redned wrote:Myrtone wrote: That rider may have not riden safely or according to the rules, that doesn't make it "stupid."
So you don't think a cyclist passing a group of cyclists already stopped at at a red light, to run the red and almost hit a pedestrian is neither an idiot or stupid. And wearing a purple polka dot jersey.
What their clothing go to do with their behaviour? Do you seriously think that someone who runs and red and almost hits a pedestrian is either less intelligent (which "stupid" implies) or an "idiot," itself a pejorative term. Maybe that person did so by accident and didn't realise they nearly hit a pedestrian. They may not even understand why a group of cyclists have stopped, remember that other people including other road user may have quite conterintuatively different kinds of thoughts from what you have.
redned wrote:Here are some synonyms for "stupid":
brainless, dazed, deficient, dense, dim, doltish, dopey, dull, dumb, foolish, futile, gullible, half-witted, idiotic, ill-advised, imbecilic, inane, indiscreet, insensate, laughable, loser ludicrous, meaningless, mindless, moronic, naive, nonsensical, obtuse, pointless, puerile, rash, senseless, shortsighted, stupefied, thick, thick-headed, unintelligent, unthinking, witless
This cyclist was [insert chosen synonym].
Most of those terms are not synonyms and some do not imply bad faith or lack of intelligence, such as ill-advised, mindless, senseless, shortsighted and unthinking. Yes, the cyclist was acting senseless and not according to the (official) rules. To say that the cyclist
was [insert "stupid" or chosen synonym] is (like) making the person and their behaviour into one, it's not like a person with a given hair and skin colour combination. They might act sensibly and according to the rules in most places most of the time and still have some problems, and I'm not sure that it's best to assume that the cyclist has no tendency to obsereve the rules. Once again,
it is best to assume that other road users care at least as much as you about not causing harm.
London Boy wrote:Myrtone wrote:Have you seriously not heard of the concept of assuming good faith.
Not on the roads mate. Too dangerous.
Key rule to stay alive - assume everyone else is an idiot until they show otherwise. Act accordingly. To take any other approach is to be a complete numpty, and likely a short-lived one.
What's actually "too dangerous" is assuming that they will always act sensibly and according to the rules, such as stepping out onto a crosswalk of zebra crossing and assuming that motor traffic will stop, to me it feels more natural to glance at the driver and make sure they see me. I think the assumption you suggest is a recipie for road rage rather than a key to staying alive, the actual key to staying alive (and able bodied) is being prepared for no-less-vunerable road users not observing the rules. Yelling or sounding the horn at other road users can be creepy and frustrating. Even if other road users are not acting sensibly and according to the rules, it is very unlikely they are acting in bad faith (which is what terms like "idiot" imply), such as intending harm, at least if they are sober and without road rage.
trailgumby wrote:London Boy wrote:Myrtone wrote:Have you seriously not heard of the concept of assuming good faith.
Not on the roads mate. Too dangerous.
Key rule to stay alive - assume everyone else is an idiot until they show otherwise. Act accordingly. To take any other approach is to be a complete numpty, and likely a short-lived one.
I've heard of concept of assuming good faith. It works.
Until it doesn't, and then you're either in hospital or a pine box.
I'd rather not put my family through that again.
I don't know what a pine box is supposed to mean. If you're number one responsibility on the road is to avoid harm, than please assume that other road users care as much as you about avoiding the same thing, an that acting improperly is an honest mistake.