Those who are instead only concerned with persecuting drivers are extremely unhelpful to all sides, including reasonable cyclists who just want to go about their business.