In the news

Top post.

Seen a lot of people saying that the only equivalent situation for a driver would be in a car with its brakes removed.

Well yeah, but only if it's a car from the flintstones where you stop it with your feet.

Have you seen the squirrel caught in a bike wheel?

smokescreen to further justify the anti-cycling hatred present

The actions of the few outweigh the many.
The reason cyclist suffer as a whole is cossa dickheads who ride with no brakes, dickheads who RLJ, dickheads that cause accidents/damage and take no accountability for it, dickheads that don't know the road, dickheads that are over confident on the road, dickheads who are impatient, dickheads with enough money and cohones to acquire a bike and get on the road but not enough sense or awareness of anything or anyone to justify doing such a thing.
Of course we aren't all dicks but this isn't anti-cycling. Its anti dicks.
inb4: motorists do all that too!!
yes, and they are fucking dicks too.
Talk about entitlement. Lets swing the pendulum our way for a bit!!! looool, no.

Not a rant at you ma3k, just that sentiment that people share.

Well yeah, but only if it's a car from the flintstones where you stop it with your feet.

loool, intended or internet(mis interpreted) irony hah?

Edit' don't wanna sound a wet towel or all 'these whippersnappers on their leisure tools' but lets be honest, you can't carry on being a dick forever. We catalog dicks on bikes daily and we all love bikes and riding.

Oh fucking hell, please don't let this turn into a shared responsibility argument. It's the second most tedious bike argument known to mankind.

If cyclists were a race, this could be our OJ

Are balance bikes going to be outlawed?

If it helps get rid of those big wheel adult scooter things I'm for it!

I don't mean it to be.
I would say, you're your own responsibility so no.

Its that there's too many dicks ruining our name argument.
(god, here we go)

The fact this has so much attention and was nearly used to set an example could possibly show national cycling hatred.
It could also reflect the state of the nations cyclists as a whole that that sentiment even exists.
Sterotypes are for a reason some argue.
Thats why people, not just ped/cyclists,the rest, stereotype BMW/audi drivers, taxi drivers, white van men.
Why we stereotype nodders, mamils, fixeh skidders.
etc.
They aren't always true though.

Theres more of us on the roads now, which means more will follow. Not a bad thing.
I'm 26, ride in Leeds on a modern road bike. Its bummy, not cos of whats actually going on on the road but I know in the back of my head I am a target. I am a target in Leeds cossa shitty riding in other places of the Uk, cept its up here now.
Riding styles copied, this bullshit shoe-ed in edge lord bike culture.... from america, the emergence of Deliveroo have all influenced dicks so fuck dicks who think they're so much better than the average user cos they got a bike. Who the fuck are they kidding really? Fuck some arrogant prick in any city doing their very best to not give a shit, on a bike, ruining it for the rest of us and then blaming everyone who doesn't have a bike. Fuck right off to those dicks. And I don't mean fixie riders or even any 'genre' of rider(?). The criteria is; has a bike, has dickhead attitude.
/rant

Carnival tomorrow, should chill with the beers.

Yes please fuck off with that.

It's a problem with any minority or niche that suffers marginalisation and oppression in that the folk practicing that prejudice use the actions of few to justify their views and actions. Fuck letting them dress this up when actually prejudice is often a much more complex and illogical thing.

It's tantamount to excusing racist tendencies because some people hold the view that black or muslim communities / cultures encourage criminal tendencies.

nope.
its not always us v them, this excuses that.
I'm saying the state of uk cycling is 90% fucked up cos of dicks.

Go away.

Missing the point. Pls stop

Can you clarify that for me?

Are you suggesting that there should be no reason people should be at risk of harm from walking around a city looking down at their phone?

In an ideal world, yes. Or looking at a map, talking to a freind, looking at the sky, whatever. I hate the fact our cities are dominated by dangerous roads.

A friend of mine was killed by stepping out onto a road without looking and got hit at 5mph by a bus.

How do you make a city safe enough to prevent that from happening?

You can't prevent all accidents, but I think our urban spaces are could be more ped freindly.

And why is it not a good idea to teach people about the dangers of walking onto the road while looking at your phone?

I never said that. Of course it's a good idea to teach people road safety. but I think its better / more important to make more of our spaces safer.

I'm not justifying prejudice either whether that's the point I've missed or not.
ffs.
EDIT; @Batt

My 2p - I think that this all revolves around 'entitlement' - a driver's/rider's/walker's entitlement to be on that piece of ground at that point in time. People believe they are entitled and with that entitlement, they can do what they wish. I have watched numerous youtube clips of 'near accidents' and accidents involving all modes of transport and the common thread is people seem to put themselves at risk (even when they are 'right' in law and under driving regulations) because they feel 'entitled'.
This 'I am right' attitude results in accidents, road rage and, on occasion, unfortunate deaths. If people drove/rode/walked defensively, a lot of these incidents would be avoided - not all, but a vast majority and youtube would not have so many clips of 'nightmare driving' etc. This is a common sense attitude - putting yourself in danger because 'you are right' is not a sensible thing to do.
On my last ride, I was cycling up a steepish hill on a busy, fast, twisty road and a lorry came up behind me. I pulled in to let him past and then rode on. The guy was obviously working and I was not in a rush, if it cost me 30 secs I would be surprised. Cycling on up the hill with him on my tail and, perhaps, a punishment pass when I was not expecting it, was avoided. We were both entitled to be on the road but I used some sense and let him go by. Common sense??

You are doing exactly that. Your main assumption is that

" the state of uk cycling is 90% fucked up cos of dicks."

Rather than the baseline that I see in that people don't like cycling or cyclists because they can't relate to it or empathise with it, or that they see it as subversive, inconvenient, or a hindrance to their car based existence.

EDIT; which feeds into a sense of entitlement as @TGR says above.

Direct (and attributed) quotes from LFGSS in today's Times paper, together with a comically badly annotated diagram of a track bike.

• Regardless of whether there are roads or not, it's generally a good idea to look where you're going.

• That goes with out saying.

• Yes, you directly did say that. I said:

Wouldn't they be better off protecting pedestrians by speaking about the dangers of walking onto the road while looking at your phone?

You replied with:

No. they should protect pedestrians by making cities safer to walk about in. Our urban spaces should not be ruled by fast moving vehicles and made impassable by roundabouts and junctions. Peds should have priority.

Let's hope all the cyclist killed by motorist do the same...

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/calls-police-re-open-case-previous-cycling-incident-following-charlie-alliston-verdict-347801?utm_content=manual&utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_term=cyclingweekly

You asked if speaking about the dangers of looking at your phone would be better than making roads safer, I said no, making roads safer would be better. That's different to saying speaking about the dangers of looking at your phone should not be done at all. It's a question of priority, the two things are not mutually exclusive.

The Charlie Alliston case (which on appeal with a competant set of briefs/addmission of their own expert evidence/concentrated refutation of CPS 'expert evidence' I believe should be thrown out) is just a smokescreen to further justify the anti-cycling hatred present in our society.

Good post though the verdict didn't justify the anti cycling hatred but was symptomatic of a section of UK's society's fear and misunderstanding of cycling.

Riding a bike is contstrued by different people in different ways:
A childhood activity the bike being a toy (as opposed to a 'grown up' car)
An environmental statement which critiques people who burn fossil fuels to get about
A transgressive act where the lawbreaker gets away with many minor infractions
A slow form of transport which get in the way and slows down real vehicles (cars)
A sport
A poor persons, lower class transport
An expression of a rich persons mid life crisis (mamils)
A practical fun way to get about quickly
A dangerous activity that only the brave or the fool would engage in
An abnormal activity to be feared because it isn't normal (like driving)
...

And people's response to this will depend on their construing of cycling. Unfortunately, as Oliver said up-thread, due to many historic factors, around why the UK chose motors over cycles and designed the systems (physical and legal) to accommodate this.

Perhaps, particularly in London, we are in transition with the huge rise of people on cycles which may be construed as a threat to the status quo by the many people who don't understand/fear cycling, leading to more hostility and perhaps (as Patrick Field once said) to blood on the streets, to even more anti cycling bile and to examples being made of 'transgressive' cyclists like Charlie.

Where did I say that?

https://www.lfgss.com/conversations/139552/?offset=47725#comment13815687

Ok, perhaps you dispute that tougher laws around cycle safety would actually make the roads safer, fair enough. My point about priorities still stands.

Is this online or have you got a scan?

Can't bring myself to buy the Times.