I wasn't just being pedantic ;) undertaking is generally dangerous, and I would discourage cyclists from doing it. On the occasions I cycle between two stationary queues (this happens on the commute home, where there are Left + SO, Straight on and Right lanes, and I go between the first two to get to the traffic lights), I go very slowly and carefully.
Yes, you are clearly a good and safe cyclist. However, from experience there are many who aren't. They spoil it for all the others.
But my point remains that cyclists can and do intimidate car drivers when passing them, just not all the time, much as car drivers don't intimidate all cyclists every time they pass them.
Number of times a cyclist's intimidated me while I was driving: 0. Number of times the reverse has happened: too many to count. Your point may be pedantically true but it's bizarrely unbalanced.
Did I claim that car drivers never intimidate cyclists? No.
I was merely citing evidence to contradict the statement that nor are they [cyclists] going to intimidate the car by overtaking closely.
So the observation that my point is unbalanced is irrelevant. I am not claiming that intimidation by either group is justified or good or whatever. It clearly isn't either justified or good, but denying that it happens doesn't help the situation.
I didn't say you claimed that car drivers never intimidate cyclists. Why are you trying to imply, through your rhetorical question, that I did?
As for relevance, in the wider question under discussion, yes it is an unbalanced contribution and this is relevant: your contribution to a discussion of life and death matters is a complaint about your precious paintwork.
My rhetorical question was to focus your attention on what I was saying not what I wasn't.
What you seem not to understand is that I actually don't care a jot for my paintwork. What I do care about is somebody damaging something that isn't theirs, knowing that they did so and just pissing off into the sunset. I would have been just as cross had the paintwork not been mine, but been somebody else's. It's not the paintwork itself that matters it is the wider implications of the actions taken and decisions made.
The person who caused the damage would quite justly be just as upset if I or somebody else did similar to them. That sort of behaviour is bad. It teaches kids that breaking things is OK. It teaches them that running away from your responsibilities is OK. It could ultimately help to teach them that knocking somebody off their bike and sodding off is OK. All of those things are bad and wrong and people who do them need their ways correcting, whether that is through a good shouting at by their parents, or a fine or a custodial sentence, or whatever.
The evidence seems to be that you also don't care a jot that people are getting injured and killed. Are you really unaware of how obnoxious you are being?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
(no subject)
But my point remains that cyclists can and do intimidate car drivers when passing them, just not all the time, much as car drivers don't intimidate all cyclists every time they pass them.
(no subject)
(no subject)
I was merely citing evidence to contradict the statement that
So the observation that my point is unbalanced is irrelevant. I am not claiming that intimidation by either group is justified or good or whatever. It clearly isn't either justified or good, but denying that it happens doesn't help the situation.
(no subject)
I didn't say you claimed that car drivers never intimidate cyclists. Why are you trying to imply, through your rhetorical question, that I did?
As for relevance, in the wider question under discussion, yes it is an unbalanced contribution and this is relevant: your contribution to a discussion of life and death matters is a complaint about your precious paintwork.
(no subject)
What you seem not to understand is that I actually don't care a jot for my paintwork. What I do care about is somebody damaging something that isn't theirs, knowing that they did so and just pissing off into the sunset. I would have been just as cross had the paintwork not been mine, but been somebody else's. It's not the paintwork itself that matters it is the wider implications of the actions taken and decisions made.
The person who caused the damage would quite justly be just as upset if I or somebody else did similar to them. That sort of behaviour is bad. It teaches kids that breaking things is OK. It teaches them that running away from your responsibilities is OK. It could ultimately help to teach them that knocking somebody off their bike and sodding off is OK. All of those things are bad and wrong and people who do them need their ways correcting, whether that is through a good shouting at by their parents, or a fine or a custodial sentence, or whatever.
(no subject)