Cyclist doing wheelie knocked fellow cyclist into road

caaad10 wrote:

I love doing wheelies, I'm 48 and it wasn't me. Accidents can happen, even with both wheels on the ground, so stay safe kids.

Well done, I am 48 and have never done a wheelie, have tried countless times but just can’t do them. 

Grahamd wrote:

caaad10 wrote:

I love doing wheelies, I'm 48 and it wasn't me. Accidents can happen, even with both wheels on the ground, so stay safe kids.

Well done, I am 48 and have never done a wheelie, have tried countless times but just can’t do them. 

I'm 38 and can't do wheelies. i'm always really impressed (and a bit jealous)when i see some young lad hold a wheelie for a couple of 100 metres.

Deeferdonk wrote:

Grahamd wrote:

caaad10 wrote:

I love doing wheelies, I'm 48 and it wasn't me. Accidents can happen, even with both wheels on the ground, so stay safe kids.

Well done, I am 48 and have never done a wheelie, have tried countless times but just can’t do them. 

I'm 38 and can't do wheelies. i'm always really impressed (and a bit jealous)when i see some young lad hold a wheelie for a couple of 100 metres.

 

I can only manage around 50 metres these days, I can't really get it up like I once could but I still like to have a go when the urge strikes.

Deeferdonk wrote:

Cyclist (saɪklɪst)

Word forms: plural cyclists

countable noun

A cyclist is someone who rides a bicycle, or is riding a bicycle.

Congratulations on winning the "deliberately obtuse" award of the day.

Morgoth985 wrote:

Deeferdonk wrote:

Cyclist (saɪklɪst)

Word forms: plural cyclists

countable noun

A cyclist is someone who rides a bicycle, or is riding a bicycle.

Congratulations on winning the "deliberately obtuse" award of the day.

Sorry, but this always strikes me as really odd when things like happen and people claim the offender is not a "cyclist" but just a *insert your choice of offensive term for a poor person here* on a bike. Am i missing something and is cyclist some kind of elevated term rather than just a reference to a form of transport?
Anyway none of this really matters I suppose, best wishes to the person involved in the incident, and safe cycling to everyone else wether you are a cyclist or not.

Deeferdonk wrote:

Morgoth985 wrote:

 

Sorry, but this always strikes me as really odd when things like happen and people claim the offender is not a "cyclist" but just a *insert your choice of offensive term for a poor person here* on a bike. Am i missing something and is cyclist some kind of elevated term rather than just a reference to a form of transport? Anyway none of this really matters I suppose, best wishes to the person involved in the incident, and safe cycling to everyone else wether you are a cyclist or not.

Can't agree.  There's no choice of offensive term for a poor person here.  I'm saying there's no "fellowship" between a misbehaving teenager who just happens to be on a bicycle at the time of the incident in question and his presumably innocent victim.  So in this context I would certainly distinguish between "cyclist" and "yob on bike".  They are not the same at all.  The blurring between the two in the mind of the non-cycling public is part of the problem that cyclists -  or "responsible cyclists" if you prefer- face.

Morgoth985 wrote:

Deeferdonk wrote:

Morgoth985 wrote:

 

Sorry, but this always strikes me as really odd when things like happen and people claim the offender is not a "cyclist" but just a *insert your choice of offensive term for a poor person here* on a bike. Am i missing something and is cyclist some kind of elevated term rather than just a reference to a form of transport? Anyway none of this really matters I suppose, best wishes to the person involved in the incident, and safe cycling to everyone else wether you are a cyclist or not.

Can't agree.  There's no choice of offensive term for a poor person here.  I'm saying there's no "fellowship" between a misbehaving teenager who just happens to be on a bicycle at the time of the incident in question and his presumably innocent victim.  So in this context I would certainly distinguish between "cyclist" and "yob on bike".  They are not the same at all.  The blurring between the two in the mind of the non-cycling public is part of the problem that cyclists -  or "responsible cyclists" if you prefer- face.

Chav and pikey have been used by posters in this thread, both commonly used as derogatory terms for poor people or members of the travelling community. You are correct that there is no fellowship between the two cyclists, just because they are on the same mode of transport. You can call him what you like, though I suppose, but i would call him an irresponsible cyclist.

Deeferdonk wrote:

 You can call him what you like, though I suppose, but i would call him an irresponsible cyclist.

But, you see, that's the heart of the problem I'm pointing out.  You and I can add the qualifiers "responsible", "irresponsible", whatever, in discussion between ourselves, but the average non-cycling motorist won't do that.  They will just see "cyclist" and lump us all in together.  That's why I think we ought to challenge any suggestion that we have "fellowship" with the sort of behaviour outlined in this article, and why I think the headline is unhelpful.

Morgoth985 wrote:

Deeferdonk wrote:

 You can call him what you like, though I suppose, but i would call him an irresponsible cyclist.

 

But, you see, that's the heart of the problem I'm pointing out.  You and I can add the qualifiers "responsible", "irresponsible", whatever, in discussion between ourselves, but the average non-cycling motorist won't do that.  They will just see "cyclist" and lump us all in together.  That's why I think we ought to challenge any suggestion that we have "fellowship" with the sort of behaviour outlined in this article, and why I think the headline is unhelpful.

 

You mean in the same way that you have just lumped "motorists" together?

ClubSmed wrote:

Morgoth985 wrote:

Deeferdonk wrote:

 You can call him what you like, though I suppose, but i would call him an irresponsible cyclist.

 

But, you see, that's the heart of the problem I'm pointing out.  You and I can add the qualifiers "responsible", "irresponsible", whatever, in discussion between ourselves, but the average non-cycling motorist won't do that.  They will just see "cyclist" and lump us all in together.  That's why I think we ought to challenge any suggestion that we have "fellowship" with the sort of behaviour outlined in this article, and why I think the headline is unhelpful.

 

You mean in the same way that you have just lumped "motorists" together?

Nice try, but no cigar.  Have another read through and you'll see I said "average non-cycling motorist".  Clearly a subset of "motorists".  Clearly excluding those motorists, myself included, who also cycle.  Clearly not lumping "motorists" together.

I don't think any of this changes the main point.

Morgoth985 wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

Morgoth985 wrote:

Deeferdonk wrote:

 You can call him what you like, though I suppose, but i would call him an irresponsible cyclist.

 

But, you see, that's the heart of the problem I'm pointing out.  You and I can add the qualifiers "responsible", "irresponsible", whatever, in discussion between ourselves, but the average non-cycling motorist won't do that.  They will just see "cyclist" and lump us all in together.  That's why I think we ought to challenge any suggestion that we have "fellowship" with the sort of behaviour outlined in this article, and why I think the headline is unhelpful.

 

You mean in the same way that you have just lumped "motorists" together?

 

Nice try, but no cigar.  Have another read through and you'll see I said "average non-cycling motorist".  Clearly a subset of "motorists".  Clearly excluding those motorists, myself included, who also cycle.  Clearly not lumping "motorists" together.

I don't think any of this changes the main point.

I did see your clarification of drivers, but as you have also said that cyclists could not be lumped all together I came to the conclusion that it negated that qualifier and just left motorist. 

ClubSmed wrote:

Morgoth985 wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

Morgoth985 wrote:

 

But, you see, that's the heart of the problem I'm pointing out.  You and I can add the qualifiers "responsible", "irresponsible", whatever, in discussion between ourselves, but the average non-cycling motorist won't do that.  They will just see "cyclist" and lump us all in together.  That's why I think we ought to challenge any suggestion that we have "fellowship" with the sort of behaviour outlined in this article, and why I think the headline is unhelpful.

 

You mean in the same way that you have just lumped "motorists" together?

 

Nice try, but no cigar.  Have another read through and you'll see I said "average non-cycling motorist".  Clearly a subset of "motorists".  Clearly excluding those motorists, myself included, who also cycle.  Clearly not lumping "motorists" together.

I don't think any of this changes the main point.

I did see your clarification of drivers, but as you have also said that cyclists could not be lumped all together I came to the conclusion that it negated that qualifier and just left motorist.  [smiley]

Eh?  So I make clear to you that I'm not lumping a group together, in the context of bemoaning a group being lumped together, and based on that you conclude that I'm lumping a group together.  Right . . .

Morgoth985 wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

Morgoth985 wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

Morgoth985 wrote:

 

But, you see, that's the heart of the problem I'm pointing out.  You and I can add the qualifiers "responsible", "irresponsible", whatever, in discussion between ourselves, but the average non-cycling motorist won't do that.  They will just see "cyclist" and lump us all in together.  That's why I think we ought to challenge any suggestion that we have "fellowship" with the sort of behaviour outlined in this article, and why I think the headline is unhelpful.

 

You mean in the same way that you have just lumped "motorists" together?

 

Nice try, but no cigar.  Have another read through and you'll see I said "average non-cycling motorist".  Clearly a subset of "motorists".  Clearly excluding those motorists, myself included, who also cycle.  Clearly not lumping "motorists" together.

I don't think any of this changes the main point.

I did see your clarification of drivers, but as you have also said that cyclists could not be lumped all together I came to the conclusion that it negated that qualifier and just left motorist.  [smiley]

Eh?  So I make clear to you that I'm not lumping a group together, in the context of bemoaning a group being lumped together, and based on that you conclude that I'm lumping a group together.  Right . . .

You infer that cyclists cannot be lumped together as they have no social commonality, so by logical reasoning you can assume the same of Motorists. If the individual elements have no social commonality, why would a mix of the two suddenly have some? Members of this forum are constantly clashing over how cyclists should behave on the road, and I know for a fact that them also being a driver does not dictate which side of the fence they are going to be on an argument.

So no, you did not clarify! splitting a group that does not have a social commonality down with a social commonality identifier would work (environmentally conscious cyclists, cycling parents, etc.) but I cannot see how you can split down a group that has not social commonality with another group that has no social commonality (Cycling Motorist, fair haired cyclist, Blue eyed cyclist).

Morgoth985 wrote:

Deeferdonk wrote:

 You can call him what you like, though I suppose, but i would call him an irresponsible cyclist.

 

But, you see, that's the heart of the problem I'm pointing out.  You and I can add the qualifiers "responsible", "irresponsible", whatever, in discussion between ourselves, but the average non-cycling motorist won't do that.  They will just see "cyclist" and lump us all in together.  That's why I think we ought to challenge any suggestion that we have "fellowship" with the sort of behaviour outlined in this article, and why I think the headline is unhelpful.

 

I think the problem is that you're expecting to share some sort of affinity with cyclists for them to belong to what you consider 'cyclists' to be.

But that lad, he was travelling on a bike. He is, by definition, a cyclist.

I probably don't identify with him, anymore than I identify with tubby bellends who wear national team kits to 'race' sportives and go KOM-hunting with favourable tailwinds on their 5-mile commutes. But neither you nor I created the word 'cyclist'.

davel wrote:

 

I think the problem is that you're expecting to share some sort of affinity with cyclists for them to belong to what you consider 'cyclists' to be.

But that lad, he was travelling on a bike. He is, by definition, a cyclist.

I probably don't identify with him, anymore than I identify with tubby bellends who wear national team kits to 'race' sportives and go KOM-hunting with favourable tailwinds on their 5-mile commutes. But neither you nor I created the word 'cyclist'.

Re dictionary definition - of course I agree.  Couldn't possibly do otherwise.  It's the peception created by the headline that I object to.  "Cyclist doing wheelie knocked fellow cyclist into road".  That headline does indeed make a suggestion of an affinity, or that I would identify with him.  And I don't want there to be that suggestion, because it gives the rest of us a bad name.  Call it spin if you must, but I still think my suggested alternative way back at the start of this would have been a much better headline.

Morgoth985 wrote:

it gives the rest of us a bad name

I think this is the crux of it - where you and I part logic.

I have no more time for collective responsibility among cyclists than I do for 'drivers' when I get behind the wheel or 'pedestrians' when I walk to the pub.

Walking back from the pub I generally give pedestrians a bad name, if there were such a thing.

davel wrote:

Morgoth985 wrote:

it gives the rest of us a bad name

I think this is the crux of it - where you and I part logic.

I have no more time for collective responsibility among cyclists than I do for 'drivers' when I get behind the wheel or 'pedestrians' when I walk to the pub.

Walking back from the pub I generally give pedestrians a bad name, if there were such a thing.

OK.  And amen to that.

Deeferdonk wrote:

Chav and pikey have been used by posters in this thread, both commonly used as derogatory terms for poor people or members of the travelling community.[/quote]

Get out of here with chav and pikey being the same thing. Chav has no 'community' connotations, it's universal, chavs are from one end of the country to the other.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines chav as an informal British derogatory, meaning "a young lower-class person who displays brash and loutish behaviour and wears real or imitation designer clothes".

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Deeferdonk wrote:

Chav and pikey have been used by posters in this thread, both commonly used as derogatory terms for poor people or members of the travelling community.

Get out of here with chav and pikey being the same thing. Chav has no 'community' connotations, it's universal, chavs are from one end of the country to the other.

[/quote]

I didn't say they were the same thing i said they were both commonly used as derogatory terms for poor people or members of the travelling community.

Plus chavs isn't a universal term although widely used. In some parts of the country the term for demonising working class youth may be "scally" or "ned" or other regional variation

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Deeferdonk wrote:

Chav and pikey have been used by posters in this thread, both commonly used as derogatory terms for poor people or members of the travelling community.

Get out of here with chav and pikey being the same thing. Chav has no 'community' connotations, it's universal, chavs are from one end of the country to the other.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines chav as an informal British derogatory, meaning "a young lower-class person who displays brash and loutish behaviour and wears real or imitation designer clothes".

A Chav has no community?

The Oxford English Dictionary defines Community as "The condition of sharing or having certain attitudes and interests in common."

The definition of a Chav that you posted identifies several attitudes and interests in common....

(also a member of a travelling community would be found up and down the country too rather than in a single geography would they not?)