Live blog: Deliveroo rider reveals all, Zwift will pay $25,000 towards medical bills of cyclist who lost his leg if 25,000 complete virtual climbing challenge, shoddy Christmas gift idea, cyclist hit by rocket fired from moving car + more

rkemb wrote:

ChrisB200SX wrote:

...and that roads were actually built for bikes.

Roads were paved for bikes: mostly they were already built.

No, they really weren't. Paved and covered roads, for wheeled transport, pre-date bicycles by several thousand years. Some may have been paved in the UK in some particular places that helped with bicycle transportation, but that's not their general raison d'être.

fukawitribe wrote:

rkemb wrote:

ChrisB200SX wrote:

...and that roads were actually built for bikes.

Roads were paved for bikes: mostly they were already built.

No, they really weren't. Paved and covered roads, for wheeled transport, pre-date bicycles by several thousand years. Some may have been paved in the UK in some particular places that helped with bicycle transportation, but that's not their general raison d'être.

True indeed - the Romans constructed roads paved with stone in the UK 2,000 years ago.  There are some roads being found now in parts of East Anglia paved with wood that may be older still.

OldRidgeback wrote:

True indeed - the Romans constructed roads paved with stone in the UK 2,000 years ago.  There are some roads being found now in parts of East Anglia paved with wood that may be older still.

Anyway, I think we can all agree that roads were not made for cars, and that the car-specific infrastructure is "retrofitted", so the claim that retrofitting cycling infrastructure is somehow overly problematic is nonsense. Which was my original point.

rkemb wrote:

OldRidgeback wrote:

True indeed - the Romans constructed roads paved with stone in the UK 2,000 years ago.  There are some roads being found now in parts of East Anglia paved with wood that may be older still.

Anyway, I think we can all agree that roads were not made for cars, and that the car-specific infrastructure is "retrofitted", so the claim that retrofitting cycling infrastructure is somehow overly problematic is nonsense. Which was my original point.

Wellllll - still no, but I get and completely agree with your point about it being necessarily over problematic.

rkemb wrote:

OldRidgeback wrote:

True indeed - the Romans constructed roads paved with stone in the UK 2,000 years ago.  There are some roads being found now in parts of East Anglia paved with wood that may be older still.

Anyway, I think we can all agree that roads were not made for cars, and that the car-specific infrastructure is "retrofitted", so the claim that retrofitting cycling infrastructure is somehow overly problematic is nonsense. Which was my original point.

How very dare you. It was my original point. 

PRSboy wrote:

brooksby wrote:

PRSboy wrote:

I don't get how it can be allowed to make such comments about a group of people i.e cyclists when its punishable in law to make the same remarks about religious, physical or racial groups.

Because its not punishable by law to make those comments about cyclists. Religious groupings, gender/sexual identity, racial identity, even being a Goth (dress style/music, not sacking Rome) are "protected characteristics" but mode of transport is not.

Fair enough, it just seems odd to me that you can't make nasty comments that incite hatred against people based on where they worship, but you can based on how they get there.

Its surprising to me when I'm driving my kids and their friends about how often the other children will make a remark about a cyclist holding us up.  You know full well that they are just echoing what their parents say and think.

Comments normalised in mainstream media is also influencing others as it makes it acceptable to hate "cyclists".

Today's derogatory comments poster is tomorrow's punishment passer etc.

The inclusion of Goths is relevent here though I think. It was included specifically after an appalling crime in which one person was murdered and another was seriously injured; that led to a change in guidance on what constituted a protected characteristic. There have been several crimes reported on road.cc and elswhere that begin to approach some of the pertinent points in that case; someone violently targetting another person due to their membership of a perceived sub-culture. Incidents like this firework one and cases where drivers have gone out specifically looking for cyclists to drive at or into to are getting into that territory, in my opinion. I've even read of people getting abuse whilst pushing their bikes; that's not transport choice as the common factor, it is the targetting of a percevied sub-group.

From a different tack, it's also worth noting that after the English riots a few years ago, some people were jailed for inciting riots in areas where no riots actually took place. So they 'incited' on Facebook, nothing actually happened, but they were jailed for the incitment. If someone incites people to follow this firework example, then why should that not be treated in the same way even if there are no further attacks?

The problem is that both of the above examples - hate crime and inciting riots -  involved perpertators tranggressing lines that were recognised as such by those in the position to apply the law or to amend guidance on the application of the law. By comparison, there is a spectrum of negative feeling towards anyone using a bike - ranging from casual indifference to our safety to an active desire to cause harm - that is so normalised in our society now that no one in a position to do anything about it actually cares. We have become one of the 'guilt-free meat puppets' through which the violence and visciousness of our culture is allowed to express itself.

PRSboy wrote:

I saw that fireworks thing yesterday, on Mailonline.  Some of the remarks in the comments section were just beyond belief.

What do you expect, you look in a sewer you are going to see $hit.