Man convicted of punching fellow cyclist in road rage attack

A violent, arrogant, cowardly bully viciously attacks an elderly man and is defined as a ''cyclist''? I think the journo may have a distorted view of this individuals finer qualities in their sadly cynical attempt at sensationalism in the headline.
More to the point - why the delay in sentencing? This vile excrescent excuse for a human being should not be permitted to roam freely with the opportunity to inflict his appalling communication skills on the vulnerable.

Well if I had to choose a narrow definition I'd define 'cyclist' as anyone who uses a bike as their primary means of practical transportation. Being into cycling as a sport just means you are into sport, which isn't the same thing.

But I don't see the point of such a narrow definition anyway, especially as even sporty cyclists tend to use the public roads.

And surely the point of this story is less that the puncher was on a bike, than that the punched was on one?

KiwiMike said: "I said nowt regarding age, beauty or svelticity. Have you *seen* some of the recent shots?"

Oh! Yes you did.

KiwiMike said: "Pretty much every picture of a person on Road.CC on a bike includes lycra and a BMI under 20*. That, by definition, immediately rules out 99% of the UK, let alone the world who use bikes / are 'cyclists'."

Oops!

Apparently I'm no longer a cyclist then. Neither of my bikes have narrow wheels and I don't compete in anything. My mountain bike only gets used for going cross country these days where the worst treatment it gets is a bit of a pounding through hills and getting chucked over stiles. The bike that I stay (mostly) on the roads with only does a few hundred miles a month according to the app tracking me.

I own no lycra. Damn. I'll just scrap them and buy a car.

so by this logic anyone who commits a crime whilst wearing training shoes and/or a tracksuit etc should be referred to as an 'athlete'?

Cycling enthusiasts? i.e. those who are enthused by things bike related.

KiwiMike

Just out of interest but just for a bit of fun - What are you going to call all those 'cyclists' who are not now 'cyclists'?

Oh! Your response did raise one question. If you look at a clothing catalogue, all the clothes are modelled by young, attractive, slim and svelte people. Does this mean that us 'uglies' are not allowed to be interested. Just asking.

@ Beefy, Levermonkey: Sorry, I'll try to clarify.

Yes, the whole of humanity can and should ride a bicycle.

By your logic, Road.CC should attempt to be relevant to the whole of humanity. It's not. If it was it would be useless for the current target audience, as it would then have to encompass things of interest to the whole of humanity and the fruity stuff about new 105 or discs or reflective materials or whatever would be drowned in the dross of an all-encompassing oeuvre.

You could also find yourself excluding a lot of children, mountain bikers, buycyclists and utility cyclists.

Damn straight. If I want to read about MTB (which I do) I go elsewhere to a specialist MTB site. Ditto kids cycling, and for maintenance tips on our small fleet of Dutch utility bikes.

Road.CC is specifically focused on what most would consider high-end, competitive or endurance cycling, bikes and accessories. Pretty much every picture of a person on Road.CC on a bike includes lycra and a BMI under 20*. That, by definition, immediately rules out 99% of the UK, let alone the world who use bikes / are 'cyclists'. I have friends who cycle every day. They would find Road.CC utterly irrelevant to their 'cycling'. They certainly don't consider themselves 'cyclists' in the UK context (For the Dutch you might as well be called a 'toaster owner', but that's a different pannier of stroopwafel.).

This is not about snobbery, or claiming more right to the term 'cyclist' or to the road, or anything. It's about preserving the relevance of this website to its community. And some thug who happens to use a bike in the course of his crimes is simply not relevant and adds *zero* value to the lives of readers.

What, exactly, am I supposed to DO with this article's information? I can't buy it, or think about booking a holiday there, or decide to shop there or elsewhere. There's no call to action to petition my council, or MP. I can't donate to it. I can't express an opinion saying when I had one back in the day they lasted longer/were lighter/heavier/itchier/shinier.

No-one ever asked to read dross like this. No-one would ask to read more of it. Given the option would you like more crime reporting or more insight into tuning rear mechs, likely developments in tubeless, developments in water/windproof fabrics etc etc etc...there's a bajillion genuinely cycling-related topics that should be investigated/reported ahead of some bloke punching people then riding off on a bike.

aaaaand breathe...

* Guess. But you get the point.

I think a cyclist is anyone on a bicycle, kinda like a driver is any one in a car? I think mtb,Brompton, riders and even poor people God piity them who can't afford anything other than a tesco, asda, ect bike are cyclists. I nod and say hi as I pass them all regardless of there bike as do my club mates.

We can't accept nice people as cyclists but say no your not a cyclist because you a knob. I'm ashamed this idiot is a cyclist though hope he meets a nice big boyfriend who looks after him in prison.

Any chance Road.CC can please define 'cyclist', which should then remove the necessity to print articles like this?

Here's a starter for 10:

Anyone on a bike with 700c or 650b tyres narrower than 30mm
Anyone on a dedicated CX bike, who uses it off-road
Anyone who cycles on the road, velodrome or CX track for competitive purposes
Anyone involved in campaigning for improved cycling facilities

Basically, I want to see a definition that removes 'Anyone on a bike because they weren't in a car or walking at the time'. I'm sure the above definition won't be perfect, but it should exclude thugs like the above bloke, and the many other petty or serious criminals Road.CC has considered newsworthy over the years, the ONLY similarity with the site readership being the functionality of the two spinny things and saddle under their arse. If it's not immediately clear that the person concerned was actually a 'cyclist' as we'd define it, then assume they were simply 'a person on a bike at the time' and move on.

I'm sure Runner's World don't publish articles about criminals, based purely on the fact the person 'ran off' using their 'feet'.

A common urban design definition of 'a bicycle' is 'faster shoes'. I agree with this. My Dutch bike is exactly that - I don't change a single thing between stepping out of the house on foot or on that bike, I just get there faster. However when Road.CC use this definition to define what the community might consider worthy of a click and a read it does us all a major disservice. Please, please stop it. Let's make 2015 the year Road.CC focuses on the community it serves and what might interest them, not on bringing us down with irrelevant, negative stories.

Road.CC doesn't review Tesco's MTB/BSO range. Why? The target audience couldn't care less about them. Please get the message guys: WE DON'T CARE about some yob punching someone else, who simply happened to be on a bike at the time. Be selective. Don't waste your time on this crap. Please.

Imagine the damage that angry freak could do in a car....probably lost his license a long time ago.

I hope a wee while in pokey will help him calm the f**k down!