The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

open topic, for anything cycling related.

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Myrtone » Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:46 am

bychosis wrote:Assumeing good faith... This rider still definately did a stupid thing. Some might say there are no stupid people only stupid actions.


Yes assuming good faith. That rider may have not riden safely or according to the rules, that doesn't make it "stupid." Have you ever noticed that it is a lot more common for pedestrians to ignore the pedestrian light, and someone implicitly suggested that they are breaking that rule becasue it is inappropriate. I'm not trying to stress people out, one will likely be less stressed out if one assumes good faith if one is polite to other road users.
Myrtone
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:12 pm

by BNA » Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:03 am

BNA
 

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Summernight » Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:03 am

I'm still stuck on the purple polka dot jersey... I want a picture. :wink:

I had a dumb cyclist today - he was wearing flannel (make of that what you will) and did the usual "I'm allowed to turn left on the red" and came from behind me and did so (I was also indicating to turn left but I stop for the lights). I catch up to him at another set of pedestrian lights on a different road (outside the Old Treasury on MacArthur St for those playing at home in Melbourne) and he promptly runs that red (with a cop car right there and he went around another cyclist who stopped for that red too) and then further up on the intersection with Spring St does a u-turn through traffic to get onto the footpath near Parliament.

I mean, if you're going to run reds, would you do it right beside a cop car?

P.S. I don't expect an answer or a discussion/debate of my question...
User avatar
Summernight
 
Posts: 1984
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:40 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby redned » Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:25 pm

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.

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].
redned
 
Posts: 407
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:45 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby biker jk » Fri Apr 19, 2013 2:58 pm

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.

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].


I wouldn't waste your time rednet since Myrtone is either a troll or is using a random sentence generator.
User avatar
biker jk
 
Posts: 3621
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 5:18 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby London Boy » Fri Apr 19, 2013 6:51 pm

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.
User avatar
London Boy
 
Posts: 638
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:43 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby trailgumby » Fri Apr 19, 2013 9:18 pm

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.
User avatar
trailgumby
 
Posts: 10718
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Myrtone » Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:16 pm

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.
Myrtone
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:12 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby DavidS » Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:41 pm

Summernight wrote:I mean, if you're going to run reds, would you do it right beside a cop car?


Because your chances of actually being booked still appear to be vanishingly thin.

Myrtone, I have no idea where you are coming from. If someone passes a pile of traffic stopped at red a traffic light and almost takes out a pedestrian how do you propose we describe them and their behaviour? I would think stupid is fairly reasonable, incredibly selfish is another term which comes to mind. And from this example of behaviour you propose we assume good faith?? We see bad faith behaviour and you tell us to assume the opposite. Only one word for that: illogical. If I assumed good faith behaviour on the part of car drivers I'd likely be in a pine box already.

DS
Image

Riding: Cannondale Quick Speed 2
User avatar
DavidS
 
Posts: 1545
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby trailgumby » Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:44 pm

myrtone wrote:
trailgumby wrote: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.

You're either very inexperienced and/or naive, or not very bright.

Why the HELL would I assume that? :shock: :lol:

While you are right that MOST don't want to hit you, I can tell you from intimate personal experience that a very small percentage of drivers out there don't see us as human, and feel appointed by whatever sets their moral compass to teach cyclists "a lesson".

Sooner or later you *will* encounter one of them. And it only takes one.

It is simply a matter of numbers and time on the bike. I hope when your family comes to take you home from the hospital afterwards, they will not need to carry you in a pine box.

Image

Personally, I think I'll live longer if I assume the worst and hope to be pleasantly surprised, rather than assuming people will always care for me as they do themselves, and finding out the hard way that they frequently don't.
User avatar
trailgumby
 
Posts: 10718
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Myrtone » Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:53 pm

That small percentage of road users you mentioned may either be intoxicated and/or suffer from road rage, as I actually suggested if you read carefully, that most don't want to hit you is the key. If they don't see you as animate, let alone human, they are very likely to be impaired drivers. How is assuming that they don't want to hit you (as opposing to assuming that they'll give way when required to you and stop and red lights) dangerous? Allowing for those acting impropely while assuming that even irrational actors don't want to hit you is the safest option of all. I don't think I have ever encountred a single motorist that is evidently acting in bad faith.
Myrtone
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:12 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby trailgumby » Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:13 pm

Myrtone wrote:I don't think I have ever encountred a single motorist that is evidently acting in bad faith.

Wish I could say the same.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=22300

That kind of event tends to limit your capacity for making sunny assumptions about other people.
Last edited by trailgumby on Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
trailgumby
 
Posts: 10718
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby BandedRail » Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:18 pm

Myrtone wrote:
Once again, it is best to assume that other road users care at least as much as you about not causing harm.



That has is right up there with one of the most crazy pieces of "advice" I've heard in a while. I've been hit by bottles deliberatley thrown at me from cars (and a few near misses), been slapped by passengers in passing cars (the driver had to swerve to the left to allow the passenger to do it), been doored, been bullied off the road, beeped at, abused and nearly cleaned out by numerous smug-faced drop-kicks in over-sized, over-powered, [expletive]-extensions ignoring my right to be on the road. I've also had numerous incidents with other cyclists being arrogant, dangerous, self-centred drop-kicks. On a number of these occasions it was MY ACTIONS that prevented me being seriously injured or worse. As far as I can recall for all of these incidents I was just obeying all the rules, keeping to myself and just trying to get from A to B. Assuming other people are all "kittens & fluffy clouds" is a great way to get yourself broke/hurt/dead.
User avatar
BandedRail
 
Posts: 478
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:31 pm
Location: Bayswater, Perth WA

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby trailgumby » Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:22 pm

BandedRail wrote:Assuming other people are all "kittens & fluffy clouds" is a great way to get yourself broke/hurt/dead.


Yep. ^^^ What he said.

The unfortunate reality is that we are swimming with sharks. Not all the fish we swim with are sharks. But it's best not to be shark bait.
User avatar
trailgumby
 
Posts: 10718
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:30 pm
Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Myrtone » Fri Apr 19, 2013 11:47 pm

BandedRail wrote:That has is right up there with one of the most crazy pieces of "advice" I've heard in a while. I've been hit by bottles deliberatley thrown at me from cars (and a few near misses), been slapped by passengers in passing cars (the driver had to swerve to the left to allow the passenger to do it), been doored, been bullied off the road, beeped at, abused and nearly cleaned out by numerous smug-faced drop-kicks in over-sized, over-powered, [expletive]-extensions ignoring my right to be on the road. I've also had numerous incidents with other cyclists being arrogant, dangerous, self-centred drop-kicks. On a number of these occasions it was MY ACTIONS that prevented me being seriously injured or worse. As far as I can recall for all of these incidents I was just obeying all the rules, keeping to myself and just trying to get from A to B. Assuming other people are all "kittens & fluffy clouds" is a great way to get yourself broke/hurt/dead.


In one case, it was the passergers, not the drivers of any passing vehicles, passengers could not possibly be breaking the road rules, at least not at their own disgression. Thae way I think of it is that if the driver is breaking the road rules, than all the occupants are also breaking those same rules, but at the drivers disgression, note that the driver has autonamy over (controlling the position of) everyone in the vehicle. One those occasions, it would be your evasive actions (such as stopping, slowing down and swerving), not your assumption about their intentions that prevented your being seriously injured or worse. If you were polite and assumed good faith but still took the same evasive action(s), the result would still be the same. Whether a good or bad faith assuming pedestrian stops to a avoid the cyclist you mentioned, the result of the evasive action is the same. But if you yell at the cyclist who did it, they may become frustrated. Is there anyone here who has more empathy for others?
Myrtone
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:12 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby BandedRail » Sat Apr 20, 2013 12:17 am

Myrtone wrote:
BandedRail wrote:That has is right up there with one of the most crazy pieces of "advice" I've heard in a while. I've been hit by bottles deliberatley thrown at me from cars (and a few near misses), been slapped by passengers in passing cars (the driver had to swerve to the left to allow the passenger to do it), been doored, been bullied off the road, beeped at, abused and nearly cleaned out by numerous smug-faced drop-kicks in over-sized, over-powered, [expletive]-extensions ignoring my right to be on the road. I've also had numerous incidents with other cyclists being arrogant, dangerous, self-centred drop-kicks. On a number of these occasions it was MY ACTIONS that prevented me being seriously injured or worse. As far as I can recall for all of these incidents I was just obeying all the rules, keeping to myself and just trying to get from A to B. Assuming other people are all "kittens & fluffy clouds" is a great way to get yourself broke/hurt/dead.


In one case, it was the passergers, not the drivers of any passing vehicles, passengers could not possibly be breaking the road rules, at least not at their own disgression. Thae way I think of it is that if the driver is breaking the road rules, than all the occupants are also breaking those same rules, but at the drivers disgression, note that the driver has autonamy over (controlling the position of) everyone in the vehicle. One those occasions, it would be your evasive actions (such as stopping, slowing down and swerving), not your assumption about their intentions that prevented your being seriously injured or worse. If you were polite and assumed good faith but still took the same evasive action(s), the result would still be the same. Whether a good or bad faith assuming pedestrian stops to a avoid the cyclist you mentioned, the result of the evasive action is the same. But if you yell at the cyclist who did it, they may become frustrated. Is there anyone here who has more empathy for others?


And that has to be one of the worst replies I've seen in a while. Quite apart from the poor spelling, grammar, sentence & paragraph structure there are some serious flaws. When I was slapped the driver moved to the left to be as close to me as possible to allow the passenger to slap me - so YES, both the passengers & the driver are at fault (the passenger assaulted me, not a "road rule" but a still a rule and a serious one at that).
Myrtone wrote:One those occasions, it would be your evasive actions (such as stopping, slowing down and swerving), not your assumption about their intentions that prevented your being seriously injured or worse. If you were polite and assumed good faith but still took the same evasive action(s), the result would still be the same. Whether a good or bad faith assuming pedestrian stops to a avoid the cyclist you mentioned, the result of the evasive action is the same."
And which "One those occasions" would that be? Were you there when the motorists looked straight at me and still drove through the compulsory stop with a smug grin on their face forcing me to take evasive action? Or when the car sidled up side me and then swerved hard to the left forcing me to again brake hard and nearly stack? I could go on (and on and on and on - 38 years of cycling has been "fun-filled" to say the least). And by the way "Whether a good or bad faith assuming pedestrian stops to a avoid the cyclist you mentioned...", I never mentioned any pedestrians or any cylist/pedestrian incident either.

Myrtone wrote:Is there anyone here who has more empathy for others?


Who are you referring to you? Are you saying YOU have more empathy for others [than anyone else on this thread]?
User avatar
BandedRail
 
Posts: 478
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:31 pm
Location: Bayswater, Perth WA

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Myrtone » Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:58 am

BandedRail wrote:And that has to be one of the worst replies I've seen in a while. Quite apart from the poor spelling, grammar, sentence & paragraph structure there are some serious flaws. When I was slapped the driver moved to the left to be as close to me as possible to allow the passenger to slap me - so YES, both the passengers & the driver are at fault (the passenger assaulted me, not a "road rule" but a still a rule and a serious one at that).
Myrtone wrote:One those occasions, it would be your evasive actions (such as stopping, slowing down and swerving), not your assumption about their intentions that prevented your being seriously injured or worse. If you were polite and assumed good faith but still took the same evasive action(s), the result would still be the same. Whether a good or bad faith assuming pedestrian stops to a avoid the cyclist you mentioned, the result of the evasive action is the same."
And which "One those occasions" would that be? Were you there when the motorists looked straight at me and still drove through the compulsory stop with a smug grin on their face forcing me to take evasive action? Or when the car sidled up side me and then swerved hard to the left forcing me to again brake hard and nearly stack? I could go on (and on and on and on - 38 years of cycling has been "fun-filled" to say the least). And by the way "Whether a good or bad faith assuming pedestrian stops to a avoid the cyclist you mentioned...", I never mentioned any pedestrians or any cylist/pedestrian incident either.


The reason for the poor spelling and grammar is that it is really hard to deal with your insitance on assuming bad faith. If the driver move to the left to allow the passengers to slap you, you do indeed have very strong evidence of bad faith, that doesn't mean you have such evidence even most of the time. In the cyclist/pedestrian incident someone else mentinoned, there was no evidence of bad faith, none. And anyway, I know it must have been your (evasive) actions, not your assumptions that kept you from being hit. If you did assume good faith but still took those same actions, the result would still be the same. If a car sidles up up side you and then swerves hard to the left, the result of braking hard is the same, regardless of what you say to the motorist, or whether they had bad intentions or made an honest miskate. Can't you discriminate intentions and assumptions from actions?!? That they want to hit you is not something you assume without sufficient strong evidence.
Myrtone
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:12 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Kev365428 » Sat Apr 20, 2013 4:06 am

Dumb cyclist = kev365428 on Thursday.

Felt the front tyre going soft on my morning commute, and thought I could make it into work (only another 15 minutes or so).
I'd forgotten all about it when taking a fast left hander, and the front wheel let go on my.
Kudos the rider behind who stopped to ask if I was ok.
Bike only sustained minimal cosmetic damage, and I lost some skin from the elbow, hip, knee, and side of the calf muscle.



Kev.
User avatar
Kev365428
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 2203
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 7:52 am
Location: Ingleburn, NSW

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby find_bruce » Sat Apr 20, 2013 6:53 am

Ouch, glad you are ok Kev
Image . . . . . . . Image
User avatar
find_bruce
 
Posts: 4720
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby jasonc » Sat Apr 20, 2013 7:44 am

trailgumby wrote:
BandedRail wrote:Assuming other people are all "kittens & fluffy clouds" is a great way to get yourself broke/hurt/dead.


Yep. ^^^ What he said.

The unfortunate reality is that we are swimming with sharks. Not all the fish we swim with are sharks. But it's best not to be shark bait.


assume = making an ass of u and me
Image
jasonc
 
Posts: 7283
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:40 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Percrime » Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:04 am

Myrtone wrote:If you did assume good faith but still took those same actions, the result would still be the same. If a car sidles up up side you and then swerves hard to the left, the result of braking hard is the same, regardless


Crikey no.
Its the difference between being set up for an emergency brake and suddenly out of the blue having to do an emergency brake. Most of a second.. or maybe 25 metres.
Percrime
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:41 am

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Myrtone » Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:36 am

One can be set up for an emergency brake and still that assume they didn't want to hit you, either way the result of being set up is the same. Conversingly one may suddenly to do an emergency brake and assume they didn't care whether they hit you, that does not change the result of the latter.
Myrtone
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:12 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby warthog1 » Sat Apr 20, 2013 11:19 am

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.


+1 and I believe my driving instructor told me the same.
I've been a commuting cyclist, a postie, an interstate truck driver, a motorcycle courier and a paramedic in my time.
Assume the person you are sharing the road with is either an incompetent fool or potential a homicidal maniac in a 1 tonne plus vehicle/weapon. :|
You have a much greater chance of surviving to old age. :wink:
Doesn't mean you have to behave beligerently on the road towards others, just use caution and be prepared from some truly stupid behaviour.
User avatar
warthog1
 
Posts: 4118
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Myrtone » Sat Apr 20, 2013 11:49 am

warthog1 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.


+1 and I believe my driving instructor told me the same.
I've been a commuting cyclist, a postie, an interstate truck driver, a motorcycle courier and a paramedic in my time.
Assume the person you are sharing the road with is either an incompetent fool or potential a homicidal maniac in a 1 tonne plus vehicle/weapon. :|
You have a much greater chance of surviving to old age. :wink:
Doesn't mean you have to behave beligerently on the road towards others, just use caution and be prepared from some truly stupid behaviour.


-1 I do wonder about the sex of the your driving instuctor and how sensitve they are to other emotions and how well they understand, plenty of women work as driving intructors, and they on average are better than men, esecially techincally minded men, at understanding these things. Maybe what the intuctor really wanted you to do is assume that the person sharing the road with you in not acting propely and according to the rules unless they show otherwise, that's not an exucse to assume bad faith. The best thing to do is use caution but always be nice and polite to other road users and respect them for what they are doing. Do not calim they are an idiot unless they are intoxicated and/or have road rage. And I removed the creepy red-marking of the text I quoted.
Myrtone
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:12 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby warthog1 » Sat Apr 20, 2013 11:53 am

Myrtone wrote:
warthog1 wrote:
London Boy wrote: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.


+1 and I believe my driving instructor told me the same.
I've been a commuting cyclist, a postie, an interstate truck driver, a motorcycle courier and a paramedic in my time.
Assume the person you are sharing the road with is either an incompetent fool or potential a homicidal maniac in a 1 tonne plus vehicle/weapon. :|
You have a much greater chance of surviving to old age. :wink:
Doesn't mean you have to behave beligerently on the road towards others, just use caution and be prepared from some truly stupid behaviour.


-1 I do wonder about the sex of the your driving instuctor and how sensitve they are to other emotions and how well they understand, plenty of women work as driving intructors, and they on average are better than men, esecially techincally minded men, at understanding these things. Maybe what the intuctor really wanted you to do is assume that the person sharing the road with you in not acting propely and according to the rules unless they show otherwise, that's not an exucse to assume bad faith. The best thing to do is use caution but always be nice and polite to other road users and respect them for what they are doing. Do not calim they are an idiot unless they are intoxicated and/or have road rage. And I removed the creepy red-marking of the text I quoted.


I put it back because it is important, I have seen the direct result (death and serious injury) of incompetence, aggression and idiocy on the roads :|
May you learn that truth without serious consequence to yourself or those you love.
User avatar
warthog1
 
Posts: 4118
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm

Re: The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

Postby Mozz » Sat Apr 20, 2013 12:29 pm

Setting the scene, a beautiful Brisbane Saturday morning, blue sky without any clouds, West End Markets at Davies Park, very cool vibe all around, lots of pedestrian traffic just enjoying the event.

I am just parking my new mountain bike having cycled in from Oxley and then around the city river reaches a bit...when I hear a cycle bell ... bing bing bing bing bing bing bing and it went on... so I looked up to see an older gentleman riding a road bike on a very wide shared concrete path riding behind a couple of pedestrians who were walking side by side .. and more bing bing bing bing bing until someone from somewhere yells out "just go around them mate".

The cyclist had enough room to travel onto the right hand side of the path and ride around them, however I believe he was trying to assert it was his right to sit behind them binging his bell until they stopped walking side by side and walked in single file so that he could pass them while staying on the left hand side of the path ..... very poor form .... he eventually did go around them on the right hand side.

As often said on these forums, there is enough mud thrown the way of cyclists, we don't need individuals acting like prats adding to the mix of antagonism.
Mozz
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 10:27 am

PreviousNext

Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: rogan



Popular Bike Shops
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Torpedo 7 Cycling Express
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Ebay Ebay AU
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter
“Bicycles BNA on Strava

> FREE BNA Stickers