Moron Motorists #3

[Aushiker]

An analogy would be a majority of cyclists running red lights, salmoning, and generally breaking traffic laws on the road.

The only research I have seen (i.e., proper observational research as opposed to anecdotal evidence ( cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases) suggests, in Melbourne at least, that 6.9% of cyclists run red lights whereas 7 to 9 % of motorists where observed doing the same [1]. Assuming this is representative of Australian cyclists I wouldn't be arguing that 6.9% of cyclists is anything close to the majority.

If you can point to other research on red light jumping by cyclists I would be most interested; particularly evidence that supports your claim.

[1] Johnson, Newstead, Charlton and Oxley (2011) - More discussion and links here

Andrew

[Aushiker]

please re-read what I wrote.

An analogy is ...

a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

so you are comparing the behaviour of cyclists to jetskiers and biker_jk is suggesting that your analogy is not a valid one and I would agree with him unless your intention is to suggest that neither example is a valid one?

Andrew

[herzog]

I get Duncan's analogy.

He's basically saying imagine the situation where nearly every cyclist is bombing reds and salmoning.

That's the ugly place the Jetski culture got to in Sydney before the regs were tightened up. They became a public nuisance, a safety menace and generally annoyed the crap out of everyone.

I wasn't sorry to see them go...

[biker jk]

I get Duncan's analogy.

He's basically saying imagine the situation where nearly every cyclist is bombing reds and salmoning.

That's the ugly place the Jetski culture got to in Sydney before the regs were tightened up. They became a public nuisance, a safety menace and generally annoyed the crap out of everyone.

I wasn't sorry to see them go...

Your interpretation would require the sentence to read "an analogy would be if a majority of cyclists ran red lights, etc.".

[herzog]

I got his point straight away. He was being hypothetical. I got it.

YMMV

[human909]

I got his point straight away. He was being hypothetical. I got it.

YMMV

So did I. I saw no issue with Duncan's phrasing. But I suppose and "if" would have made things clear that he wasn't talking about a definitive reality.

[duncanm]

thank you Herzog.

If so much confusion arose from what I wrote, I'm amazed people gleaned anything cogent from Mr Q!

The problem on the harbour was numerous jetskiers with no regard for the laws of the sea. An analogy would be a majority of cyclists running red lights, salmoning, and generally breaking traffic laws on the road.

let me rephrase for clarity...


Imagine, if you will, a world where the majority of cyclists broke the well-accepted traffic laws. This is not to say they do; for today, the vast majority of cyclists are law-abiding citizens of the world, who do their utmost to ensure that the name of cycling is not sullied by the breaking of, or even the impression of bending, the accepted laws of the land.

But please humor this writer, and imagine there is such a parallel universe in which cyclists are the pirates of the road, with careless disregard for all and sundry.

If this world were to exist (which it doesn't), then cyclists of that world could be compared to those similar denizens of the sea, which did exist in our world before being banished to the outer reaches of the waterways, such as the upper Hawkesbury, Port Hacking and the like. Areas already heavily infested with water skiers and other boisterous activities. I am speaking of the jet skiers.

Like cockroaches scuttling under from a flickering bulb, they scatter before ships' bows, terrify swimmers and annoy peaceful sailors.

These pests would be similar, dare I say analagous, to those non-existent cyclists, in a non-existent universe.

[duncanm]

I get Duncan's analogy.

He's basically saying imagine the situation where nearly every cyclist is bombing reds and salmoning.

That's the ugly place the Jetski culture got to in Sydney before the regs were tightened up. They became a public nuisance, a safety menace and generally annoyed the crap out of everyone.

I wasn't sorry to see them go...

Your interpretation would require the sentence to read "an analogy would be if a majority of cyclists ran red lights, etc.".

And your interpretation would require that I wrote An analogy would be the majority of cyclists running red lights, salmoning ...

[Mulger bill]

thank you Herzog.

If so much confusion arose...SNIP...in a non-existent universe.

[find_bruce]

An analogy would be a majority of cyclists running red lights, salmoning, and generally breaking traffic laws on the road.

And your interpretation would require that I wrote An analogy would be the majority of cyclists running red lights, salmoning ...

Are you saying there is a difference between "a majority" and "the majority" ?

I can accept that there is a difference between "a moron" and "the moron" but I hate to break it to you sunshine, a majority, by definition, requires it to be more than half, QED there cannot be more than one majority.

I do wait with fascination as to how you propose to do violence to the English language in that particular distinction. Perhaps you might gain some assistance from the famous authors who said "By a simple majority, in the case of purely internal affairs ... But by a two-thirds majority, in the case of more major"

A minor deficiency in your analogy is that one of the factors in banning jet skis from certain areas was the noise of their internal combustion engines. Still I am sure you will be able to work that into your answer by reference to the difficulty in obtaining a seat in a coffee shop due to the sweaty and noisy cyclists.

[human909]

This is getting funny!

The problem <in this thread> was numerous <people> with no regard for the lack of laws of the <English Language>. An analogy would be a big space alien with three bicycle wheels for a head.

Simply stating something in a sentence does not automatically make it an assertion of factual reality. Duncan's sentence describe an analogy, it made no comment nor inference on the veracity of the the second scenario.

[duncanm]

An analogy would be a majority of cyclists running red lights, salmoning, and generally breaking traffic laws on the road.

And your interpretation would require that I wrote An analogy would be the majority of cyclists running red lights, salmoning ...

Are you saying there is a difference between "a majority" and "the majority" ?

Ok.. I accept your point that there's no difference between 'a majority' and 'the majority' in this context.. mea culpa; but the would is the important distinction which makes the case hypothetical.

I'm not going to address your idiocy regarding the noise.. the point of discussion was whether or not cyclists could be compared to jet skiers. My argument was they can't, unless you consider the majority of cyclists to be annoying law breakers.

[ldrcycles]

This is getting funny!

Indeed it is! The interwebz is a beautiful thing (are a beautiful thing?)

[BianchiCam]

Sorry to interrupt the nitpicking what is BNA, but I thought I'd post up a response (and the only one out of maybe five emails both condemning (in a constructive manner) and praising drivers road craft)
Taken from this video. Van at 56 secs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqnOK0mn ... hxdyNpNhaQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


I sent a thanks to First For Flooring after one of their vans did the right thing and gave some space on a crappy road (for me, Whitehill Rd, Red Hill)
My Email to them....."Hi, Just a thank you to let you know that your drivers give plenty of room to cyclists on the above road on th e 25th. It might seem odd, but I often get 'shaved' as you will see in the link. I thought it would be nice to also praise competent driving as well. http://youtu.be/OqnOK0mn3Ak" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Kudos, Cameron Frewer"

Their response after 3 weeks or so..."Dear Cameron,

Thank you for sending the link of the driving skills of my team.

This is fantastic to watch and great feedback for me to pass on.

Keep Safe

James "

So..., if you are in need of a new floor.....give James a call!

Now I know at least my email is working!

as you were,

Cam

[stretts]

Had a scary close pass today, was navigating broken glass strewn throughout the bike lane at the time as well.

*language warning* sorry about that

79081132

[wellington_street]

I would say that because you are in a separate lane there it encourages drivers to not give you room (i.e. "he stays over his side of the line, I stay over my side"). That's a problem inherent in the narrow bicycle lanes there (with a very unhelpful crack/join right down the middle which doesn't help) as it encourages bad behaviour and doesn't adequately indicate the risks.

edit: Just so we're clear I wasn't ascribing any fault to you in my first sentence

[il padrone]

If their bike-lane logos tell me my front wheel should be in the gutter, it's far too narrow and all bets are off. Ride as you judge to be safest - this may well be to the right of that funny white line.

[stretts]

Its a really bad spot for cyclists, unfortunately there is no other way for me to go but that route. Cars whizzing past at 60km/h makes it difficult/unnerving to claim any part of the lane as well - but advice noted! Maybe having velo-city in Adelaide next year will address these sorts of things...wishful thinking

[Mulger bill]

An analogy would be a majority of cyclists running red lights, salmoning, and generally breaking traffic laws on the road.

And your interpretation would require that I wrote An analogy would be the majority of cyclists running red lights, salmoning ...

Are you saying there is a difference between "a majority" and "the majority" ?

Ok.. I accept your point that there's no difference between 'a majority' and 'the majority' in this context.. mea culpa; but the would is the important distinction which makes the case hypothetical.

I'm not going to address your idiocy regarding the noise.. the point of discussion was whether or not cyclists could be compared to jet skiers. My argument was they can't, unless you consider the majority of cyclists to be annoying law breakers.

And that will be enough of this sort of stuff thank you gentlemen.

Shaun

[il padrone]

Its a really bad spot for cyclists, unfortunately there is no other way for me to go but that route. Cars whizzing past at 60km/h makes it difficult/unnerving to claim any part of the lane as well - but advice noted! Maybe having velo-city in Adelaide next year will address these sorts of things...wishful thinking

Where the driver chose to close-shave you the 'bike lane' was ridiculously narroow - so much so it is an irrelevancy. Ride for your safety; this means claiming road space that you require.

60kmh cars are a soda. It's the 80kmh roads that present more problems. Ride wide, wider. Using rear panniers makes it easier as you present a bigger profile to drivers - they get persuaded they must go around rather than skim past. Using lights in daylight helps as well. Don't be afraid of riding a little eratically, veer out to go around patches and inspection covers, it all helps to tame the drivers.

Most people are intimidated about traffic, when what is needed for your safety is to use a good measure of bluff.

17300276

[stretts]

Thanks for the vid, had my thunderbolt rear light going, dont have panniers though

[hannos]

[
Most people are intimidated about traffic, when what is needed for your safety is to use a good measure of bluff.

Yep.
Ride like you BELONG there.

[arkle]

Where the driver chose to close-shave you the 'bike lane' was ridiculously narroow

I don't mean to sound facetious or glib here; what exactly do you think is going through a car driver's mind when he, or she, decides (and yes, it is a deliberate pre-meditated decision) to close-shave a cyclist in a way that endangers the cyclist's life? I can't think of any other situation in our daily lives where one human chooses to devalue, and risk, another human's life to such an extent.

arkle

[il padrone]

I reckon it's a version of the in-group & out-group; the A-team & B-team scenarios, in their puny minds

1. "I'll just squeeze past there..... oooh, there's not enough room.... phew!"
2. "Look at this f%$#*# - riding a bicycle. Hohoho!"

A mixture of ignorance and arrogance

[arkle]

I reckon it's a version of the in-group & out-group; the A-team & B-team scenarios, in their puny minds

1. "I'll just squeeze past there..... oooh, there's not enough room.... phew!"
2. "Look at this f%$#*# - riding a bicycle. Hohoho!"

A mixture of ignorance and arrogance

No, that's not sufficient. I don't value religious people, nor those who enjoy rodeos, nor racists, nor people who are cruel to animals, nor bullies, but I would never deliberately risk injuring, let alone killing, any of them.

arkle