Is this BBC report fair. Opinions wanted before I complain.

tarquin_foxglove wrote:

Quote:

To be discriminated against you need to have one of your Protected Characteristics, as defined by the Equality Act 2010, identified as the basis for the discriminatory action; i.e your ... religion ... Unfortunately being a cyclist is not a protected characteristic

Perhaps a social media campaign in the run up to the next census to rival the Jedi in 2001 could sort that out.

If we could convince them that 'Cycling', in all its forms is either a religion or a belief system then it might just work

jova54 wrote:

To be discriminated against you need to have one of your Protected Characteristics, as defined by the Equality Act 2010, identified as the basis for the discriminatory action; i.e your age, gender, colour, religion, sexual orientation etc. Unfortunately being a cyclist is not a protected characteristic and therefore our treatment by certain sections of the media and the public cannot be equated with racism.

That is strictly a legal definition.

Outside the legal system people have all sorts of prejudices that aren't listed on the legal books, to say something doesnt exist because it's not explicitly mentioned in some volume of law is daft.

jova54 wrote:

Quote:

All prejudices are wrong,..

Not strictly true. Prejudice is about prejudging, which we all do whether we will admit it or not. Having prejudices in itself is not a bad thing, it's what you do with them that causes problems and leads to stereotyping (see below), labelling and discrimination.

Quote:

I don't think you understood the purpose of my post and I don't see why it is in poor taste at all. Britain has a serious anti-cycling prejudices, this silly idea that cycling is for children or cyclists should only be mountain biking off-road, or all cyclists are law-breakers.

This is not prejudice, this is stereotyping where one aspect of a person or group is taken to be the defining factor.

Quote:

If you think my post is in bad taste then you need to explain why. The prejudices I have met on the road have been life-threatening at times, the behavior of some anti-cyclist drivers is scary, they have 2-ton weapons and when they are careless with them, they just get a slap on the wrist, if anything.

What you have experienced is probably not prejudice but a demonstration of poor driving and arrogance on the part of other road users.

To be discriminated against you need to have one of your Protected Characteristics, as defined by the Equality Act 2010, identified as the basis for the discriminatory action; i.e your age, gender, colour, religion, sexual orientation etc. Unfortunately being a cyclist is not a protected characteristic and therefore our treatment by certain sections of the media and the public cannot be equated with racism.

discrimination:
I was looking to exit (to the right) a t-junction yesterday, the flow of traffic was constant, on-one stopped to let me out, perhap 20 cars passed.
next very similar junction up a car was exiting the junction in a similar manner, the 3rd car stoped to let them out. That is discrimination and it is a very repeatable test.

I stopped in a traffic jam to allow a vehicle to enter the side road, even though there was a traffic jam and very little space in front of me, the vehicle behind honked and went round me, refusing the other vehicle passage - they would never have done that to another motor vehicle - again, this is clear-cut discrimination.

Just because you haven't noticed it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

And dont get me started about drivers who try and get between you and the car in front even when you're having no problem keeping up with traffic and you've only got a 2 second gap in front of you. Again clearly discrimination, regardless of what some old fart wrote in a law book.

dupe post

kie7077 wrote:

discrimination:
I was looking to exit (to the right) a t-junction yesterday, the flow of traffic was constant, on-one stopped to let me out, perhap 20 cars passed.
next very similar junction up a car was exiting the junction in a similar manner, the 3rd car stoped to let them out. That is discrimination and it is a very repeatable test.

I stopped in a traffic jam to allow a vehicle to enter the side road, even though there was a traffic jam and very little space in front of me, the vehicle behind honked and went round me, refusing the other vehicle passage - they would never have done that to another motor vehicle - again, this is clear-cut discrimination.

Just because you haven't noticed it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

And dont get me started about drivers who try and get between you and the car in front even when you're having no problem keeping up with traffic and you've only got a 2 second gap in front of you. Again clearly discrimination, regardless of what some old fart wrote in a law book.

You really don't get it do you?

kie7077 wrote:

jova54 wrote:

To be discriminated against you need to have one of your Protected Characteristics, as defined by the Equality Act 2010, identified as the basis for the discriminatory action; i.e your age, gender, colour, religion, sexual orientation etc. Unfortunately being a cyclist is not a protected characteristic and therefore our treatment by certain sections of the media and the public cannot be equated with racism.

That is strictly a legal definition.

Outside the legal system people have all sorts of prejudices that aren't listed on the legal books, to say something doesnt exist because it's not explicitly mentioned in some volume of law is daft.

You are confusing prejudice and discrimination and it does nothing to support your original assertion equating our treatment as racism.

jova54 wrote:

basis for the discriminatory action; i.e your age, gender, colour, religion, sexual orientation etc. Unfortunately being a cyclist is not a protected characteristic and therefore our treatment by certain sections of the media and the public cannot be equated with racism.

Religion would certainly work both for car drivers and cyclists.

Alternatively, maybe, sexual orientation ... I really, really love my bike? No?

jova54 wrote:

To be discriminated against you need to have one of your Protected Characteristics, as defined by the Equality Act 2010, identified as the basis for the discriminatory action; i.e your age, gender, colour, religion, sexual orientation etc. Unfortunately being a cyclist is not a protected characteristic and therefore our treatment by certain sections of the media and the public cannot be equated with racism.

This seems an extremely silly argument. The meanings of words are not defined by acts of parliament!

There's the legal situation, what the balance of power in any given society/state will allow you to take action on, and there's reality. The two are not synonymous!

If you are just saying it can't be used as a basis for legal action, that is perfectly true. But it doesn't change the common meaning of 'discrimination' as an English word.

There's a massive pro-motorist bias in this society and cyclists and pedestrians alike are clearly discrimated against (given far less than their just share of public space, for example).

Many things were not legally defined as discriminatory in past decades, didn't mean they weren't.

GoingRoundInCycles wrote:

But "bicycle in collision with car" and "car in collision with bicycle" mean exactly the same thing, if both were moving at the time of the collision. They came together ..... Not in that sense, obviously.

Words.

edit

or put more intelligently, wot Dave just said ^^^

Don't think so. They carry quite different implications. In one the cycist is the active subject the car the passive object. In the other the reverse.

Now the difference is reduced significantly by the use of the more passive 'in collision with' rather than 'collides with', so its not so bad in that form. The bias is far clearer in the case of 'cyclist collides with...'.

But grammatically the distinction is surely pretty simple? - one is subject the other object. The subject is the active party, the 'do-er'. That's just basic grammar, no?

Edit - the more I think about it, though, the more I think the 'in collision with' form is far less objectionable than when it uses 'collides with'. While still seeming to make the cyclist the subject, it emphasises just involvement rather than causation. They were 'in' the collision, not necessarily doing the colliding.