open topic, for anything cycling related.
The author isnt a psychopath. He is a freak who doesn't have the stones to grow up and learn to adApt to the culture on the path. You might have to accept that two abreast isn't unsafe and that it is normal. Pedestrians get out of the way? Yep. Because it is not just their path anymore than mine. A high traffic PSP is not the place for mindless amble, either by foot or bike. But the author thinks that his ignorance of cycle commuting is not the problem? We spent Years learning to drive... He thinks the same does not apply to the bike? He is part of the problem, not the solution. Intelligence, awareness and conside ration will solve the congestion crisis, childish ignorance of decades old jnfrastruxture does nothing except increase risk for those know how it works.
You are aware what the S in PSP stands for right?
The author is a freak?
I reckon the brains trust ought to just write up a manifesto that we can send to all papers and journalists to state what we want written about cycling. And make it clear that is all we ever want to see written.
This will cut out all free thinking and put down any who may have a different thought to the forum. And we don’t want snide first impressions or attempts at humour.
Don't they realise, every time a new or different article is written by anyone, it has to be pulled apart, dissected, diagnosed and approved, and usually slandered or found to be grossly prejudicial. This all takes up valuable forum time.
Some of these journo’s are just not writing what we like and should be censored.
I reckon just lighten up and give the man a break! The only reference to hatred I read is in the tile of this post and a fair bit of unkind word smithing, on a fairly funny article.
Having read the article I see one valid point made by the author - some cyclists do not share the path (although it's inaccurate to say they are always in Lycra). However, there are many plainly stupid arguments in the article - cycling jerseys don't breath (wrong) and riding on the road is inconsiderate (this is the attitude that creates problems for cyclists riding on the road). There's also no mention of dangerous behaviour by pedestrians on shared paths. So overall, a pretty poor article (perhaps being young and new to the country may have contributed to the poor quality of the article but there's no excuse for not doing your research).
I think we are all mostly pretty chilled out up here in Newie. There aren't that many big bunches out riding. Besides, we don't have all that many shared paths after all, certainly not ones that you can consider managing at any kind of speed. Apart from Fernleigh of course, which is mostly pretty straight and has good sightlines. My experience is that the close passes are quite rare. We seem to have "trained" all the pedestrians along Fernleigh too, as they are pretty good at keeping left.
+1 to im_no_pro
Cyclists seem to be generally misliked but what are we doing to improve the situation? It seems to me many cyclists are dead keen to exacerbate the misfeeling, or at the least, have absolutely no idea of the consequences of their behaviour on public perception of cyclists. As im_no_pro correctly points out - here is a young man who's gone out to give cycling a whirl and has been more than a little surprised by the behaviour of some of the cyclists and has consequently found the experience off-putting. In my experience it is a minority that ride dangerously on PSPs but that minority stands out dramatically, and to the unfamiliar it would seem that it was actually the majority of cyclists riding like that.
Rather than jump straight onto the "another hate article" cry, it should make us think more about public perception of cycling and why it's like this and how each of us can help change it.
Some pretty ignorant and outright false observations about the 'danger' of riding a bike in traffic on a road His sarcasm is a very poor type of 'humour'.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
I can easily believe that the way it gets made into this big athletic thing is offputting to the author. I certainly find it odd and I sure wish hubbards would stop trying to outride their (rather scanty) bike handling skills around me. C'mon, it's riding a bike. My four-year-old can do it! It's not that big a deal! True, it's a heap of fun and you can push yourself in all sorts of interesting ways but there's no need to and certainly no need to look down on people who just want to get around with a minimum of fuss.
Whether the author is good, bad or indifferent as a rider I don't know and it has nothing to do with their point that you get a lot more wierd attitude and sketchy riding on the bike path than makes any sense.
PS: Cyclists are required to give way to pedestrians. It's the law. This has been gone over about a million times.
Never rode a bike in the UK either so just another whinging pom.
Cycle touring blog and tour journals: whispering wheels...
Okay, perhaps I am lucky or perhaps I ride a different route to the author of the article however until the christmas break I had never encountered the behaviour he is describing in his article.
However over the christmas break I found sudden and furious appearance of groups riding as he decribes.
Now work has returned to more or less normal hours etc my ride has again returned to the peaceful bliss it usually is.
I wonder if we are not smarting at the truth within the statements he writes? The other day I had a 30 something racing me up a hill for no reason other than he could.
Yup. Shared paths means that they are supposed to share them. No different concept to sharing the roads. Everyone here would favor sharing roads and paths in the most mutually convenient way possible. I can't understand how sharing seems to mean having everyone else treat you like a doormat. Let's get real here. The number of shared paths is tiny compared to roads and footpaths. It is only the place that a bike can dominate. It is naturally going to attract people who are not capable or willing to ride on the road, and walkers and riders alike need to accept that the world doesn't revolve around them alone. It is not a crime to ride faster than other people on the paths. Give way does not mean beg forgiveness for choosing the bike.
Make no mistake. There are plenty of people who think the only way Humanity can do things safely is to be treated like a 2 year old with no sense of danger or safety. I respect people too much to say "naughty naughty you think differently to me. "
The only place a bike can dominate is a bike path. On a shared path there may well be "a 2 year old with no sense of danger or safety" and guess what, cyclists need to act accordingly. Give way means precisely that and, IMO, the onus is exactly where it belongs. That doesn't absolve rudeness, of course, but that's an incredibly common vice. I think we're stuck with rudeness.
suggest the guy most likely hasn't been on a bike at all and was just asked by the editor to:
"write a negative but jokey cycling article, but put a "you're one of them" slant on it, do it about bike paths or something, if you're stuck for what to include just jump on *insert cycling forum here* and pick out some common whinges and work those in. make sure you big up the lycra angle. that usually fires up the internet traffic."
because no person who'd been cycling long enough to recognise and then list all the standard gripes, stereotypes and behaviour he has included in his article would write an article that is so focussed on the negative aspects of cycling.... would they?
without being absolutely directed to i suppose.
ie: "write a negative but jokey cycling article. . ."
Cycling jersey's don't breathe was in the context of having them unzipped, it was humour, something that a good many of the posters in this thread seem not to understand.
This journalist has given cycling a go and despite his accurate observations of Perth's cycling culture he intends to keep on giving it a go.
His article should be seen as a positive for cycling, I really cannot understand, although I am not surprised by, some of the negative reactions on here.
Too old to live, too slow to die.
Whinging is something else that has to be learned by Poms and who better to learn it from than the Aussies who are after all the world champions.
Too old to live, too slow to die.
Not a chance - every whinging pom I ever encountered was an expert well before he reached these shores. Fortunately most don't stay long.
Cycle touring blog and tour journals: whispering wheels...
Meh, worth neither praise nor condemnation.
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
I agree. It's all a bit tongue in cheek, a gentle ribbing by a newbie getting up to speed (as it were).
As for all the criticisms of wannabe pro riders, or those who are too slow, or wearing the 'wrong' gear... Just take a look a the different types of motorist and how they behave. What is different, apart from one lot stands a chance of getting fit while the other just carries on getting fat?
I found the article quite funny. Written with humor and got some good pointers as well.
Most interesting to me is that this happens in nearly every country where you find many bikes. These articles you will find any where. Not a typical Oz problem. Italy is one of the exceptions (that I have experienced), there you are like a king on the road. In all the others the pedestrians and motorized vehicles rather see "us" go.
my comment was not related to the legality, just the reality of the situation. Cars dominate the road, until a truck appears. Responsibility does not equate to reality either. Some would argue the parental responsibility over the kid was breached when they exposed their kid to a thundering paceline. The law sadly does not always reflect reality, and the author just got a taste of reality. I bet he's had a whine about our women, rent, food and attitude towards Poms as well.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: duncan16v