[davidw07]

 …Because I cant. Please read my blog … http://bike-write.co.uk/im-speechless/

What chance do we have to convince the non-cycling public that we are reasonable, responsible and public spirited people when one of our number does this !

Topic

[Anonymous]

hawkinspeter wrote:

However, if a cyclist fancies a quick hit mid-ride, then it would save weight to use your spare inner tube and inflator, [b]but I don’t know why you’d throw away the inner tube if it wasn’t punctured.[/b]

 

The chances are his/her decision making was impaired, due to the hit from the tube (to a Cypress Hill baseline).

 

 

[hawkinspeter]

BigglesMeister wrote:

BigglesMeister wrote:

The cannister looks threaded so any cycling inflator (e.g. innovations) would be perfect for inflating the tube with N2O.

That would bring us back to blaming cyclists as the suppliers of N[sub]2[/sub]O would be selling creamery products rather than cycling products. However, if a cyclist fancies a quick hit mid-ride, then it would save weight to use your spare inner tube and inflator, but I don’t know why you’d throw away the inner tube if it wasn’t punctured.

[BigglesMeister]

hawkinspeter wrote:

BigglesMeister wrote:

Dear OP,

Did you read the writing on the side of the cannister to see if it was CO2 or N2O ?

Did you actually check that the inner tube was punctured ?

Whats’ the long tube (mouth piece) that appears to be fitted over the valve ?

It’s a rather rash assumption that a cyclist left the litter as if you look closely at the photo you can see that there is no cycle branding label on the cannister (which also helps to stop the thing sticking to your hand when inflating) which suggests it’s of the catering kind.

It may be that a nefarious Nitrous Oxide (N2O) abuser inflated the inner tube from the cartridge (using an appropriate pocket device).  They then inhaled multiple small hits from the inner tube instead of blowing the back of their head off taking it directly from the cannister.  They could also have passed it round to their mates for a go.

Once they were done with it they lobbed the litter out of the car window.

I had always thought that nitrous oxide was NO, but apparently NO is nitric oxide – you learn something every day. I’m not convinced that someone would use an inner tube to huff N[sub]2[/sub]O as you wouldn’t be able to connect it to the creamer device whereas a typical balloon can just be stretched over the nozzle (and is cheaper).

barbarus wrote:

Who is Will, the pea-brained cyclist?

Exactly, that’s what we’re trying to find out.

The cannister looks threaded so any cycling inflator (e.g. innovations) would be perfect for inflating the tube with N2O.

[hawkinspeter]

davidw07 wrote:

…it was left by little green men from Mars …

Now that’s just racist.

[davidw07]

BigglesMeister wrote:

Dear OP,

Did you read the writing on the side of the cannister to see if it was CO2 or N2O ?

Did you actually check that the inner tube was punctured ?

Whats’ the long tube (mouth piece) that appears to be fitted over the valve ?

It’s a rather rash assumption that a cyclist left the litter as if you look closely at the photo you can see that there is no cycle branding label on the cannister (which also helps to stop the thing sticking to your hand when inflating) which suggests it’s of the catering kind.

It may be that a nefarious Nitrous Oxide (N2O) abuser inflated the inner tube from the cartridge (using an appropriate pocket device).  They then inhaled multiple small hits from the inner tube instead of blowing the back of their head off taking it directly from the cannister.  They could also have passed it round to their mates for a go.

Once they were done with it they lobbed the litter out of the car window.

I really promised myself that I wouldn’t come back to this post, but it’s like a car crash (quite literally) and I can’t turn away!

I’m sorry, I don’t inhabit the somewhat bizarre world that you clearly do. Mine is much simpler – if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then most probably it is a duck.

I said it was a CO2 cannister because it was a CO2 cannister. How did I know this – because it was written on the side. Not the side in the photo, the other side. No it wasn’t branded, but was of the many cheap unbranded types found on e-bay. (by the way, the label doesn’t stop your hand freezing, it is the separate foam collar that does this) 

Please note the cannister end is threaded and look at the size (16g). Catering N2O cannisters are smaller (8g) and are not threaded.

‘The ‘long tube (mouth piece) fitted over the valve’ is in fact the valve. An extended valve used in deep rimmed bike wheels . I think you might struggle to use it to blow up a tyre with your mouth.

‘Once they were done with it they lobbed the litter out of the car window’  –  look at the photo. That’s a neat bit of lobbing to get the cannister to land neatly next to the tube. (No I didn’t move it)

I have a better theory than yours  – it was left by little green men from Mars and the cannister was used as a propulsion system for their space craft ,and what look suspiciously like an inner tube is in fact a pod of Martian embryos ready to colonise Earth – glad I put it in my bin.

Heaven forbid anyone can accept this was left by a cyclist!

That really is my last word on the subject …

 

 

 

[Griff500]

davidw07 wrote:

As the OP,  I need to point out that the original post was targetted at a SINGLE (unknown) cyclist who beleived it was acceptable to leave an inner tube and CO2 cannister by the roadside. Both items being totally undegradable and a hazard to wildlife.

Why on earth has this been distorted into a criticism of ‘ALL’ cyclists? 

 We have got too far away from the the words and intent of the original post.

 And … before you people who enjoy throwing brickbats start, I’m not posting this to further my blog, my ego, my income, or any other fatuous reason you can come up with, My post was because I found the behaviour of a fellow cyclist abhorant AND human nature being what it is, dismayed that I and the cycling community at large risked being judged by the act of an idiot.  

It’s a sad thing that so many have either missed or chosen to miss this single simple point. In respect of the former, I apologise for not making it clearer, to the latter all I can say is that you must clearly think that the actions of this person is not worthy of condemnation.

For that reason, as the OP, let’s forget the post, we are just going around in ever decreasing circles.

Wow, you’ve received a lot of flack here!  I for one can understand where you were going with it, and I do think you’ve been picked up wrong. For me ClubSmed’s post from a couple of days ago about dogs was a good analogy. The fact is, one piece of dog dirt on the street does reflect badly on dog owners in general. Yes its wrong that such generalisatiosn are made, but that is human nature. Those suggesting that we somehow try to educate people making generalised statements about an amorphous “group”? Well, I wish them luck with that! I’m happy to see anybody called out for littering, whether it’s a bike tube, a coke can thrown from a car window, or dog dirt. (And don’t get me started on horses on cycle ways!)

[hawkinspeter]

BigglesMeister wrote:

Dear OP,

Did you read the writing on the side of the cannister to see if it was CO2 or N2O ?

Did you actually check that the inner tube was punctured ?

Whats’ the long tube (mouth piece) that appears to be fitted over the valve ?

It’s a rather rash assumption that a cyclist left the litter as if you look closely at the photo you can see that there is no cycle branding label on the cannister (which also helps to stop the thing sticking to your hand when inflating) which suggests it’s of the catering kind.

It may be that a nefarious Nitrous Oxide (N2O) abuser inflated the inner tube from the cartridge (using an appropriate pocket device).  They then inhaled multiple small hits from the inner tube instead of blowing the back of their head off taking it directly from the cannister.  They could also have passed it round to their mates for a go.

Once they were done with it they lobbed the litter out of the car window.

I had always thought that nitrous oxide was NO, but apparently NO is nitric oxide – you learn something every day. I’m not convinced that someone would use an inner tube to huff N[sub]2[/sub]O as you wouldn’t be able to connect it to the creamer device whereas a typical balloon can just be stretched over the nozzle (and is cheaper).

barbarus wrote:

Who is Will, the pea-brained cyclist?

Exactly, that’s what we’re trying to find out.

[barbarus]

Who is Will, the pea-brained
Who is Will, the pea-brained cyclist?

[BigglesMeister]

Dear OP,

Dear OP,

Did you read the writing on the side of the cannister to see if it was CO2 or N2O ?

Did you actually check that the inner tube was punctured ?

Whats’ the long tube (mouth piece) that appears to be fitted over the valve ?

It’s a rather rash assumption that a cyclist left the litter as if you look closely at the photo you can see that there is no cycle branding label on the cannister (which also helps to stop the thing sticking to your hand when inflating) which suggests it’s of the catering kind.

It may be that a nefarious Nitrous Oxide (N2O) abuser inflated the inner tube from the cartridge (using an appropriate pocket device).  They then inhaled multiple small hits from the inner tube instead of blowing the back of their head off taking it directly from the cannister.  They could also have passed it round to their mates for a go.

Once they were done with it they lobbed the litter out of the car window.

[FluffyKittenofTindalos]

davidw07 wrote:

oldstrath wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

oldstrath wrote:

Perhaps all the drivers on here would like to apologise for the mess some driver or other left by Loch Eil. God knows how drivers can expect to be taken seriously when they do this sort of thing?

The difference here is that this is more likely to be fly tipping as I do not recall ever seeing a motorist change the tyre (wheel maybe, but not just the tyre) at the side of the road.

Drivers do need to be targeted with what litter they leave behind, but the picture you posted is not realisticly the type of litter they leave behind. I believe that litter is a massive problem and needs to be dealt with and the best way to do this is to engage with individual demographics as trying to tackle society as a whole is clearly not effective.

So somebody drops a dead inner tube and all cyclists need to be targetted to stop us being evil litter louts. Somebody else drops a bunch of car tyres and it’s fine, it’s nothing to do with drivers. Actually it’s exactly the kind of litter driving leaves behind. Just because you never see one person do it, doesn’t mean it’s not a consequence of driving. 

As the OP,  I need to point out that the original post was targetted at a SINGLE (unknown) cyclist who beleived it was acceptable to leave an inner tube and CO2 cannister by the roadside. Both items being totally undegradable and a hazard to wildlife.

Why on earth has this been distorted into a criticism of ‘ALL’ cyclists? 

 We have got too far away from the the words and intent of the original post.

 And … before you people who enjoy throwing brickbats start, I’m not posting this to further my blog, my ego, my income, or any other fatuous reason you can come up with, My post was because I found the behaviour of a fellow cyclist abhorant AND human nature being what it is, dismayed that I and the cycling community at large risked being judged by the act of an idiot.  

It’s a sad thing that so many have either missed or chosen to miss this single simple point. In respect of the former, I apologise for not making it clearer, to the latter all I can say is that you must clearly think that the actions of this person is not worthy of condemnation.

For that reason, as the OP, let’s forget the post, we are just going around in ever decreasing circles.

 

But that could be avoided if you’d just think about what it is people are objecting to in your post.

 

  If you are “dismayed that I and the cycling community at large risked being judged by the act of an idiot” then you should be taking it up with those who are likely to be doing the irrational judging, and objecting to their irrationality, not lecturing cyclists who have nothing to do with it.  What do you expect the audience here to do about it?  We aren’t the ones making irrational judgements.

 

Personally I don’t have any particular problem with you linking to your blog, by the way.  It’s just the actual content of the post that’s the issue.

[hawkinspeter]

Kapelmuur wrote:

I rode past the site of the Freshfields music festival last summer and was amazed to see the numbers of discarded CO2 canisters on the verges, reflected badly on cyclists I thought.

Later my more streetwise grandchildren explained what they actually were.

NO (Nitrous Oxide), not CO[sub]2[/sub].

[Kapelmuur]

I rode past the site of the

I rode past the site of the Freshfields music festival last summer and was amazed to see the numbers of discarded CO2 canisters on the verges, reflected badly on cyclists I thought.

Later my more streetwise grandchildren explained what they actually were.

[hawkinspeter]

What Davel said.

What Davel said.

[davel]

davidw07 wrote:

As the OP,  I need to point out that the original post was targetted at a SINGLE (unknown) cyclist who beleived it was acceptable to leave an inner tube and CO2 cannister by the roadside. Both items being totally undegradable and a hazard to wildlife.

Why on earth has this been distorted into a criticism of ‘ALL’ cyclists? 

 

Because…

davidw07 wrote:

What chance do we have to convince the non-cycling public that we are reasonable, responsible and public spirited people when one of our number does this !

If there’s anything to convince the non-cycling public of, it’s that we are no more a homogeneous group represented by your litterer any more than the bloke I saw wazzing out of a car door earlier today is representative of all drivers.

You’re picking the wrong argument. 

‘We’ are not necessarily reasonable, responsible or public spirited merely based on our mode of transport. You’re not going to convince anyone that we are. The argument to have is that ‘we’ are no better or worse than any other section of society, with particular focus on eliminating the negative rather than accentuating the positive, and that ‘one of our number’ doing anything doesn’t mean a thing. It seems like you might need to start by having it with yourself.

 

[davidw07]

oldstrath wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

oldstrath wrote:

Perhaps all the drivers on here would like to apologise for the mess some driver or other left by Loch Eil. God knows how drivers can expect to be taken seriously when they do this sort of thing?

The difference here is that this is more likely to be fly tipping as I do not recall ever seeing a motorist change the tyre (wheel maybe, but not just the tyre) at the side of the road.

Drivers do need to be targeted with what litter they leave behind, but the picture you posted is not realisticly the type of litter they leave behind. I believe that litter is a massive problem and needs to be dealt with and the best way to do this is to engage with individual demographics as trying to tackle society as a whole is clearly not effective.

So somebody drops a dead inner tube and all cyclists need to be targetted to stop us being evil litter louts. Somebody else drops a bunch of car tyres and it’s fine, it’s nothing to do with drivers. Actually it’s exactly the kind of litter driving leaves behind. Just because you never see one person do it, doesn’t mean it’s not a consequence of driving. 

As the OP,  I need to point out that the original post was targetted at a SINGLE (unknown) cyclist who beleived it was acceptable to leave an inner tube and CO2 cannister by the roadside. Both items being totally undegradable and a hazard to wildlife.

Why on earth has this been distorted into a criticism of ‘ALL’ cyclists? 

 We have got too far away from the the words and intent of the original post.

 And … before you people who enjoy throwing brickbats start, I’m not posting this to further my blog, my ego, my income, or any other fatuous reason you can come up with, My post was because I found the behaviour of a fellow cyclist abhorant AND human nature being what it is, dismayed that I and the cycling community at large risked being judged by the act of an idiot.  

It’s a sad thing that so many have either missed or chosen to miss this single simple point. In respect of the former, I apologise for not making it clearer, to the latter all I can say is that you must clearly think that the actions of this person is not worthy of condemnation.

For that reason, as the OP, let’s forget the post, we are just going around in ever decreasing circles.

 

 

 

 

[Author]

Replies