Just a mediocre joke or something more serious? BikeBiz reports on a Stevenage business that has been reported to the police for the stickers adorning one of its vans.
The STS2000 van, spotted in Letchworth by freelance photographer Trevor Coultart, has a trio of stickers directed towards cyclists on its rear.
One, spoofing southern hemisphere ‘stay wider of the rider’ campaigns reads: “Cyclists – stay wider of the driver.”
Another reads: “Avoid serious injury, stay away from my van!” – accompanied by a picture of a stick man clobbering a cyclist with a baseball bat.
Video: Driver cuts up cyclist – then threatens him with baseball bat
The third says simply: “My attitude when driving is based upon YOU not hogging the road!”
Speaking to BikeBiz, Coultart said: “I drove past it parked and did two U-turns to get the photo. Is it incitement to violence? Threatening behaviour?”
The ‘avoid serious injury…’ sign appears to be one of many along similar lines. ‘Avoid serious injury, don’t tell me how to do my job!’ seems to be the most common, but an almost identical sticker is also available ending ‘… stay away from my bike!’ There’s even one in the same style that reads: “Tampering with my cello may result in an ass whoopin’ you’ll never forget!”
If that puts the tone of the sticker in perspective, the question is perhaps whether that comes across rather differently when directed towards those who could quite genuinely come to harm.
Yellow “cyclists stay back” stickers have become infamous in recent years with many cyclists of the opinion that the wording implies it is only the person on the bike and not the driver who is responsible for the former’s safety.
They have also proliferated. Originally introduced by Transport for London for buses, they are now seen on all manner of vehicles – even cars. Here at road.cc we responded by producing our ‘Cyclists stay awesome’ stickers so that you can let people know that you care – even when you’re driving.
120 thoughts on “Do these ‘baseball bat’ van stickers incite violence against cyclists?”
Perhaps the driver is a
Perhaps the driver is a Councillor & this is just banter!?!?
Of all the issues in the
Of all the issues in the world he could have brought attention to with stickers on his van, he chose something angsty about cyclists.
A great mind no doubt.
My attitude when driving is
My attitude when driving is based upon my limited IQ
Is Silver Van Man more or
Is Silver Van Man more or less dangerous than White Van Man?
A dimwit who believes that
A dimwit who believes that they are far funnier than they actually are. Nothing to see, move along.
Quote:
– See more at: http://road.cc/content/news/191960-do-these-baseball-bat-van-stickers-incite-violence-against-cyclists#sthash.vrxh3Kls.dpuf
How is a driver responsible for the safety of anyone but himself and his passengers? It is absolutely unjust to expect anyone to assume responsibility for the actions of others that they cannot control.
L.Willo wrote:
Not sure if trolling or indescribably stupid.
Bez wrote:
One does not exclude the other… in fact, they are often seen together.
L.Willo]
err, did you not read the Highway Code when getting your licence? You DO have one don’t you?
L.Willo wrote:
Having a duty of care to avoid killing/injuring other people is not the same thing as being made to assume responsibility for their actions.
Start at page 1, then read to the end.
Dimwit.
L.Willo wrote:
– See more at: http://road.cc/content/news/191960-do-these-baseball-bat-van-stickers-incite-violence-against-cyclists#sthash.vrxh3Kls.dpuf
How is a driver responsible for the safety of anyone but himself and his passengers? It is absolutely unjust to expect anyone to assume responsibility for the actions of others that they cannot control.
Shockingly irrational thing to say. That reveals a lot about your ability to think clearly. I cringed hard at that.
Kind of feel bad for you there!
L.Willo wrote:
I know you’re the resident self-hating cycling troll, but that’s a new level of stupid even for you.
You’ve really took your moron
You’ve really took your moron badge to a new level Willo.
I assume all of those 30 limits and speed bumps around the local schools are to protect the van drivers?
Yes. Please direct me to the
Yes. Please direct me to the part which says that I am responsible for the safety of other road users.
L.Willo wrote:
Willo – your comment is simply innaproriate.
And in answer to your surprisingly genuine question.. the part where you have to drive with due care and attention.
I don’t know when or where you passed your test but there’s a whole part nowadays focussed on looking about for potential hazards, like pedestrians, cycists and lamp posts.
Same way as in law that by default, a vehicle driver defaults at responsible for an accident concerning a pedestrian or cyclist.
peted76 wrote:
Hey, I am responsible for my safety and the safety of my passengers. The End.
It is my responsibility to ensure that passengers in my car are wearing seatbelts and not behaving in ways likely to distract and cause accidents. It is my responsibility to make sure that pets are secured safely and cannot cause a disturbance. It is my responsibility to ensure that loads are securely fastened for similar reasons. It is my responsibility to not drive like a twat.
The reason why I am responsible and take responsibility for all of this is that:
The best way to achieve all of these objectives is to not collide with anyone / anything else i.e. any safety benefit for other road users is merely a by-product of me taking responsibility for the safety of me, my passengers and my equipment. If everyone had the same attitude on the road, we would all be fine.
What is dangerous is this bizarre notion that it is the job of others to look out for you. It does explain a lot of the self-entitlement I see on the streets though. e.g.
I guess if you have the mentality that it is the job of others to look after you the temptation is there to put your life in the hands of others. Until one day you meet someone who refuses or is too incompetent to play ball and then you are dead.
A stupid way to go in my opinion.
No one is responsible for me when I am on the road, 2 wheels or 4. I am responsible for my own safety. That is my job, no one else’s.
Below the line in road.cc is a very weird place ….
I love how the very first
I love how the very first line in your PowerPoint presentation is woefully inaccurate. You are not responsible for the other adults in your car wearing a seatbelt. They are.
Smudgersmith15 wrote:
Sigh. What the law requires is one thing. What I require is another.
If I invite you into my car and you refuse to wear a seatbelt, I will very quickly invite you to get the hell out of my car which will not move until you have done so.
You see, the law might not require it, but when you get in my car, I take responsibility for your safety and do everything in my power not to put you in danger. Even if you do not want to help yourself.
People outside my car? I do not want an accident with you because that puts me and my passengers at risk but how you drive / cycle is entirely your own responsibility not mine and if your stupidity puts me in a situation where I have to choose between your safety and the safety of my passengers … sorry, you lose.
L.Willo wrote:
Repeat. Why are you using an example where the other person is riding dangerously.
You’ve argued that you have no duty of care towards other road users. How they behave would be irrelevant to that point.
Such a shame as your car
Such a shame as your car sounds like a great place to be. I’m gutted.
L.Willo wrote:
Oh you tiresome, tiresome specimen. If you were the least bit amusing, then there might be a point to you. But your comments are as po faced as they are wrong headed. Are you Alan Shearer?
L.Willo wrote:
I feel your being un nessecerily hostile, if said person happened to be incapable of putting on said seatbelt inviting them into your car knowing you will simply tell them to get out seems a bit silly.
Would be fun to see the arguement though.
Law does require it actually https://www.gov.uk/seat-belts-law/overview
So you are saying yo uwould delibratly cause an accident becuase it suited your needs? I just hope you live no where near me
L.Willo wrote:
every time you venture out onto the roads without a steel safety cage you do this, because no amount of defensive cycling will save you from the driver who ploughs into you from behind because they can’t wait for you to pass the pinch point first, or are texting or are drunk.
your reducto ad absurdum points do not alleviate your responsibility for the safety of all roads users, yes some actions are so bad you shouldn’t be responsible for them, but your attitude that you will just plough through any cyclist who does something stupid as you are obviously unaware of what is going on around your car and so can’t be certain whether or not you can apply the brake without the car behind hitting you borders on the sociopathic.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Look, if I take responsibility for my safety while I am driving / cycling, perform that activity conscientiously … if you do the same, the chances are we will never meet in an accident.
I cannot do anything about the way that you drive / cycle so my focus is quite rightly on my side of the bargain. That is the only thing I can control.
I think it is naive in the extreme to think that motorists are driving around with the mindset: ooh there’s a vulnerable wobbling cyclist, let me go out of my way to keep him safe ….. more like, that cyclist looks like an accident waiting to happen, let me give him a very wide berth to make sure it’s not my day he ruins.
The same re: errant pedestrians in Jimmy Ray Will’s example.
On the road, you look out for No. 1. first.
L.Willo wrote:
And you’re doing it again.
What does the other road users behaviour have to do with whether or not you have a duty of care toward them?
L.Willo wrote:
thats true
this is the part I have a problem with, when the green man comes up do you cross immediately, or do you look at the road and check no cars are going to run the lights and run you down? if the former you have been lucky so far, if the latter then why can’t you apply this same level of anticpation for the unexpected when driving? It seems like kit is simply because you feel your life is more important than others.
wycombewheeler wrote:
This is the person who claims that in 20 years of cycling, he’s never had a hear miss: “not even close”. He’s got it nailed.
…or he’s full of shit and has a comically simplistic view of the world.
L.Willo wrote:
As you are clearly not an advanced driver, let me recommend Roadcraft to you (ISBN: 0-11-340858-7)
Chapter 1 is pertinent
L.Willo wrote:
Everyone is responsible for everyone else’s safety when using the roads. As an earlier commenter said its called “driving with due care and attention”.
They drill this into you on constrution sites and these are as dangerous as the roads.
L.Willo wrote:
Rule 144
You MUST NOT…
drive without reasonable consideration for other road users.
Law RTA 1988 sects 2 & 3 as amended by RTA 1991
Jitensha Oni wrote:
That’s it in a nutshell. What many motorists forget is that when they receive their licence to use the public roads it is an endorsement of their skills and abilities to operate a piece of machinery that if mishandled can cause the death or serious injury of themselves and other road users. We all need to take responsibility for ourselves and others when on the roads. Older copies of the Highway Code had the words care, consideration and courtesy included in the opening paragraph. Maybe they should be brought back. As an aside. The old NI licence had the same words on the opening page. These were dispensed with when the plastic card and counterpart were introduced.
giff77 wrote:
quite! any numpty can drive a car around under control and not hit any stationary objects. The difficulty comes in allowing for the actions of others, some of whom may make mistakes because, you know, they are human.
Jitensha Oni wrote:
… does not mean the same thing as you MUST take responsibility for the safety of all other road users. Be reasonably considerate, not a problem…. take responsibility for your safety? Get out of here! That’s your job.
L.Willo wrote:
Google ‘duty of care’
No need to thank me
L.Willo wrote:
How about this bit from the Highway Code:
“Road users requiring extra care (204 to 225)”
Andthis:
“Rule 204
The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders. It is particularly important to be aware of children, older and disabled people, and learner and inexperienced drivers and riders.”
Jokes are one thing, sadly
Jokes are one thing, sadly some people are so dumb they take them seriously…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKX0fAgUqJ4
Quote:
A Volkswagen Crafter Panel van, which is what this appears to be, is 199cm wide, not including wing mirrors. A road bicycle is, at most, 46cm wide. How, exactly, is the rider the latter hogging the road when it is less than a quarter of the width of the the former?
handlebarcam wrote:
A Volkswagen Crafter Panel van, which is what this appears to be, is 199cm wide, not including wing mirrors. A road bicycle is, at most, 46cm wide. How, exactly, is the rider the latter hogging the road when it is less than a quarter of the width of the the former?
remember it is entirely unaccepotable foir 6 cyclists to take up the same space on the road as one person in their car.
EVEN if in doing so no one is caused any delay whatsoever. Stay in the gutter, don’t ‘hog the road’
So on balance I think these stickers are good thing, since we aren;t allowed to brand people with ‘f***ing moron’ that they choose to display this fact to all is quite helpful.
Not even bullet points can
Not even bullet points can dig you out of that hole
I was going to comment on L
I was going to comment on L.Willo’s comments but words fail me at his ignorance and selfishness……………………………………………………
I was going to comment on L
I was going to comment on L.Willo’s comments but words fail me at his ignorance and selfishness……………………………………………………
Unless a psychopath, humans
Unless a psychopath, humans generally have empathy for other human beings. This often shows up in concern for others safety.
So a psychopath or not a human?
Sniffer wrote:
Empathy is one thing. Responsibility is another.
When the day comes that I can force you to wear a helmet, not wear headphones, light up your bike like a lighthouse, give clear signals, abide by the Highway Code at all times and generally not cycle like a twat, I will take responsibility for your safety. But I cannot control you nor do I want to.
There is this thing called self-determination that goes with the territory of being an adult. So when you choose to use the roads, you assume 100% responsibility for that decision. You should not look for or expect special treatment. How pathetic.
I should feel responsible for this jerk’s safety: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mrTXUMgPpQ
Fuck that.
wtf?!
wtf?!
If a driver has no
If a driver has no responsibility for the safety of others outside their vehicle then can you explain, for starters, the offences of causing serious injury or death by careless or dangerous driving?
Bez wrote:
By inference if you have caused an accident and injury to others, you were not taking responsibility for your own safety, the safety of your passengers and teh safety of your equipment.
The law has a job to do to punish the consequences of drivers not using the road responsibly but the motivation of everyone on the road is selfish. A to B without incident.
Enduring a stressful drive in hazardous conditions with slippery roads and poor visibility, the reaction is “thank God we made it here in one piece” … not thank God we didn’t kill anyone en route. Anyone who says that he thinks the latter is an extreme altruist or more likely a liar.
L.Willo wrote:
Also, a fairly good test question to use in evaluating whether someone exhibits the traits of a psychopath.
bikebot wrote:
I vote we get L Willo to sit through the story with the upside down tortoise… See what happens.
L.Willo wrote:
By inference if you have caused an accident and injury to others, you were not taking responsibility for your own safety, the safety of your passengers and teh safety of your equipment.
The law has a job to do to punish the consequences of drivers not using the road responsibly but the motivation of everyone on the road is selfish. A to B without incident.
Enduring a stressful drive in hazardous conditions with slippery roads and poor visibility, the reaction is “thank God we made it here in one piece” … not thank God we didn’t kill anyone en route. Anyone who says that he thinks the latter is an extreme altruist or more likely a liar. — Bez
that is the most absurd statement, with air bargs and steel safety cage, ploughing through a whole load of pedestrains poses no danger to the driver or passengers
Keep digging.
Keep digging.
paulfg42 wrote:
How about this one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWLoPvdUVRc
Those drivers should feel ashamed that they failed in their 100% responsibility to ensure that this absolute twat made it from A to B in one piece.
I would not lose one wink of sleep if that arsehole ended his life under my wheels.
100% his fault. 100% his responsibility. Zero fucks given.
My last word.
L.Willo wrote:
Why did you need to find a video of someone cycling dangerously to illustrate your point.
You’ve argued that you have no duty of care towards other road users. How they behave would be irrelevant to that point.
I’m sure that will be as accurate as everything else you’ve written.
L.Willo wrote:
Is that a promise?
And welcome to the Willo show
And welcome to the Willo show ladys and gentlemen.
I love it when L.Willo gets
I love it when L.Willo gets involved, so obviously just a troll, but with so much passion! The wacky arguments get stranger and stranger.
Mental mental chicken
Mental mental chicken oriental.
It’s like our very own cut
It’s like our very own cut price Kate Hopkins,
Housecathst wrote:
That would be Katie Hopkins.
I wonder how many billion
I wonder how many billion YouTube views we can find of a motorist doing something dumb….
He’s gone on the attack on
He’s gone on the attack on this thread, hi viz, helmets, earphones in the lot.
Stop trying to tar all people by trying to prove that some people are dickheads. It would be like suggesting all people that comment are as stupid as yourself Willo!
I’ve only been a member of
I’ve only been a member of this forum for a couple of weeks but I’ve learned fast to ignore Willo. Please don’t engage with him – you won’t change his mind and he gets a kick out of the attention.
PennineRider wrote:
By stating you are trying to change his mind you are confirming that you think your opinion is right and his is wrong. Neither is right or wrong, it’s an opinion. To think otherwise is pure arrogance.
Jaarn wrote:
By stating you are trying to change his mind you are confirming that you think your opinion is right and his is wrong. Neither is right or wrong, it’s an opinion. To think otherwise is pure arrogance. — PennineRider
Whatever the opinions, hijacking every article that even has a hint of controversial interactions between different road users with illogical pontificating for his own entertainment is dull and shit.
Jaarn wrote:
By stating you are trying to change his mind you are confirming that you think your opinion is right and his is wrong. Neither is right or wrong, it’s an opinion. To think otherwise is pure arrogance. — PennineRider
That’s postmodern to the point that all discussion could essentially become meaningless. There are still such things as facts and truths.
vonhelmet wrote:
I have nothing against discussions but I despise rudeness and sarcasm and it would appear that once one person had posted something vile all their cronies come out of the woodwork to join in. It’s the mob mentality. There was no attempt to engage in a discussion with Willo, instead he was taunted and disparaged. Has anybody taken the time to ask why he feels the way he does? He may have a very valid reason. It’s easier and more fun to belittle somebody though isn’t it. Some people have said he likes to be the centre of attention while in the same post doing their absolute best to make him look small and hopefully getting a laugh and a few likes in the meantime.
If he really is the troll that some have suggested then engaging with him is the exact opposite to what is well known to be the way to get rid of him. By engaging with him he has an audience and will never go. Having said that it’s all too easy to say somebody is a troll when the accuser has no other way to win their point. It’s a well known ploy of people with a low IQ. So is picking up on grammatical and spelling errors and saying somebody’s post is enough to send them to sleep. It’s very weak.
Obviously there is the possibility he is a troll which comes full circle to ignoring him.
Jaarn wrote:
If you’re interested, trawl through some older threads – quite a few ended up as the willo show, with varying attempts at arguing, reasoning, disagreeing made by other posters.
There are loads of disagreements on here – some quite bitchy. What marks willo out is the bad impression of the Harry Enfield ‘you don’t wanna do that’ character he does about pretty much every aspect of cycling. That and his propensity to lecture in black and white terms that make me question whether he’s ever ridden a bike outside his own bedroom.
Arrh a van driver that doesn
Arrh a van driver that doesn’t care about anybody else’s safety, that’s original.
L. Willo
L. Willo
I fully understand what you are trying to say and I agree with you up to a point. If I’m totally honest I don’t care what happens to anybody on the planet outside of my immediate family and a deliberate very small group of friends. If everybody else wants to go and kill themselves then there’s next to nothing I can do about it and that suits me fine. However I don’t want to be the one that causes that death or injury so I take responsibility for myself and those in my vehicle and I watch every other numpty around me to make sure they’re not going to do something stupid while I’m there which would cause me through no fault of my own to drive over their head. As soon as they’re out of my danger area then I lose any interest I had. I can say that if I killed or injured somebody it almost certainly wouldn’t be fault. I say almost because I’d be arrogant to assume or state I never make mistakes.
I also agree with what you said about CC being a very weird place below the line and for that reason I rarely venture down here. It’s often appeared to be frequented by a lot of rather angry individuals who aren’t able or maybe aren’t willing to accept that somebody else’s opinion might just be totally or partially correct. What I find ironic is how these people feel it is acceptable to berate, vilify, belittle and purposely humiliate another human being while lecturing them about morality.
Being a van driver and a cyclist I can see both sides of these ongoing spats and if I’m perfectly honest I find it rather boring. There is plenty of room on most of our roads for everyone but it’s become almost en vogue to find fault with the “other side”, video it and publish it to YouTube. Many of the incidents I think are blown totally out of proportion and could be resolved by the simple act of raising your hand to say sorry. Sadly that skill seems to be going extinct.
I dare say the focus will turn to me now and to be brutally honest I don’t care. Like I stated in my post in not so many words I don’t care for people so don’t take anything to heart. Now if you were some kind of wonderful animal it would be a different matter. I do respect animals and wildlife.
Jaarn wrote:
Totally agree. By way of some sort of explanation/excuse, I’m fine with the YouTube campaigns and hysteria generated on the cycling side, even if I find it arse-witted at times. In a nutshell, that’s because when drivers drive into cyclists, the cyclists get hurt. When cyclists ride into vans and other vehicles, the cyclists get hurt. I have no problem with cyclists making a song and dance about the frequency of the former.
…and then you undermine pretty much every point you made by admitting your misanthropy. Not even Willo hates everyone – just other cyclists.
Jaarn wrote:
Welcome to the board.
Despite the weirdness of this space I like it. One of the few upsides of social media is it allows you to interract with the type of people that you never come across in the real world. This space below the line is a very sheep-like, closed-minded community where any opinion that goes against the received wisdom around cycling tends to be knee-jerk attacked like ants attacking an intruder to the nest. Especially when it concerns taking personal responsibility for your own actions … below the line that is called victim blaming.
I had the misfortune to see an article in the Daily Mail last week where an opinion poll gave the Vote Remain campaign an 18 point lead. The most voted for comments were hysterical: “This is a fix!!! I don’t know a single person who doesn’t want to leave!!! …” etc. Of course they don’t. They only ever talk to people exactly like themselves. This place is exactly like that.
So I find it educational to learn that so many people in this community regard their safety to be the responsibility of other road users. This explains a lot of the numbtiness I see on the roads and leaves me better equipped to anticipate the behaviour of the kamikaze on my daily commute. Like the number of idiots I saw riding in the torrential rain this morning with no lights on, no hi-viz, wobbling around flooded pot-holes without a single shouldercheck never mind a hand signal … but I guess in their heads, it is the responsibility of motorists to take care of their safety so they needn’t bother. Twats. Coming to a morgue any time soon.
The downside of social media is this narcissistic obsession with popularity. How many retweets can I get? How many likes on Facebook? How many ticks from fellow posters. I personally don’t get it. I don’t even understand how it is possible to be humiliated, vilified or belittled by complete strangers whose opinions are worth no more and no less than my own. There are plenty of decent posters who will disagree with you while keeping it civil. The rest … water off a duck’s back, I couldn’t care less.
Anyway. Don’t be put off, there is a lot to learn below the line. Even if it is just how skewed and dysfunctional some people’s world views are about their hobby when self-entitlement takes control. And there is an awful lot of that around here.
Cheers.
L.Willo wrote:
Any chance you could deport yourself back there? It’s much more your cup of tea.
L.Willo wrote:
TL;DR
Cycling website mostly read by cyclists.
TL;DR
Willo misunderstood and learned nothing.
The verb you are looking for is mock.
davel
davel
I’m not ashamed to admit I’m a misanthropist. Human beings are disgusting creatures who wreck everything they see and touch and some things they can’t. Our planet is pretty much wrecked, the atmosphere is toxic, there is war and greed everywhere, and now we’re starting outside the atmosphere and turning space into a scrap yard. The reason nobody has seen an alien is because they know better than to come here.
What has humanity done for me and you?
Jaarn wrote:
Jaarn – the focus probably
Jaarn – the focus probably won’t turn to you, people will be nodding off in front of their TVs soon. Best to get over yourself already.
Willo – good winding up work. I’m sure it’s great that you barely give a fig about cyclists. Older cyclists can remember when most drivers were careful and considerate. The consternation of modern-day ‘serious’ cyclists’ is a result of the sorry state of most drivers’ attitudes and abilities.
Given the behaviour of many
Given the behaviour of many drivers of vehicles around Birmingham with the yellow stickers, I’d say it was a bit of arrogance on the part of a driver whose attitude should mean he’s not allowed on the road.
So an article that started
So an article that started about stickers moves to deliberations on the definition of misanthropy. Jaarn, you’re doing a great job keeping me entertained now L.Willo has gone. This isn’t sarcasm as I genuinely am entertained.
I was wrong welcome back L
I was wrong welcome back L.Willo! Thought you’d left?
Wolfcastle50 wrote:
No more comments on this issue but Jaarn’s post about the nature of this space below the line deserved a response.
Heehee, couldn’t resist
Heehee, couldn’t resist coming back, like a dog to his vomit.
You sound like you’d be
You sound like you’d be prepared to be involved in an accident so long as it wasn’t your fault and you didn’t come to harm. Why? An accident is a huge hassle for all manner of reasons.
Besides, no man is an island, and all that. If we all look out for each other then everything will go a lot more smoothly.
This is something I feel very
This is something I feel very passionately about.
First and foremost, I believe everyone is responsible for their own safety. To assume others are looking out for you, is at best wildly optimistic.
However… I also believe that I have a responsibility to look out for other people’s safety. Maybe the motivation for that is to avoid the stress, bother, bullshit of having an incident, maybe it’s because I’d like to think other road users feel the same way should I ever make a mistake. I don’t know.
What I hate, and I mean hate, is when people evaluate their driving, cycling, walking based on their legal obligations.
An example, if driving down a 20mph road at day 19mph, and I see a child running about on the pavement who’s clearly not paying attention… I slow down… just in case.
What I see out there is many feel that driving at 19mph is all they have to do… should the child run out into them, it is the child’s fault… and they, the driver are happy with that.
I’m not, I can see the potential risk, and I have the means to mitigate against it… so I do.
I remember once getting ‘buzzed’ by a woman passing me super close when I was on my bike.
At the time, I was riding no handed, taking a phone call on my mobile. Now I’m not going to say I was cycling safely or condoning my actions… I am perfectly aware that I was riding like a tit.
However… when I caught up with her and asked her why she’d passed me so close, she said it was because I was riding like a dick.
No arguments there, but for me, when I’m driving, if someone’s riding like a dick I give them loads of room, tut, call them a name it two in my head and move on. What horrified me in this case was the way this woman had acted deliberately, having righted with herself that if anything happened, it would be my fault so OK with her. No matter what the circumstance, if I was involved in an accident where someone got hurt, I’d beat the he’ll out of myself thinking what I could do to have avoided it… I find it alarming that others don’t share that sentiment.
L.Willo. I hope you do keep
L.Willo. I hope you do keep posting. This would be a very dull site without viewpoints that challenge a sometimes closed mind set of bunker dwellers. Whilst I would disagree with you about having a basic duty of care towards other road users, I would agree that for many drivers this happens to be a serendipitous consequence of a desire to avoid personal injury, damage to own property, inconvenience or higher insurance premiums rather than any altruistic motive.
Mungecrundle wrote:
In the interests of balance, let me just say that I whole-heartedly disagree, Willo. Your trolling/espousing your narrow-minded and impractical approach to cycling on what might be interesting debate topics is the dullest thing to happen to road.cc for a long time.
davel wrote:
L.Willo. I hope you do keep posting. This would be a very dull site without viewpoints that challenge a sometimes closed mind set of bunker dwellers.
— davel In the interests of balance, let me just say that I whole-heartedly disagree, Willo. Your trolling/espousing your narrow-minded and impractical approach to cycling on what might be interesting debate topics is the dullest thing to happen to road.cc for a long time.— Mungecrundle
Have you ever debated a young Earth creationist or a Moon landing denier? It’s actually something of a shock when you realise that people can genuinely hold beliefs that go against your own experiences, research, common sense or what you would consider any reasonable interpretation of evidence / observed facts and that they are not just simply being obtuse or winding you up. It is perfectly possible to propose a cogent argument, however unpopular or ultimately flawed, with which the mainstream disagree vehemently. If nothing else an opposing viewpoint acts as a foil to hone your own argument or maybe even consider and reassess your own position on contentious issues.
Mungecrundle wrote:
I’m all for that – and have nothing against Willo’s opinions per se. Despite some arguments above, it’s rare that all commenters on here are in the same camp. Lively debates on here are often pretty entertaining. But let’s not kid ourselves that Willo is a voice of reason in a dogmatic mob full of cycling mentalists. His argument on this thread is anything but cogent.
His strident, over-simplistic, black-and-white view of the world is tiresome. he seems to be channeling his wider frustrations with society through digs at cyclists’ behaviour. But I’d even be for that – if it was consistent and conversational.
It’s his persistent siding with anyone-but-the-cyclist (suppose I did ask for consistency) on a cycling site, occasionally backed up with daft claims, and general ignoring of sensible and logical responses, that comes across as trolling. People rebut his argument, take the time to post considered reponses and what does he do? Does he respond in kind? No – have a pithy dismissal or complete lack of acknowledgement. Numerous examples up there ^.
(Edit – I partially take this last point ^ back. I’ve just read the comments on the NSW article and he’s actually having a debate in there, so credit where it’s due.)
His idea of engagement seems only to lecture (or wind up?) on Why Cyclists Often Get It Wrong regarding interaction with other road users. Fair enough – I’m not crying BanHammer. But he can’t be surprised at the level of flaming he’s triggered.
My God, he’s having
My God, he’s having conversation with himself now.
Getting back to the matter in
Getting back to the matter in hand, wouldn’t the stickers come under section 5 of the Public Order Act – if a number of persons chose to complain about them causing offence or alarm?
Depends how you read the
Depends how you read the Highway Code doesn’t it? I read the Highway Code as a combination of guidance and reminders of pertinent law that if you follow will keep YOU safe. Why does the Highway Code say that you SHOULD wear a cycle helmet and MUST have working lights after dark? So you can take responsibility for the safety of other road users? No, so you can take responsibility for your own safety.
Same for safe overtaking distances. If you don’t provide wobble room, your risk of an accident and injury to yourself and your passengers and damage to your vehicle rises exponentially. Same for just about every rule and guidance in the Highway Code designed primarily to keep YOU safe.
I do not know what has happened to society, at least below the line here, where taking responsibility for your own conduct and welfare has become such an anathematic concept.
And for the hard of thinking, being careful and paying attention does not mean taking responsibility for the safety of others. Not even close.
Using local knowledge to warn someone that the currents are treacherous and they should not swim in the sea here is being careful and considerate. Rugby tackling them to the sand, pinning them down and preventing them from entering the water is taking responsibility for their safety. I might consider that for a stupid, know-all child or adolescent who does not know any better … a grown adult,…. fuck that. You make your own decisions and live or die with the consequences.
L.Willo wrote:
Erm, no. It is quite clear.
Your analogy is flawed, btw, as in the case of the swimmer, you are not the one putting them at risk in the first place.
L.Willo wrote:
You’re psychotic if you think the reason the highway code suggests giving cyclist a wide berth is so you don’t scratch your paintwork.
vonhelmet wrote:
You’re psychotic if you think the reason the highway code suggests giving cyclist a wide berth is so you don’t scratch your paintwork.— L.Willo
Does it matter? Does it give you a nice warm cozy feeling inside to cycle around with the illusion that poor vulnerable you are being parented by other road users? Personally I think that is a pathetic attitude but hey ho, horses for courses.
What actual difference does it make to you that a complete stranger is more interested in protecting his paintwork than injuring you, or indeed vice versa? None. The outcome is the same, is it not?
L.Willo wrote:
No, because I am constantly wary of other cars when driving, or cycling for that matter. I don’t trust other drivers. Conversely, I am very cautious and forgiving of cyclists when I’m driving, and the chances are at least some of the drivers I’m wary of on a bike are the same. The two views are not incompatible.
Anyone behind the wheel of a car should be cautious of EVERYONE more vulnerable them, and damn their paintwork. If everyone was aware of the damage they could do to more vulnerable road users then everyone would be a whole lot safer.
vonhelmet wrote:
What part of, if I don’t damage my paintwork, I don’t damage anyone else, are you having difficulty comprehending?
You expect me to drive carefully and responsibly and not crash into you. You get that one for free. I don’t want an accident either.
However you also seem to also be demanding that your welfare ought to be my primary consideration. That is a level of self-entitlement that beggars belief.
No way! The safety of me and my passengers come first. Always.
L.Willo wrote:
The two are not mutually exclusive. I think that maybe a review of Roadcraft and the Highway Code is in order here. Have you done any driver training since your (basic) test?
DavidJ wrote:
They are mutually exclusive. I cannot put you first and me first. I am not going to pretend for one second that I care more about the safety of a complete stranger than I do about the safety of myself and the passengers in my car.
It would take a ridiculous level of self-entitled lunacy for me to demand that you ought to care more about my welfare than your own when on the road. I have no right to even dream of asking for such a thing from a complete stranger.
This place is weird. Really weird.
L.Willo wrote:
You seem to think this is about winning and losing – not an attitude conducive to good or competent driving.
You also seem to (perhaps wilfully) misunderstand what was written.
I suggest that you learn to be a better driver and maybe do some further training. I take it you have done none since your (very basic) inital lessons & test.
L.Willo wrote:
Literally nobody suggested that you should.
The counter argument is that you should put other humans above your paintwork.
Floundering by twisting the opposing argument is not debating.
davel wrote:
So if it is a choice between damaging my paintwork and damaging a human, I should choose damaging my paintwork … I do not have a problem with that … except …
How exactly should I execute this manoeuvre to damage my paintwork without damaging a human? Can you not understand that I cannot damage one without damaging the other?
So whether my concern is the paintwork, and yours is the human, or vice versa, the end result is the same?
L.Willo wrote:
and
L.Willo wrote:
I appreciate that part of this is just you being bloody-minded for the sake of argument, but you are a very scary person and I hope to god that you don’t live anywhere near me.
My last word
brooksby wrote:
So, to summarise, we are all in agreement that we expect road users to use the roads responsibly and try to avoid accidents.
We differ because I don’t give a fuck whether or not you are operating your vehicle responsibly and cautiously because you are desperate not to hurt me, desperate not to hurt yourself and your passengers or both.
Whereas your feelings are hurt and your nose is all out of joint unless you feel that a complete stranger’s primary consideration is YOU. I call that a level of self-entitlement that is baffling. You disagree.
Stalemate.
I have quite literally wasted minutes of my life that I will never get back on a total non-issue so this is the end.
My last word!
ALMOST …..
It just occurs to me that we are on the verge of entering a world where cars will be driven by unemotional machines that don’t give a toss whether you live, die or ever existed. In fact, they will be programmed to think and drive like me, prioritising the safety of the passengers above everything else.
Out of interest, does that prospect make you feel safer or more at risk as a cyclist …..
That was rhetorical.
Now I am done.
L.Willo wrote:
So that is your Last Word 2?
You never did answer me about your diving proficiency, which does seem susoect.
Also am fascinated to see that you are so angry about stuff
L.Willo wrote:
L.Willo wrote:
Certainly is since you showed up.
L.Willo wrote:
Jesus H.
It’s not too difficult to conjure up a scenario where favouring the metal object over the fleshy human causes dismal consequences…
Example, you momentarily lose control or take evasive action. You end up facing a row of parked cars with a family waiting to cross the road (in a gap between the cars).
Do you steer towards a) the parked cars or
b) towards the spongy things between the parked cars.
If you answered a): well done, you are a normal human being.
If you answered b): well done, you are L.Willo and have just mown down a family for the sake of your metal box. Still, your paintwork could have been much worse, and it probably served the stupid twats right for crossing the road. And they probably had bikes at home. Zero fucks given, and all that.
Munge I think you’re being a
Munge I think you’re being a bit idealistic there. What you quickly realise is that no amount of honing of argument will be of any use against someone who is irrational. All issues can be argued/discussed ad infinitum through strands of ‘logic’.
What is useful are people with opposing points of view, that are rational. Then you can have a good debate and everyone can learn something.
People like willo can put you into a comfort zone, where you think, look how easy it is to win a debate about cycling helmets, road safety etc, then you can get caught off-guard by someone who really knows how to debate rationally with strong arguments that you weren’t prepared for, because lets face it, you were previously running around in circles dealing with trollish forum warrioring.
You can only be as good as your opponent.
That said, fair play to the guys taking time out to rubbish the nonsense he puts out, because you will get people clicking on pages and randomly reading comments for years to come, and you don’t really want nonsense left unchallenged in case it influences some young mind.
I’ve seen some serious
I’ve seen some serious trolling across a variety of websites over the years but this L. Willo guy is elite level. Lance Armstrong level at least.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
SSHHHH!
Don’t mention Voldemort for gawds sake!
I dare say our future robot
I dare say our future robot car driving overlords will have a much better attitude to driving than Willo…
Healthy human response to
Healthy human response to danger
Abnormal human response to danger
It’s fairly simple. He’s either trolling, lying to himself becauase he’s a contrarian twat (most likely), or he has issues.
Well I at least have learned
Well I at least have learned something from this particular debate. I can truthfully, hand on heart state that my primary concerns when driving are for the safety of my passengers, myself and other people (in that order if it makes any difference). Even strangers have friends and family to go home to at the end of the day. Cars and bicycles can always be fixed or replaced, people cannot. If the happy consequence of that attitude is also that my paintwork does not get scratched then I’m even happier.
Whilst I can and do make efforts to protect myself as a vulnerable road user, I do expect a certain level of competence, respect for the rules and care for my continuing existence from the rest of you buggers. If I went round treating every other user as an incompetent fool then every journey would probably end in a paranoia induced cardiac arrest.
It’s banter – learn to take a
It’s banter – learn to take a joke (yes I’m a cyclist and I’ve been hit by plenty of cars).
It’s not good banter but who cares.
Now – if this clown hits a cyclist this could be pretty good evidence in your favour / showing their animosity to cyclists. If anything it’s good for us so – he should go for it…
It is pure win. They might as well have a sign sayng “guilty” on their van.
niico wrote:
You must be new here, you have made a comment that is relevant to the story and no mention of helmets. Schoolboy error.
[[[[[ L.Wallyo’s attitude is
[[[[[ L.Wallyo’s attitude is clearly “I’m the big I am, and everyone else on the road can go fluck themselves” I’ll bet his mummy doesn’t see him for the selfish jerk he is… she’s probably proud of him.
PhilRuss wrote:
I think you should cut him (L. Willo) some slack here. He’s temporarily off his meds and is having a hard time coping with reality. His venting on this forum is just a way of getting the crazy out of his head.
hawkinspeter wrote:
[[[[[ L. Willo “just letting off steam”? Fine, but I’m more concerned that his rabble-rousing stickers promote even worse driving than we experience right now.
PhilRuss wrote:
It’s okay. I visit my nan in the same nursing home that L. Willo is in. He’s actually 78 years old and can’t visit the lavatory without two attendants accompanying him. If he’s not allowed to post rubbish here, he’ll be making nuisance calls to 118 118 again and that really runs up the phone bill.
In fairness, this site seems
In fairness, this site seems to have less nutters commenting on it that most. I suspect L.Willo is actually a collective of many nutters; this would “even up” the stats. It would also explain how his “argument” veers about almost as much as we might imagine that he does when driving his precious hunk of paintwork around.
Better to argue the issue(s),
Better to argue the issue(s), rather than denigrate senior citizens methinks.