Sir Bradley Wiggins says London cyclists need to stick to the law

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

So are people saying that Wiggins has no right to talk? That we shouldn't follow the rules? Or that we shouldn't care what other people think or do?

All of the above is rot and really what Wiggins says is moustly common sense.

No. The problem is eventhough majority of accidents involving cyclists are a fault of the driver and stupid behaviour on two wheels are a cause of very few accidents he is still banging on what we should or shouldn't be doing on two wheels just his nonsense about helmets. He lacks balls to address directly the issues of dangerous driving and treatment of cyclists.

CommotionLotion wrote:

Up until the points where he mentions extra rules, and his narrow definition of what a cyclist is , I feel Sir Bradley is quite right.  I really don't see what is unreasonable in saying that that we all have a duty to obey the rules of the  road and that the bad behaviour of a minority spoils the image for the rest of us.  And in his position as a public face of cycling he does have an entitlement to speak out.  He is a role model.  Who else should be doing it ?

if all he'd said was we ALL have duty to obey the rules of the road, fair enough I totally agree...but he didnt, hes rambling on about ipods like thats the biggest danger to cyclists on the roads, and how Ive no right to complain how Im treated on the road because some other cyclist might have jumped a red light once.

what the flying forks he expects me to be able to do about other cyclists "bad behaviour" Ive no idea, maybe Ill table it as a motion at the next Grand cycling moot we have, after all we all we must know each other, as we always wave to one another out on the road.

Awavey wrote:

if all he'd said was we ALL have duty to obey the rules of the road, fair enough I totally agree...but he didnt, hes rambling on about ipods like thats the biggest danger to cyclists on the roads, and how Ive no right to complain how Im treated on the road because some other cyclist might have jumped a red light once.

He didn't say that, he said “You do not have a right to complain how you’re being treated on the road unless you apply the rules yourself” - note the last word. Whether that's a fair comment is another matter, but let's not distort things by making stuff up.

fukawitribe wrote:

Awavey wrote:

if all he'd said was we ALL have duty to obey the rules of the road, fair enough I totally agree...but he didnt, hes rambling on about ipods like thats the biggest danger to cyclists on the roads, and how Ive no right to complain how Im treated on the road because some other cyclist might have jumped a red light once.

He didn't say that, he said “You do not have a right to complain how you’re being treated on the road unless you apply the rules yourself” - note the last word. Whether that's a fair comment is another matter, but let's not distort things by making stuff up.

Well that's easy: it's NOT a fair comment.

I do obey the rules: never cycled on a footway, never jumped a red light.

So Mr Wiggins, sir, am I allowed to complain about bad driving? Oh, wait, I never joined British Cycling..,

brooksby wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

Awavey wrote:

if all he'd said was we ALL have duty to obey the rules of the road, fair enough I totally agree...but he didnt, hes rambling on about ipods like thats the biggest danger to cyclists on the roads, and how Ive no right to complain how Im treated on the road because some other cyclist might have jumped a red light once.

He didn't say that, he said “You do not have a right to complain how you’re being treated on the road unless you apply the rules yourself” - note the last word. Whether that's a fair comment is another matter, but let's not distort things by making stuff up.

Well that's easy: it's NOT a fair comment.

I do obey the rules: never cycled on a footway, never jumped a red light.

So Mr Wiggins, sir, am I allowed to complain about bad driving? Oh, wait, I never joined British Cycling..,

Agreed, he never said that.

HarrogateSpa wrote:

It will make no difference whatsoever to the third rate scribblers of opinionated drivel if you're careful and respectful when riding a bike

Spot on, my friend. They are equally furious over men wearing lycra, our smug attitude, our do-goodiness, that we are health nazis, and a danger to ourselves. I'd ask Wiggo to stop with the idiotic roadblocks, let us get on with improving infrastructure.

HarrogateSpa wrote:

Wiggins mouthing off will have no effect whatsoever on 'bad' cyclists.

Agree with this (and the rest of your post).

All this does is fuel anti-cyclist rhetoric, giving aggressive car/taxi/van/HGV drivers an exuse to malign (and in some cases endanger) people because they are riding a bicycle. THAT is why it is of such concern to people like us.

Simon E wrote:

HarrogateSpa wrote:

Wiggins mouthing off will have no effect whatsoever on 'bad' cyclists.

Agree with this (and the rest of your post).

All this does is fuel anti-cyclist rhetoric, giving aggressive car/taxi/van/HGV drivers an exuse to malign (and in some cases endanger) people because they are riding a bicycle. THAT is why it is of such concern to people like us.

Yep: and, if you are likely to be a tad more careful because of Wiggo's comments, I'd bet that you're pretty careful anyway and not one of the knobheads he's targeting.

Mungecrundle wrote:

 

 Personally speaking I'll be seriously pissed if the bad behaviour of a few idiots causes problems for the rest of us.

There are innumerable things that annoy motorists: having a helmet cam, riding in primary, not wearing hi viz, not wearing a helmet, wearing lycra, cycling too fast, cycling too slow, cycling two abreast, cycling, being on the road, not being in a car, etc.  If you are doing any of those things, you are therefore also to blame.

Bikebikebike wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

 

 Personally speaking I'll be seriously pissed if the bad behaviour of a few idiots causes problems for the rest of us.

There are innumerable things that annoy motorists: having a helmet cam, riding in primary, not wearing hi viz, not wearing a helmet, wearing lycra, cycling too fast, cycling too slow, cycling two abreast, cycling, being on the road, not being in a car, etc.  If you are doing any of those things, you are therefore also to blame.

True, but as far as I am aware, none of those things are actually illegal or prohibited in the highway code. Whereas jumping red lights and aggresive cycling on pavements are.

Just out of curiosity, do you feel that it would be inappropriate or worthy of condemnation should someone like Lewis Hamilton lend his name to a "dont' drink and drive" or "Put your f*cking phone down while driving" campaign?

Mungecrundle wrote:

Bikebikebike wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

 

 Personally speaking I'll be seriously pissed if the bad behaviour of a few idiots causes problems for the rest of us.

There are innumerable things that annoy motorists: having a helmet cam, riding in primary, not wearing hi viz, not wearing a helmet, wearing lycra, cycling too fast, cycling too slow, cycling two abreast, cycling, being on the road, not being in a car, etc.  If you are doing any of those things, you are therefore also to blame.

 

True, but as far as I am aware, none of those things are actually illegal or prohibited in the highway code. Whereas jumping red lights and aggresive cycling on pavements are.

Just out of curiosity, do you feel that it would be inappropriate or worthy of condemnation should someone like Lewis Hamilton lend his name to a "dont' drink and drive" or "Put your f*cking phone down while driving" campaign?

Perhaps Hamilton could be  persuaded to say that motorists will be held in contempt until they all stop  speeding, running red lights, texting and ignoring road signs. Because that's pretty much the eqguivalent of what Wiggins said, and it would be vastly more accurate if said of drivers.

Bikebikebike wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

 

 Personally speaking I'll be seriously pissed if the bad behaviour of a few idiots causes problems for the rest of us.

There are innumerable things that annoy motorists: having a helmet cam, riding in primary, not wearing hi viz, not wearing a helmet, wearing lycra, cycling too fast, cycling too slow, cycling two abreast, cycling, being on the road, not being in a car, etc.  If you are doing any of those things, you are therefore also to blame.

And the drivers of cars speeding or jumping red lights, or texting are not the ones who endanger cyclists etc, so the crazy laws shouldn't apply to them.

No true Scotsman.

I love my bike wrote:

Bikebikebike wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

 

 Personally speaking I'll be seriously pissed if the bad behaviour of a few idiots causes problems for the rest of us.

There are innumerable things that annoy motorists: having a helmet cam, riding in primary, not wearing hi viz, not wearing a helmet, wearing lycra, cycling too fast, cycling too slow, cycling two abreast, cycling, being on the road, not being in a car, etc.  If you are doing any of those things, you are therefore also to blame.

And the drivers of cars speeding or jumping red lights, or texting are not the ones who endanger cyclists etc, so the crazy laws shouldn't apply to them.

No true Scotsman.

 

The finest example of No True Scotsman on this page is Wiggo's elitist 'No True Cyclist' shit.

Mungecrundle wrote:

From past experience, I know that it is very difficult for some people on this forum to grasp the idea that the acts of unrelated, unconnected people who happen to be riding bicycles when they do something irritating, stupid or illegal may have an effect on the common perception or stereotype of all cyclists in the minds of non cylists. We have no control over those people, we are not responsible for their actions but the fact remains that when some third rate scribbler of opinionated drivel writes an anti cycle column in a daily rag and can legitimately cite real instances of red light jumping, furious pavement cycling and the general disregard for their own safety or courtesy to other road users displayed by those cyclists then it plays straight into the hands of those who would see the whole lot of us banished from the road, or restricted by means of licencing or compulsory safety equipment laws or who go out on some sort of stupid anti cycling vigilante crusade in the mistaken belief that they are doing a public service in ridding the roads of 2 wheeled vermin.

Is it fair that the consequences of a cyclist making a mistake are either self inflicted injury or some scraped paintwork, whilst the consequences of a truck or car driver running a few tonnes of metal into a human can easily result in injury and death? Of course not, but that is a different argument, a red herring in this context and certainly no excuse to cycle badly.

AFAIAC Bradley is right to use his position as a public figure widely known as being a 'cyclist' to encourage cyclists in general to be responsible road users and to respect the rules that govern our use of the road. Personally speaking I'll be seriously pissed if the bad behaviour of a few idiots causes problems for the rest of us. I have no wish to live under New South Wales types of draconian legislation that some here in the UK would be happy to impose on us tomorrow and it annoys me when Police forces come under pressure to put resources into cyclist oriented safety campaigns when they could be out dealing with unlicensed, uninsured drivers or mobile phone use or many of the other stupid things that motorists do that lead to life changing damage to real people.

Very much this - well done Sir.

Such a refreshing change from all the (inevitable) pithy sarcasm and 'He knows nothing about it' that's been thrown about all afternoon...

Mungecrundle wrote:

From past experience, I know that it is very difficult for some people on this forum to grasp the idea that the acts of unrelated, unconnected people who happen to be riding bicycles when they do something irritating, stupid or illegal may have an effect on the common perception or stereotype of all cyclists in the minds of non cylists.

Wrong, so wrong.

1. The "effect" happens because of the prejudice against cyclists and - more important - the acceptance of endemic rule and law breaking by typical motorists. It is NOT the other way round.

2. There are literally millions of bicycle journeys in the UK every day. Even with a generally immaculate standard amongalmost all, there would still be numerous cases of improper cycling. So even then we would, according to the "give us a bad name" mob, have to accept that motorists are justified in prejudice against us and it's all our fault.

3. And what gets included as worthy of condemnation. Wh is going to agree on that?

4. Most important, bad driving is not only socially tolerated, but accomodated by "forgiving" road and vehicle design. Imagine the fuss if RLJing was accomodated so as to not hurt the errant cyclist.

ChairRDRF wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

From past experience, I know that it is very difficult for some people on this forum to grasp the idea that the acts of unrelated, unconnected people who happen to be riding bicycles when they do something irritating, stupid or illegal may have an effect on the common perception or stereotype of all cyclists in the minds of non cylists.

Wrong, so wrong.

1. The "effect" happens because of the prejudice against cyclists and - more important - the acceptance of endemic rule and law breaking by typical motorists. It is NOT the other way round.

The fact that this sort of 'tainting' of the perception of a group can be brought about by the actions of a minority of its members is common throughout the world, in all sorts of situations would suggest that he may have a point. It's certainly not right, but that's unfortunately the way the world has been until now. This often seems especially true when one group has limited understanding of the other. That this tainting might be exaggerated due to other reasons does not make it any less apparent and to say it is entirely due to 'prejudice' is at best naïve - there is prejudice of course, but suggest that the actions of some cyclists does (or should) not create issues in perception seems odd to me. We need to change attitudes, but the education is not wholly (though admittedly mostly) one way.

Really, wigg should not be allowed out on his bike until he stops all cyclists from wearing lycra and being eco smug. Makes drivers angry and cycling is free, for now, and remember the olympics. And how should readers know who is or isn't a real cyclist / paid-up BC member? And so we don't deserve safe infrastructure, or something. 

Move over, Chris Boardman, there's a new brain in town.

fukawitribe wrote:

ChairRDRF wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

From past experience, I know that it is very difficult for some people on this forum to grasp the idea that the acts of unrelated, unconnected people who happen to be riding bicycles when they do something irritating, stupid or illegal may have an effect on the common perception or stereotype of all cyclists in the minds of non cylists.

Wrong, so wrong.

1. The "effect" happens because of the prejudice against cyclists and - more important - the acceptance of endemic rule and law breaking by typical motorists. It is NOT the other way round.

The fact that this sort of 'tainting' of the perception of a group can be brought about by the actions of a minority of its members is common throughout the world, in all sorts of situations would suggest that he may have a point. This often seems especially true when one group has limited understanding of the other. That this tainting might be exaggerated due to other reasons does not make it any less apparent and to say it is entirely due to 'prejudice' is at best naïve - there is prejudice of course, but suggest that the actions of some cyclists does (or should) not create issues in perception seems odd to me. We need to change attitudes, but the education is not wholly (though admittedly mostly) one way.

But that this 'outgroup homogeneity' effect happens, as you correctly note, in all sorts of contexts, just emphasises the fact that pandering to it doesn't help. It's an attitude that needs to be consistently and loudly rejected, not accommodated or taken as one's own.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

ChairRDRF wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

From past experience, I know that it is very difficult for some people on this forum to grasp the idea that the acts of unrelated, unconnected people who happen to be riding bicycles when they do something irritating, stupid or illegal may have an effect on the common perception or stereotype of all cyclists in the minds of non cylists.

Wrong, so wrong.

1. The "effect" happens because of the prejudice against cyclists and - more important - the acceptance of endemic rule and law breaking by typical motorists. It is NOT the other way round.

The fact that this sort of 'tainting' of the perception of a group can be brought about by the actions of a minority of its members is common throughout the world, in all sorts of situations would suggest that he may have a point. This often seems especially true when one group has limited understanding of the other. That this tainting might be exaggerated due to other reasons does not make it any less apparent and to say it is entirely due to 'prejudice' is at best naïve - there is prejudice of course, but suggest that the actions of some cyclists does (or should) not create issues in perception seems odd to me. We need to change attitudes, but the education is not wholly (though admittedly mostly) one way.

But that this 'outgroup homogeneity' effect happens, as you correctly note, in all sorts of contexts, just emphasises the fact that pandering to it doesn't help. It's an attitude that needs to be consistently and loudly rejected, not accommodated or taken as one's own.

Agreed - but there are also things that can be done to reduce the conflict somewhat. In this particular example acknowledging that behaviour like RLJing is not only dangerous for the perpetrator, but is also against the law, is anti-social and has potentially dangerous consequences (e.g. how other road others subsequently react) and something that can be improved by us - directly or indirectly. Saying, as some seem to be, "but they did it too, and they're bigger than us" - as though that's some sort of excuse for it - is hardly helpful in that regard. Of course rail against the frankly awful state of much driving - as loudly and clearly as possible - but doing so whilst effectively denying we're doing any wrong or that we're somehow justified in it is not helpful IMO.. quite the opposite (not saying you are, but that seems to be a common thread on here).