bikealong wrote:It is your good self who does not let a man have the latitude to express an opinion and comes out with telling me I talk " tosh?
I didn't insult you. I expressed a poor opinion of what you said, which is my right. Flaming is when you insult the person, not their opinions.
bikealong wrote:But then you say how You “ I try to be careful of that language as it is the language of bigotry and oppression.’ Which of course intimates is what I am using.
I'm not sure i understanded that sentence correctly. I understand you to be saying that you are understanding me to have said that you are using the language of oppression. If I'm correct, then yes that's correct. Would you like me to explain it further or, having read further responses as to why individual cyclists should not be held to account for the overall image of cyclists, are you satisfied?
bikealong wrote:You see being new to the forum I had no idea that “Not wearing a helmet is not dangerous.”
And that” Most of the time running a red light isn't dangerous,” because you the all seeing know “ I've yet to see any good evidence that a cyclist running a red light is inherently dangerous.”
I'm giving you my opinion. You can accept it, challenge it, ignore it, ask for clarification. What is the problem with that?
bikealong wrote:I am pretty sure that most car drivers that go through red lights would be of the same opinion. Of course when a ped steps out in front of you he is in the wrong in your eyes is he not.. But the person who stepped out could see nothing wrong in his actions
Right and wrong are rather relative concepts. It's my opinion that if a pedestrian steps out in front of me illegally then while in law I'm not at fault, for myself I am because I should have been able to anticipate that that might happen. Never travel faster than you can see to brake is how I ride. Similarly if another road user does something unexpected and illegal I review and see if I can adjust my behaviour to make myself safer. It works quite well for me.
bikealong wrote:And then “every time I've seen a cyclist run a red light it's been a non-event; left turn on red; pedestrian crossings; intersections where the cyclist has good sight lines and poses no danger to himself or others.”
That is just an unbelievable statement and an abrogation of all cyclists’ responsibility to the laws of the land.
Why is it unbelievable? I'm telling you what my experience has been. A bicycle needs 1/12th of the road space to operate than a car does. What is foolhardy in a car can be quite safe on a bicycle (and vice versa, to be fair.) Treating bicycles as having the same properties as cars in all situations is not a good idea, some of the road rules recognize this (rules 141 and 151 from memory in particular: riding two abreast and overtaking on the left).
bikealong wrote:That sort of talk if not flaming is certainly unkind an designed to put me back in my box alright. You use the words “every time I've seen” that’s great you have seen it.
It's language that challenges your world view. That I'm not the only one that's expressing these sentiments should give you something to think about. I haven't insulted you, I've shared some of my experience and some of my knowledge and suggested that you should educate yourself. You put your opinions out there, expect counter-opinions.
bikealong' wrote:Me , I get “Instead of using observation, hit the library and do some research “This of course pains me as a non descript and worth of another’s comment “I think you need to do some simple research before making half-arsed observations mate.”
But all a man can do is read what stats there are and make a judgement on those writings. It seems though that if it doesn’t coincide with a certain stilted view a person is ridiculed and called “unobservant”.
You may not be aware, it's one of Victoria's best kept secrets that shouldn't be secret: you can get a membership card for the State Library of Victoria. This gives you online access to several academic databases. With this access you can search for academic papers on matters of interest to you. I find it very useful and far more educational than what I observe with my own two eyes.
As an example, here's a news report
that suggests jumping red lights may actually be safer. There is a lot of information and mis-information about cycling with several points of view. Most of us are quite happy to hold our ideas and opinions up for argument and it rarely gets personal; doesnt' mean that if I think your argument is tosh I'm not going to tell you that though. I've given you my reasons and I'm quite happy to continue the discussion. Empricial evidence suggests I'm more understandable over a couple of pints (or four) of Mountain Goat.
bikealong wrote:Of course I didn’t realise that I had to only acknowledge you observations and disregard my own. Interestingly the only written observation on this matter have been by myself.
I don't understand this sentence.
Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . .