Is it time to start calling out bad cyclists?

Your example was of assuming responsibility for oneself in the face of an immutable external agent - the omnipresent bike thief.

Your point above, however, is on assuming responsibility for the actions of external agents, based upon tenuous, specious and unevidenced causality.

Ah, but I'm lovely and never say nasty things to people, and since everyone knows that, TW was safe to write what he did.

But the chain of causation is the point I find interesting. Let's say that TW knew that I was liable to fly off the handle and start saying unpleasant things to Idiot (rather than making a point which, with hindsight, probably didn't add to the debate at all) and that Idiot, being an irascible chap, was liable to kick his dog if I did so. And I knew that Idiot was liable to kick his dog if provoked. And all of this happened.

Idiot is clearly the primary agent responsible for kicking his dog. Bad Idiot. But would I be responsible, morally, for the foreseeable consequences of my actions even if those actions are the actions of a third party? Would TW be responsible further down the line? It's an interesting point and in contrast to the majority of people posting here, I'm not sure I have a complete answer to it.

Thought provoking stuff. Way too early in the morning for it, though.

sophistry.

Is there really a difference between the two? Isn't the distinction between assuming responsibility 'in the face of an external agent' (I'm not sure the word 'immutable' really adds to the point) the same as assuming responsibility 'for the actions external agents'?

I can see that there is a discrete point about whether in practice motorists (as a group) would treat cyclists (as a group) with more consideration if cyclists stopped doing things which some motorists say they find annoying, such as RLJing. That's a question of fact, and without a control group it's ultimately just anecdotal evidence and opinions.

But as I understand it, the 'don't pander to bigots' argument is that even if the consequences of inconsiderate cycling by one person is to increase the risk of motorists driving inconsiderately towards cyclists, that's the motorists' fault and not the responsibility of the cyclist who cycles inconsiderately. Although I can see the point (the primary responsibility is that of the motorist for their own actions) I have difficulty with the concept that we're not responsible for the foreseeable consequences of our actions, even if they take effect through the agency of third parties.

Dan, could you please clearly state what point it is exactly you are trying to make?

I'm not. Just pondering aloud at the underlying moral issues raised by this debate. It beats working.

In what way would those actions be foreseeable? You are, I'm guessing, probably no better than the rest of us at predicting the future.

Even post-fact, you couldn't show a causative link, given the degree of hindsight bias and confirmation bias that would exist.

Which is why the argument is always specious, and very often facile.

I'm not sure the word 'immutable' really adds to the point)

It was your question in the first place.

some people steal bicycles.
Those people are bike thieves.

They are the external agent. Locking or not locking does not change their existence, nor the threat they pose. They exist. That cannot be changed within the context of locking the bike up or not this one time.

Is there really a difference between the two? Isn't the distinction between assuming responsibility 'in the face of an external agent' the same as assuming responsibility 'for the actions external agents'?

One is assuming responsibility for oneself. Not for the bike thief.

The other is assuming responsibility for someone else.

Now - If you don't stop, I'm going to tear my kitten's throat out. This will be your fault. And I mean full stop. From the forum. From the internet. Your fault. Dead kitten.

This new forum quoting function is utterly dire.

I agree it would be very difficult to establish as a fact that the behaviour of motorists towards cyclists is affected by the conduct of cyclists - as I said above, the question of fact (would motorists behave better if cyclists behaved better) is basically just opinion and anecdotal evidence. If the argument is 'do what you like, it won't make any difference' then it just one person's opinion against another.

However, I understood the argument to be a more profound one, which was that even if the conduct of one cyclist does have an effect on the behaviour of motorists towards other cyclists, the consequences of the motorists' behaviour is not attributable to the one hypothetical cyclist. Although I can see the argument, I have difficulties with it.

Anyway, back to work.

Anyway, back to work.

This isn't work?

Now - If you don't stop, I'm going to tear my kitten's throat out. This will be your fault. And I mean full stop. From the forum. From the internet. Your fault. Dead kitten.

Oh dear. Poor kitty.

This new forum quoting function is utterly dire.

I can certainly agree with that!

Totally agree with everything you said up the MG.

Totally disagree the inference that that post supports blaming person A, who enraged person B, for person B assaulting person C.

In fact the fallacy of your inferrenece is very similar to the fallacy in the collective responsibility argument. You are presuming causation and then, furthernore, ignoring the irreversible nature of such causation.

Just because the world is shit for people in minority groups doesn't mean that we should start grouping together bihots and non-bigots in an attempt to deal with "the real world."

That post was a bit late. Sorry.

Too many long words being used in this thread at the moment. I'm out.

Ha! I just scrolled through two pages of waffle and was about to post exactly that.

That means we think alike. You should be afraid, very, very afraid.

Pseudopseudohypoparathyroidism.
Hepaticocholangiogastrostomy.
Spectrophotofluorometrically!

(He'll never come back)

Achondroplasiaphobia

anyway...
bloke on a pinarello dogma with shimano dura ace c50's in regents last night. wearing the brightest pink over shoes, pink infused rapha bib shorts, pink rapha jersey and matching pink gillet, and even pink rapha mitts and i think something pink going on around his head area (or that could just be my imagination). if he didn't stand out enough he decided to casually roll every so slowly, (you know the ones where they commit to a track stand and fail) through the red by the mosque where about 15+ other riders were waiting. a load of people basically looked at each other and said 'what a twat'. i thought that was quite funny. thinking more about it it could have been a berd actually.

Maybe they really embraced the giro thing a few months back...

Was definitely a bloke. Came through Cannon Street yesterday evening. Thought I'd imagined it, but your description is spot on.....

Calling out two today:-

The spitter encounter on Kennington Park Rd, who at every set of lights from then to I lost him at London Bridge spat or emptied his nose. The man is full of gunk and to be avoided. He also didn't like being overtaken and would visible drift out from the left over to the right if he felt you were over taking him. He actually got called out by a women but doing this.

Hi-Vis warrior, lady wearing Orange hi vis jacket on white Specialized MTB head phones in encounter first in West Norwood then again on Brixton Rd. Ability to cut you up and cut in at lights, pedals hard off the lights and then slows right down. This is the same women he rode into on Monday while weaving through traffic.

I hope every single one of those riders screamed abuse at him for his cardinal sin of jumping a red. After all he is giving cyclists a bad name

Worse than that - He is responsible for each and every consequent action of each and every driver and pedestrian that sees him.

In the same way that the (final) straw was responsible for breaking the camel's back.

Hi-Vis warrior, lady wearing Orange hi vis jacket on white Specialized MTB head phones in encounter first in West Norwood then again on Brixton Rd. Ability to cut you up and cut in at lights, pedals hard off the lights and then slows right down. This is the same women he rode into on Monday while weaving through traffic.

Having some trouble parsing that.

She will basically cycle next to you,then move into the non existent gap between the cyclist in front and you. Forcing you/me to brake. Then when at the lights she will swing in front of everyone wait until the lights turn then cycle of a speed a few metres then she slows day causing the people behind to either brake or swerve around her.

On Monday she hit my back wheel trying to squeeze between myself and van while we had stopped at the lights.

She's a menace