Yep, you’re reading that right. Boris Johnson, Tadej Pogačar and Taylor Swift are the same person. They all believe the same things, behave the same way, and they even dress the same. I don’t know how nobody has noticed this before, when it is so obvious to anybody who takes three seconds to look through the comments on any provincial Facebook group as soon as the word ‘cyclist’ is typed.
Jocelyn, a member of the same beloved local provincial Facebook that I am a member of, has noticed that “…in my experience [they] make their own rules up. Then if there’s an accident/incident, it’s everyone else’s fault, and they become abusive.”
Meanwhile, the ever insightful Rob mentioned: “They normally just make there [sic] own rules up.”
He has a point. Tadej is certainly rewriting the rules of professional cycling, Taylor Swift has changed the rules around ‘childless cat ladies’, and Boris likes to have parties during lockdowns, cheat on his wife etc…
Of course, this whole thing is ridiculous, and there is no equivalence between those three people. One is a billionaire musical phenomenon, one is the new Eddy Merckx, and the other is a disgraced ex-Prime Minister; however, across social media and often traditional media too, they have each ridden a bike. So they are all the same.
They are simply ‘cyclists’…
Sure, but that’s just semantics right? That’s like when you call people who drive cars ‘drivers’, or anybody who travels to work as ‘commuters’?
Except for some reason the ‘cyclist’ is not somebody who occasionally rides a bike. It seems to be deployed as a collective noun for wronguns.
For instance, Councillor Alan Amos from Worcester knows for a fact that “cyclists routinely flout the law. Because cyclists don’t have any identification, they continue to do so with impunity and never get caught.”
This is an unhinged thing to say. Not because there aren’t people who ride bikes that don’t flout the law, but because claiming that cyclists are some kind of homogeneous group that do this more than any other group shows not just ignorance of anything specific to cycling, but ignorance of the basic human condition.
How could you possibly establish correlation and causation based on the type of vehicle somebody uses for transport or fun? I would make an educated guess that there are more sheds containing bikes than not in the UK today, so is Alan claiming that most people who own a shed “routinely flout the law”? Or is Alan somehow saying that these people are law-abiding unless they are on a bike? Somehow the process of turning your legs and propelling yourself via pedals and chains is a gateway movement to criminality.
I am going to be honest here, I can’t see many similarities between the person riding around the Cotswolds on a £12k S-Works Tarmac SL8 and the teenager in Croydon doing a wheelie on a £20 mountain bike they bought off Facebook Marketplace. However, people like Alan want us to believe that there is equivalence.
Perhaps I am being a bit mean to Alan though, because it’s not his fault. His mind has just been pickled by the media.
There was an awful story from the end of September about a man who was riding a bike on a pavement. He was told to get off the pavement, so he stopped, got off his bike and punched the man who spoke to him, killing him. The fact that the bloke was riding a bike isn’t particularly indicative of him being more or less likely to have killed somebody, but this is how it was reported:
‘Cyclist, 23, punched 78-year-old to the floor and killed him after widower told him off for riding on the pavement’ — The Daily Mail
‘”Cyclists Are The SCUM Of The Earth” | Elderly Widower Killed By Cyclist’ — Talk TV
‘Cyclist killed pensioner in row over riding on pavement’ — The Telegraph
‘Cyclist killed pensioner with one punch after pavement row’ — The Times
‘Cyclist who punched and killed pensioner during pavement cycling row, before “cowardly” trying to flee scene, jailed for five years’ — road.cc
This man riding a bike is important to the narrative of the story, but in the same way that a bank robber might use a car as a getaway vehicle, or how the Hatton Garden robbers used public transport to get to theirs. I don’t remember any headlines from the time along the lines of ‘Public transport users rob jewellery shop’.
It is bizarre that we have the media (usually right-wing media in my opinion, but I note that even here on road.cc the word ‘cyclist’ was used to describe the perpetrator) trying to use a mode of transport as their defining headline descriptor to show whether somebody is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Imagine if the same thing happened with other forms of transport, it would make journalists look insane.
As it stands, we just have people like Mike ‘you can grow concrete’ Graham spitting hatred and bile against cyclists, with some of his videos carrying titles such as ‘Cyclists Are The SCUM Of The Earth’ and ‘”Selfish, Sanctimonious And Untouchable!” Mike Graham And Howard Cox Furiously BLAST Cyclists’.
With this unhinged level of hatred out there against people who are simply using a specific form of transport, it’s no wonder people like Alan, Jocelyn, and Rob have their brains pickled…
73 thoughts on “Boris Johnson, Tadej Pogačar and Taylor Swift are the same person, apparently… the problem with calling all cyclists ‘Cyclists’”
It’s of note that on social
It’s of note that on social media, those being insulting about ‘cyclists’ often have very poor spelling and grammar.
Soemtimes I think that too:
Sometimes I think that too: maybe it is just a handful (ok, a few handfuls) of phone-typing oddballs that see cyclists as a threat. But then I watch the first 45 seconds of this GCN video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_4GZnGl55c.
I wish I hadn’t watched that
I wish I hadn’t watched that – I’m still astounded that even given the facts that cars kill so many more pedestrians one woman said that was because cars have to veer to avoid cyclists and therefore kill pedestrians
kinderje wrote:
I know. Some people clearly just shouldn’t be let out on their own…
Also a fundamental ignorance
Also a fundamental ignorance/mis-understanding of the highway code, road traffic law and the tax system.
Apart from the lunacy of
Apart from the lunacy of lumping ALL people on two wheels into one group (yeah, let’s all unite against the common enemy – tricyclists), there is the insane amount of psychological projection going on. You can assert that cyclists are arrogant/contemptuous of the law/smug/entitled etc, without any reference to any kind of evidence. You just somehow know that the entire group is suffering from such a personality flaw.
It’s like saying all train passengers are intrinsically sarcastic.
It’s like saying all train
It’s like saying all train passengers are intrinsically sarcastic.
We *aren’t*?
Yeah right
Yeah right
Could a train passenger *be*
Could a train passenger *be* any more sarcastic? 😉
Slight tangent here but
Slight tangent here but relevant to news reporting…
The BBC and most other news sources are still refusing to refer to DRIVERS (in almost all reports) when writing about road collisions, rather they still say things like “… hit by car/bus…” etc.
There really needs to be a campaign by road safety advocates (and cycling groups) for all news sources to use the Road Collision Reporting Guidelines: http://rc-rg.com
Can the same be said for the
Can the same be said for the term ‘pensioner’?
We just need to form a
We just need to form a religion then we can sue the **** out of the newspapers for discrimination based on our faith.
Perhaps The Church of the Everlasting Headwind?
We already have the
We already have the velominati and its doctrine. I suggest we make it official. Just need to add some stuff in there to wind drivers up more.
“Thou shalt only cycle with a sense of entitlement and for the sole reason to inconvenience god favourite children…the driver”
It doesn’t work.
It doesn’t work.
The journos have a set of keys on their keyboards with pre-defined headlines. For Church of England it is “massively rich church wants to steal your money”, “naughty vicar boffs X”, “collapsing church wants your money for roof (etc)”, “liberal church threatening our nation by XYZ”, “fundamentalist church threatening our nation by XYZ”, “outrage / fury at something something something”, “declining church something something something”.
“Gay vicar abuses X” has gone, but we have various things around child abuse, and in the last year or two obsessions about white nativist culture coming from groups like Reform UK, some Tories who are aligning with Christian Nationalism from the USA, echoes of Far Right dogwhistles.
And now strange stuff about “church falls for industrial scale fake conversions of Asylum Seekers to stay in UK”, which tend to be lies or written by journos with amputated fingers who’s counting skills are limited to “one, two, lots”.
It’s basically all journalistic masturbation.
Don’t the Dutch have
Don’t the Dutch have different words for different “types” of people riding bikes?
…and 57 terms for different
…and 57 terms for different types of cycle infra?
Actually even the UK has several: “superhighway”, “world-beating infra”, “quiet routes”, “national network”… oh, and the term that people who ride on it use which is “inadequate”.
NL has got some pretty
NL has got some pretty horrific cycling infrastructure too, which would be fine if you weren’t obliged to use it and the road you’re not allowed to use weren’t so wonderfully smooth.
john_smith wrote:
Where? I mean – where is “horrific”? And is this “horrific compared to the UK” – I’d be interested to see that!
You shouldn’t have any problems finding examples because there’s a whole country’s worth of it – as opposed to playing “hunt the cycle infra which isn’t just a sign” in the UK.
Because it’s “public infra” same as here it’s certainly not all going to be up-to-current standards, well-build or the product of fine cycle-centric minds. But though worst bits I’ve seen (not ridden – IIRC had no riding issues) were old and grubby and too car-filled they’d still outclass almost everything “Dutch-style” and “world-beating” I’ve seen in the UK?
(Doing your work for you here are some “bad” examples for you from BicycleDutch, NotJustBikes and a more general “NL could do better for cyclists” from David Hembrow).
Anything made of loose
Anything made of loose klinkers which suddenly veers off into the wilderness or stops or crosses on to the other side of the road and is narrow so you get stuck behind other traffic etc. is horrific IMO, if only a few feet away there’s something that would be ideal for cycling and in pretty much any other country you’d be allowed to ride on.
Where that then? IIRC
Where that then? IIRC Kinderje mentioned some – but I certainly haven’t encountered any in my forays there (admittedly I’ve only done a single tour there, other times I’ve been in cities).
Perhaps they only point the English down that lane, to provide them an experience they’d recognise?
EDIT – of course I’m not a fan of cobbles or loose tiled/brick surfaces either, but living in Edinburgh that’s the normal anyway…
North Holland, South Holland,
North Holland, South Holland.
Sorry Chris, your
Sorry Chris, your recollection is incorrect. It definitely wasn’t me and I can’t think who it would have been either. Nice to get a namecheck though!!
Also – you are correct that
Also – you are correct that there are places where you have to use the cycle path, but beware the fallacy. And the related “but it’ll slow me down” – which sometimes comes from people who clearly think of riding their bike like driving a car e.g. sprint for 400m then stop and wait for a minute at the lights, repeat.
Luckily it’s simple to visit (ideally in person but if not via the medium of videos and streetview) to check your opinions of the place.
There are in fact cycle paths which are not mandatory – presumably for exactly that reason e.g. the infra isn’t great and the drivers of motor vehicles on the road have been suitably “calmed” by the speed limit / road design / lack of this being a through-route for traffic. From here:
Fortunately actual cycle lanes are not common in NL and hopefully getting rarer.
… but you’re correct: https
… but you’re correct: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/lycra-on-the-streets-of-the-netherlands/
have tried to ponder this
have tried to ponder this many times whilst out riding and trying to work out an alternative set of descriptions…..bike users, boris bikers, mamils, definately not a cyclist, etc….
The one I find interesting is
The one I find interesting is USA use of “bicyclist”, as if it is an ideological position. Over there their road culture is such that even academic research seems to be in a frame limiting much research to “what can the bicyclist / pedestrian do to change their behaviour in a dangerous environment”, with very little questioning of the frame.
IMO it’s an othering category functioning to avoid “US” having to look in the mirror, or think a little.
Here we have a similar disconnect on disability – disabled peopled are far too often “THEM, who we may choose to help”, not part of US.
Was it Marvin in Hitchhiker who reflected (ish)? –
“Marvin wondered why humna being talked so much. First of all he thought it was because they needed to to survive. Then he decided that it was because if they stopped talking, their brains started working.”
Good to see HH2G as always.
Good to see HH2G as always.
In fact I think “bicyclist” in the US was often an ideological position! The vehicular cycling “cult”. A mix of elitism, counter-culture, individualist “live free or die!”, useful and practical advice for surviving a hostile street environment … and Stockholm Syndrome.
Much has been written about it (e.g. here) but one thing it would clearly never bring about (possibly by design) was “mass cycling” and getting lots of people out of their cars.
Thankfully I think the UK through history and proximity is more aligned with European models. So cycle transport less as heros running with the bulls, or freedom fighters standing up for their rights, more a mundane provision of service (per good “health and safety” guidance taking into account “human factors”). Which can and should aim to empower and enable a wider range of people than motor transport: the young, the old, those with disablities, the poor, people doing mundane trips and people out for sport or other recreation etc.
You know I agree with you
You know I agree with you about 95%, even though I take different angles, expressed differently.
Here in my thinking I would regard “vehicular cycling” as a mode I switch into when on a road, and for example treat myself as traffic needing to dominate lanes at traffic islands and pinch points and in 20mph zones; the limitation on that would come in road areas which are not imo safe. Off road I switch into a more “sharing modes” style where I tend to run at say 10-11mph max unless it is very clear.
In North Notts I don’t really have a “cruise at 16-18mph” option off road, as there is no infra and dog walkers everywhere..
What works, works. And there
What works, works – if you *are* in traffic it is better to cycle a bit like drivers drive.
And there *is* something to the “different tribe” trope. Even in places with mass cycling there will be a minority who will still be racers, long distance enthusiasts, and even people who are strongly “I cycle, I don’t drive”. (Heck even amongst cycling pros there are Boardmans and more petrol-head types…)
Difference is just that self-selected cycling types are not *completely* at odds with the mainstream in mass cycling countries. And I believe (unlike some here and the Vehicular Cyclists, with capitals) that everyone stands to benefit from facilitating cycling as part of the national transport strategy* including them. Although they might then be a little less “special” and “unique”. (But you can always take up fixed Audaxing, or get a velomobile or high-wheeler or unicycle – or just be punk in some other way).
* Mass cycling needing far more than just infra – e.g. a new transport philosophy, like Sustainable Safety, serious improvements in public transport including better integrating active travel with that. All of which ultimately end up effectively causing redesign of the built environment eg. where amenities are located.
Interesting that when the
Interesting that when the media use “driver” to describe an accident/incident all other drivers can disassociate. “That terrible thing that other bad driver did that I would never do.”
Yet “cyclist” becomes a catch all for “other” who are already ‘less than’ in their minds eye.
Replace the word ‘cyclist’ with ‘immigrant’ and there’d be a right hooha
Quote:
Unless it’s Amanda Holden, posing in tight-fitting for the Sun before participating in a charity bike ride. It would be helpful if she rode solo and used a camera, maybe ride in mufti (or perhaps lycra, she’d surely get more abuse that way). She could then talk on primetime TV and in the print media about the horrible close passes, MGIFs, SMIDSYs, threats, cat calls or wolf whistles during the ride.
But they wouldn’t countenance that. Meanwhile first match for her name in a DuckDuck search is the Daily Heil’s article “Amanda Holden reveals she’s had no choice but to strip naked due to the horrible weather and is aching in a ‘weird’ area as she gives a cheeky update on her charity bike ride”
(and no, I won’t link to that fucking shitrag. Anyone visiting that website is funding the hate)
It’s not only the vitriolic outbursts by the unhinged, it’s the constant media trickle of articles and comments demeaning people who are simply on bikes. That’s what builds and reinforces blind prejudices based on nothing of substance. That’s how out-grouping works.
Some of it is rooted in the misplaced idea sold to us by the car industry that ‘roads are for cars’. That drivers are important so everyone else not in a car must make way for them. I experience it daily. That speed limits are oppressive and unnecessary (and the Highway Code can be discarded once you’ve passed your test) yet e-scooters should be tagged and bicycles should have number plates and cyclists pay Road Tax.
I do quite like the “I had NO
I do quite like the “I had NO CHOICE but to STRIP OFF”.
You’re in a shower, love, in the picture. What do you normally wear for that, a fur coat and water wings?
In the vids she is also cycling 3 abreast behind a transit doing about 12 mph, and I think wearing Lycra trews. Strange lack of hate-fury from the Waily Mail.
You are talking like the
You are talking like the cyclist trope that has established itself in the public mind, railing against the world that wrongs you daily, a two-wheeled victim, blind to one’s own behaviour. Being called a cyclist is now an epithet thnks to that attitude.
PedalManiac wrote:
Can you please translate that for me? I tried using google translate but it just said “Sorry, this is bollocks”
Mmm. No.
Mmm. No.
It is now an epithet because that is how it has been used for many decades.
There are written pieces with that tone in online versions of newspaper since the internet became a thing. One of the more notorious is Matthew Parris from December 2007 in the Times.
It’s usually a trope deployed as a shield to blame someone else.
Expressed hate of cyclecammers is the same, essentially a projection.
So what are you supposed to
So what are you supposed to call people who are riding bicycles or habitually ride bicycles or do whatever it is that cyclists do?
Cyclists. But not as a
Cyclists. But not as a singular, homogenous group. In the same way you wouldn’t characterise ‘people who walk’ as a homogenous group.
There are lots of cyclists
There are lots of cyclists who think of themselves and elite group aomngst all road users in the way the Ramblers or Fell runners think themsleves elite walkers.
PedalManiac wrote:
Bollocks.
And even if there really is a small number of people on bikes who think that they are somehow ‘elite’ they are soon put in their place by drivers.
I know elite cyclists, club cyclists, child and recreational cyclists and they all say the same thing about safety and how badly some drivers behave. I’m sure just about every person on here who cycles on the road (or has retreated to offroad riding) will say the same.
But feel free to carry on living in fantasy land.
We’re faster, fitter and more
We’re faster, fitter and more beautiful than other road users, so in a sense we are an elite group.
john_smith wrote:
You speak for yourself, I’m not! A lot happier with my choices though, to judge by most of my drivist encounters.
What ever is appropriate and
What ever is appropriate and accurate.
The one who got off his bike and punched that elderly man should, for example, be called a “thug”, not a “cyclist”.
“Cyclist” in those circs is just a dog-whistle comment.
john_smith wrote:
‘People riding bicycles’?
That’s clearly inadequate,
That’s clearly inadequate, since it excludes anyone who isn’t cycling right now.
john_smith wrote:
Why does it need to include them?
Well, there is a verb (gerund
Well, there is a verb (gerund – “riding”…) in there that you could just conjugate? Or “people who ride bikes”?
It depends what you’re using the term for and your level of pedantry, I guess – you seem to have set the bar for the latter pretty high. Presumably “you’ve excluded any new people ever becoming cyclists as you are only referring to those doing so at this instant?”
Strangely “drivers” seems to be expansive and sometimes is used to mean “those who occupy motor vehicles” without distinction between driver and passenger.
That would depend on the
That would depend on the context. “From next year, people riding bicycles will be pulled over by plod if they’re not clad from head to toe in lycra” wouldn’t exclude people who might become cyclists between now and next year. Or have I missed your point?
Ah, but in that case shurely
Ah, but in that case shurely “cyclists” as understood now would do the job? Clearly all true “cyclists” are shrink-wrapped in lycra (at birth?) – and in fact if the context is about penalising people we also don’t need another word – better arrest them all?
I used to think this was a distinction to insist on, but now (at least in popular chat) I think it’s more just a sign / symptom of where people’s thinking is at. I’m much less confident that the magic of “just change the language” will change the thinking or opinions. I think that comes about when something becomes normal / mainstream.
Hence – AFAIK – the Dutch default word is “fietser” with more of a connotation of someone on a bike * with the alternatives (“wielrenner” or whatever for MTB / BMX etc) where someone wants to emphasise e.g. “and they were a ‘roadie’ “.
* I believe the mental picture would be “normal person wearing ordinary clothes just using a bike for transport, and probably on a more upright ‘practical bike’ “. I don’t know whether it extends to “anyone using the fietspad” e.g. wheelchair users, adapted cycles. Presumably not Canta drivers and bromfiets riders?
Do they not do anything else?
Do they not do anything else? You are describing cycling as some sort of lifestyle and that riding a bike means you follow a set of rules and mores that others don’t, like a cult.
Well I didn’t think I was
Well I didn’t think I was prescribing something? I didn’t mention posting on forums though, or getting the wrong end of the stick so I clearly missed something.
Thus far I thought this discussion was about what people in the UK commonly thought of when you said cyclist e.g. “others” – or something less pleasant “entitled TdF w***ers” etc. Plus what some of the (very few) people cycling in the UK might think e.g. “those people wobbling all over the road on hire bikes and unable to keep up at 20mph+ aren’t ‘cyclists’ … “
Could there be a reason why there is some truth behind the stereotypes above? Why could that be?
Perhaps you’ve got the answer in another of your posts – cycling is not “such a common activity it is ordinary” in the UK (especially not cycling for transport). However there are some places not very far away where your statement would be correct e.g. here, here, here …
Oh I don’t know, how about
Oh I don’t know, how about man or male or women or female or youth or….
We commonly don’t refer to drivers as a singular group when they are responsible for an illegal act – https://www.standard.co.uk/news/London/bexleyheath-police-road-rage-attack-south-london-b1178726.html – apparently a road rage attack involving two drivers but you wouldn’t know it as the word driver isn’t used once in the whole article. Compare and contrast to almost any article involving a person on a bike, as victim or perpetrator, and they will almost always be dehumanised and referred to as a cyclist, nothing more.
A cyclist is someone who is
A cyclist is someone who is or was riding a bike at the time they were referred to. If on the other hand you think riding a bike makes you special and different from the rest of society you really need to come down to Earth. Cycling is such a common activity it is ordinary.
A while back I used to
A while back I used to occasionally work on a project in East London that donated refurbished cycles and taught trainees to cycle – the trainees were female, Muslim and mostly refugees. The project was funded by the EU and TfL.
In the time of brexthick hysteria, I grimaced at the thought at what the Mail etc would make up if they knew about the project.
Depends on whether if
Depends on whether if affected house prices….
This is a good
This is a good characterisation, but I need to know what I can do about it. I hope I can be forgiven a long comment.
On a sidwnote, I see that one group – obsessed politicians with poisonous opinions, especially there-for-life politicians in eg the Lords such as Hogan-Howe – that need more attention and more challenge. As reported by Roadcc in the latest HH-lead Lords’ debate, one peer referred to London cyclists as ‘a plague of mosquitos”, which is only one step from Goebbels language about people the Reich later killed en masse.
I think the language will continue to be used because those using it are out of power. Speaking as a former Conservative member for a couple of years whilst there looked to be a chance of levelling-up happening to see if I could do my bit to ‘rebalance to the North’ from the inside, the Tories tried a wedge strategy to save their butt at the Election, and were handed said arse on a plate by the voters. The Tory right, and groups who think similarly, will continue to do so because they are now Sunk for maybe a decade with little or no influence, and are an irrelevant, sunk cost. Just look at their leadership options: corruption vs conniption, Blow Job Bobby, with his prat hat, vs Kemi-Kaze, who flies into issues at random and blows herself up. I’d extend this to Paul Marshall owned media such as Speccie, GBN, maybe DT if he gets it.
Imo we now start from here, and have perhaps a decade to cause the new Govt move to something newer and better, pushing on a half-open door.
Abuse shouters, including political abuse-shouters in Parliament, aren’t going away (but there are fewer of them), because they have no Plan B, and essentially no credible, rounded, case to make, beyond a inchoate, shouted “Leave Me Alone”. There are bits and pieces to be done, and (thumbnail) a big difference between 1) people who hate an image they have made up and shout about it incl. some who are self-promoting, and 2) ill-informed people who pay attention/listen to eg MIke Graham, and 3) people with concerns, and 4) people who are more thoughtful.
As I see it we’re in some ways in a culture war (in some respects a necessary culture war), and abusive stereotypes will unfortunately be part and parcel until culture changes. Roughly on 1-4 (and being simplistic), I’d say “1 – Counter / marginalise / exclude, 2 – Inform / educate / sell the benefits, 3 – Discuss / Address, 4 – Discuss / Demostrate.”
The Road Safety Review is looking interesting, and looking at some underlying strategic principles such as the ways “return” is modelled in transport projects, standard use of Op SNAP, the points system. There’s a lot in applying Equality Law to all transport projects/principles, and reestablishing the Traffic Police specialism abolished by Blair, and much more. We need to help Louise Haigh here. Charlotte C Gill was deliciously cross on Twitter; she knows she’s now outside the house, howling at the moon.
For a decent perspective as to what is currently happening, without my quite heavy political slant, Chris Boardman at Active Travel was good a couple of weeks ago – including good thoughts on communicating and convincing, and some hints on what was happening in Govt:
https://youtu.be/MPgi8_rHD9E?t=65
Lot there! Thanks for the
Lot there! Thanks for the link, hadn’t seen that. I’m glad that Active Travel England hasn’t just evaporated.
Yep.
Yep.
They seem to be paying attention to the underlying “plumbing” first, which is great. We’re not going to get everything we need for walking / wheeling / cycling, but I see significant change over a deacde.
Not least we will have models in the UK of what is possible,and why it is better.
One of my more abstruse speculations is that some well-off towns / cities in the South will be less desirable places to live compared to the regions in the North which have eg done light rail, trams, and the rest. And they will be howling for Government intervention to bail them out of motor traffic problems that they chose not to address.
Highly recommend Chris
Highly recommend Chris Boardman’s talk here.
The first part of this “politics” – essentially saying “how we need to work with people’s emotions first“. That includes politicians’ aspirations and indeed council officers’ / civil service folks’ culture and conventions. Not news – there is a reason why the more “populist” politicians are a) often very popular (despite lacking “substance” and b) work with very visual, emotive imagery. But I think this is really important in “how do we get there from here”.
Interesting phrases (new to me…):
Also – just how far in
Also – just how far in showing the bleedin’ obvious you have to go to get change started, and just how hard it is to get things through the politics (small “p” – basically people covering their backsides and not taking risks with their jobs / careers).
A LONG way, I think.
A LONG way, I think.
My simplistic categorisation comes from Change Management training for organisations.
Another model I like is called “Removing Constraints at the back, rather than Pulling from the Front”, which is about how if we manage to stop things preventing use (here: cycling or wheeling), individuals will discover what they can do with cycling or wheeling. Inevitably there will be lots of things we never thought of, so providing a space to let individuals discover the possibilities can create things we never dreamed of. It’s nice that that therefore informalises feedback loops inside what we are doing, and lets our initiative adapt as it evolves by allowing the commomunity itself to create objectives from the bottom not the top. That model is from a book On The Anvil about leadership in voluntary organisations by an Anglican Vicar called Canon Robert Warren from the 1980s.
That makes having a vision (broad objective) and good communication and giving permission for “do your own thing, with our support” very important.
It’s quite similar to the idea that individuals will choose the most attractive option for their journey, which comes down to “make it safe, and perceived safe, make it possible, and make it straightforward”. That is similar to Boardman’s “what must be true” ie “what needs to be in place” – for a journey that will be 1 – Storage at home, 2 – Accessible and suitable route, 3 – Secure storage at the destination, which then feeds into eg separated infra / controlled motor vehicles, and things like no physical barriers.
(Not quite as succinvt a description as I would like, as it bleeds over into my thinking about how a local group can prioritise the 183 things that need to be done in their town to choose their appropriate priorities/projects, and avoid ‘analysis paralysis’ aka the Centipede’s Dilemma.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Centipede%27s_Dilemma
A centipede was happy – quite!
Until a toad in fun
Said, “Pray, which leg moves after which?”
This raised her doubts to such a pitch,
She fell exhausted in the ditch
Not knowing how to run.)
Hogwash. “Drivers” drive
Hogwash. “Drivers” drive minivans, Formula 1 race cars, taxis, and every other sort of vehicle for every sort of purpose. Noting that the man who drives a truckload of hogs to market and a Grandma who drives herself to church are both drivers simply notes that they are both operating a vehicle. No reasonable person whoudl assume they have anything else in common simply by virtue of driving.
Similarly, all cyclists have one thing in common – they operate a bicycle. Anything else is a poorly founded assumption. Thats why we have terms like “racer”, “commuter”, “recreational”, etc.
There is no reason to divide cyclists into a collection of tiny groups that are even easier to ignore. Focus on what we all have in common and go on.
I agree. The headline is
I agree. The headline is ridiculous. It’s like saying King Charles, Lewis Hamilton and me are the same person just because all three of us are drivers.
Well, I can’t recall seeing
Well, I can’t recall seeing you all in the same place at once…
What is a ‘cyclist’? Is it
What is a ‘cyclist’? Is it someone who happens to be using a bike or is it a ‘lifestyle’ or ideology? Pogacar is a professional cyclist by profession but does that make him different from someone who is a doctor, banker or plumber by profession? He drives too. A very nice car as it happens. If you are in a pub or supermarket, at the theatre or cinema does riding a bike matter? Clearly there are many who think riding a bike makes them a better more virtuous class of person and claim they are ‘cyclists’ in the way vegans call themselves vegans. In reality riding a bike doesn’t make you special, far from it. Being called a ‘cyclist’ is never a compliment. It is now an epithet used to describe a ‘Karen’ who constantly rails against the world and how it victimises one daily. Someone for whom the rules that govern everyone else do not apply. Stop being pretentious and just say you ride a bike some of the time. Be a better person by NOT acting like a cyclist.
You’re so far wide of the
You’re so far wide of the point here that you haven’t even missed it.
Spectacular isn’t it, given
Spectacular isn’t it, given the scattergun spread of cliches they’ve blasted, you’d think they’d get somewhere near the point just by chance, but no…
The comment relates to the
The comment relates to the vast majority of the cyclists that comment here, who most definitely have a leftist ideology..
grOg wrote:
The vast majority of people who comment on here appear to be decent folks who care about the environment, equality, decency and fairness. Oh sorry, you said that already…
Rendel Harris wrote:
I would say that you have phrased it rather more favourably than the person you were quoting. Thank you.
Nowadays it seems that caring about anything beyond your own selfish desires is so often portrayed as a negative thing while your harmful impact on others (including non-humans) is their problem and not your responsibility.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Also, “reality has a well-known liberal bias” (Stephen Colbert) and cyclists are much closer to reality than people who simply view it through a windscreen.
I quite often point out that
I quite often point out that the term cyclists is cyclist is useless because it doesn’t reamean anything. The response I usually get is that I would say that as a cyclist. Years ago started using the term drivist to describe anyone driving.
There’s a good example in
There’s a good example in today’s Telegraph (2 yr old left hospitalised by Ebike rider, Iain Duncan Smith demands “dangerous cyclists should be driven off our roads”) vs yesterday’s Telegraph (that interviewed CyclingMikey even if it labelled him a vigilante again)
stonojnr wrote:
Ironically the incident in question apparently took place on a path across some playing fields, so IBS’s, sorry IDS’s, call to get dangerous cyclists off the roads isn’t even relevant. Can’t find any specific details of the case but the police decided not to charge the rider (65 year old woman) with any offence…