Kill a cyclist, get community punishment

Because that is what he said as they were an expression of his thoughts.

And jurors' decisions are an expression of theirs.
And what's written in the press is an expression of journalists' thoughts and a reflection of society.
And what people write on social media are an expression of broader social norms.

And juror's decisions are an expression of theirs.

Look I dunno how this is hard to understand.

It kinda like saying all cyclists are environmentalists, because cycling is good for the environment and therefore they will all vote for the green party. You are inferring so much when you don't really know.

Look I dunno how this is hard to understand.

It kinda like saying all cyclists are environmentalists, because cycling is good for the environment and therefore they will all vote for the green party. You are inferring so much when you don't really know.

Well you don't seem to understand it. You're making a hypothesis (all cyclists are environmentalists) and then ignoring the fact the evidence doesn't support it (because cyclists don't all vote for the green party).

What everyone else is doing is making an observation (juries regularly acquit people who, according to the preponderance of evidence, have caused death by dangerous driving) and looking into why this might be the case based on known facts:

• juries, simply by the laws of probability, consist of people who drive
  
• juries, simply by the laws of probability, consist largely of people who don't regularly cycle
  
• cyclists are treated as an outgroup by many people in society (evidence from social media, TV, other media)
  
• driving is considered a default behaviour (including bad driving)
  
• people are fallible and often subject to biases (years of psychological research)
  
• conclusion: it's possible to infer (although completely disprovable) that jurors are biased towards being lenient to drivers in cases in which an impartial observer would convict.
  

You were complaining about me claiming victimhood, but your third point assumes that cyclists are some sort of underclass and considered as "the other" or the usurper ... when most people don't think that at all. In fact most people are (in my experience at least) think quite the opposite.

Especially now in the UK it would be harder to claim this since we've had many sporting heroes that the public have taken to that have won important competitions in various cycling events.

Causing Death by Dangerous Driving (Road Traffic Act 1988) was only introduced because juries wouldn't convict a driver of manslaughter. It's a recognised phenomenon. It's the same logic behind 80% of drivers admitting they regularly speed at the same time as 90% reckon they are an "above average" driver.

The latter is the dunning-kruger effect and it happens a hell of a lot in my industry as well (software engineering), in fact it happens a lot anyway.

your third point assumes that cyclists are some sort of underclass and considered as "the other" or the usurper

I'm not assuming it. I'm stating it based on the huge number of "they don't even pay road tax", "get to the side of the road", "lycra louts" and "let's string up piano wire" statements you can find in tweets, videos and even broadsheet newspaper articles.

Also "outgroup" is a specific term in sociology, referring to a known set of psychological biases applied to (and demonstrating that) a group seen as "other". For example "Out-group homogeneity" in which an outgroup is seen as all the same e.g., "all you cyclists jump red lights". You demonstrated this yourself when you said

I also think and this (goes for myself included), that if you want more sympathy / empathy from motorists a lot of cyclists have to behave better towards them and people have to be more responsible e.g. not going out for a load of beers and riding back pissed, riding with no lights on riding on the pavement ... because the first fucking thing people will say is "Well cyclists don't follow the rules either, I saw one doing the other day".

That is exactly one cyclist being damned for the actions of another, even if they've never met them.

I'm not assuming it. I'm stating it based on the huge number of "they don't even pay road tax", "get to the side of the road", "lycra louts" and "let's string up piano wire" statements you can find in tweets, videos and even broadsheet newspaper articles.

VOCAL MINORITY FFS.

That is exactly one cyclist being damned for tha actions of another, even if they've never met them.

This is what you are saying about motorists ... Pot and Kettle mate. If you want to been seen better than them and don't want those stupid complaints then all of us have to be better otherwise you can't claim any sort of moral high ground.

VOCAL MINORITY FFS.

Okey dokey, lets apply the standard prejudice test:

"jews don't even pay road tax", "jews should get to the side of the road" etc.

If that was written as widely as criticisms of cyclists qua cyclists, what do you think the response would be? Where is the criticism of people who deny the rights and advocate violence against mums, dads, sons, daughters, friends, colleagues etc. just because they are on a bike? Society as a whole has very little problem with this it would appear.

This is what you are saying about motorists ... Pot and Kettle mate.

No, I was quoting you. You said that in order for me (as a cyclist) to be respected by motorists, other cyclists need to start behaving responsibly. You stated in your own words that motorists display an outgroup homogeneity bias against cyclists.

EDIT:

If you want to been seen better than them and don't want those stupid complaints then all of us have to be better otherwise you can't claim any sort of moral high ground.

I want to be treated as an individual and my right to use the road safely to be respected, irrespective of the actions of other cyclists. I want to know that if someone drives dangerously and knocks me off my bike that the law (and juries) will act to punish them, rather than acquitting them because of the actions of other cyclists that I've never met. Can you agree that I should have that right? Can you agree that my rights should not me degraded simply because other people misbehave?

EDIT #2

Your vocal minority argument is also bullshit because it assumes that there is a clear divide between people who bash cyclists and everyone else who, you imply, have no negative feelings towards cyclists at all. It's perfectly possible for someone to feel a mild antipathy towards cyclists that they would never publish or even verbalise, but that would impair them from acting in an impartial way on a jury.

Oh no! The privileged people are under attack!

Grow up.

The way you act like drivers are being treated unfairly as if you're claiming white able males are under attack and need to be protected.

No, I was quoting you. You said that in order for me (as a cyclist) to be respected by motorists, other cyclists need to start behaving responsibly. You stated in your own words that motorists display an outgroup homogeneity bias against cyclists.

I was replying to this

That is exactly one cyclist being damned for tha actions of another, even if they've never met them.

Replace the word cyclist for motorist ...

Besides if a vast majority of cyclists ride like dicks, it is easy for someone to assume that every cyclist rides like a dick. Yes guilt by association is shitty, but it is going to happen unfortunately unless majority doesn't behave like that.

What are you on about? I never fucking said that.

Hah!

As if the motorists have a right to drive, oh you silly blood clot.

What the fuck are you on about? What do you mean?

You kinda did, being all defensive as if the motorists are a rare species of humanity that everyone trying to exterminated.

if you want more sympathy / empathy from motorists a lot of cyclists have to behave better towards them

collective responsibility klaxon. get fucked m9.

I am not saying that, and have never said that. Stop misrepresenting what I am saying.

I am saying if you don't want people pulling the dick remark about cyclists out of the bag everyone else on here shouldn't give them any cause for complaint, that will really shut them up.

But calling everyone a cunt is O.K., gotcha.

the problem isn't people on bikes doing silly things, the problem is people in cars using people on bikes doing silly things as an excuse to abuse other people on bikes who are not doing silly things. it's very important that you understand this.

Yeah, because you lot did it first.

Well if those people on bikes don't do silly things then the whole chain of events you are saying I should understand wouldn't take place would it?

i.e. they can't claim justification if you don't give them any.

It's representative of what a specious polyp you are that you're calling someone who is talking about ontology an internet hard man.

Nope sorry it isn't. You were making a vague threat and acting like an Internet hardman probably because you are obviously a bit of a penis. Owning a thesaurus doesn't grant some sort of intellectual authority.

Why don't you go home and play with your Ross Kemp replicas hand guns, or watch the "The Business" with Danny Dyer it will make you feel better about yourself.

Every-time you make one of those pathetic posts you are basically just proving you are nothing more than a thicko bellend that is stalking someone around a forum because you don't like them because they made some drunken posts 6 years ago that might have made fun of one your mates.

Grow the fuck up

#topcorn