Telegraph article

Sorry to reply to my own post, but in the article:

"So it is my sad duty to have to report on the ruin of cycling itself. Just a week of regular city
riding has revealed how much the spirit of cycling has been repressed.

We'll start with my local network of cycle lanes, which have been made so incomprehensible and
fatuously pedantic that no one takes any notice of them."

Speaking some real sense here.

Quoted message said:

Anybody else see the article on cycling by James Moy in the motoring section of the Saturday
Telegraph? tinyurl.com3a3uaOpen ↗ (registration required I'm afraid)

Full Text:

As seen on TV: On yer bike? Give us a wave! (Filed: 24/01/2004)

Cycling is a great leveller, and must not be hijacked by miserablists, says James May

Last week, having been laid up for several days by a pox of such virulent and ancient strain that it
probably appears in medical text books with "ye'' in front of it, I resolved to do more exercise.

So I bought a new bicycle. I should admit that I already have several bicycles. There is the
ancient, dark green Raleigh Superbe, a bike made of pig-iron and Bakelite and of a style that means
old people sometimes flag me down and attempt to place an order with the local butcher. Then there
is the peerless Brompton folder, the bicycle that makes life with a Bentley garaged eight miles away
vaguely feasible. There is also the Pashley roadster and even an old tandem awaiting restoration.

Unlike some of my professional colleagues, I've always been a big fan of the bicycle. I believe it
might be the world's greatest invention. A bicycle seems to offer the rare commodity of something
for nothing; a machine that improves the efficiency of the human engine without consuming anything
extra, although you might want a Mars bar before a big ride.

And it's amazing how much the bicycle has come on in recent years. My new mount is something called
a Dawes Chilliwack - stupid name, but a great piece of kit, and car makers often get that the other
way round. It has 24 ``indexed'' gears, a sprung saddle post, brilliant brakes, sponge bar grips and
lights with LED bulbs. It cost less than £250, which is pretty remarkable.

Gone are the days when my bikes were made out of bits scrounged from neighbours and mates, and when
cotter pins hand-crafted in Taiwan out of the finest cheddar cheese sheared on uphill sections to
bring my chin into character-building contact with the steering-head nut. Pedal cranks are
``cotterless'' now and the multi-adjustable handlebars are secured with a smooth and complexion-
friendly allen bolt. The bicycle has never been in better shape.

So it is my sad duty to have to report on the ruin of cycling itself. Just a week of regular city
riding has revealed how much the spirit of cycling has been repressed.

We'll start with my local network of cycle lanes, which have been made so incomprehensible and
fatuously pedantic that no one takes any notice of them. And rightly so, because attempts to
regulate bicycle riding run contrary to the urge for total independence that made us crave the
things as children. A mate of mine reports on a new cycle lane near his house that ends suddenly and
abruptly at the edge of a disused canal. At best this explains why disused canals are always full of
rusty bicycles.

And what's with these so-called "advanced stop lines" that allow cyclists to wait ahead of cars at
traffic lights? I fail to see how placing a cyclist, inevitably stuck in 22nd gear, in front of my
2·25-ton motor just as the lights change helps the cause of bicycling in any way. Never mind that
all this stuff costs hundreds of thousands of pounds that could have been spent on hospitals or
housing for the residentially challenged.

What bothers me most, however, is the demeanour of my fellow riders. Every morning I cycle along the
nearby riverside for six miles, in rain, wind, the lot. So do many other people. And so I wave, I
shout ``Good morning'' and other encouragements, or at least deliver the traditional English
acknowledgement of a faint nod.

What do I get in return? Nothing. They hunker into their waterproof-but-breathable gaily coloured,
cycling clothing, stare hard at lightweight front wheels extruded from 100 per cent unobtanium, or
tilt their heads so their eyes are shielded by their stupid polystyrene hats. In a week of riding
not one of dozens and dozens of riders - men, women, young and old - has returned my greeting.

I suspect that, because I ride in my normal clothes and a pair of proper shoes, they think I'm not a
``real'' cyclist. And this is exactly where we're going wrong. There is not, and shouldn't be, any
such thing as a ``real'' cyclist.

Cycling, as I see it, is a celebration of elemental freedom; like the local pub, it is a great
social leveller that admits anyone and asks for nothing in return. There are no qualifications, no
exclusions and no burdens attendant on its pursuit. That's as it should be. That way, the machine
that revealed the marvel of personal mobility to the masses will continue to make sense a century
and a half after its creation.

But I can't help a nagging suspicion that it is now being hijacked, by mealy-mouthed local
government activists, people with a point to make and, worst of all, downright miserablists.

So if you happen to be one of those riders who uses my local route, do us a favour. Do something
positive for cycling. Give us a wave.

. James May co-presents Top Gear, which returns to BBC2 in April

"John Hearns" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I agree about waving back to people - I often wave or say good morning to people when out on the
bike. The miserablists he's referring to are people togged up in the latest cyclign gear, who
won't even acknowledge a wave.

He's in london.

Would he say hello to anyone he didn't know if he was walking? Even make eye contact with people
on the tube?

On 26/1/04 10:15 am, in article
[email hidden], "John Hearns"

Quoted message said:

Sorry to reply to my own post, but in the article:

"So it is my sad duty to have to report on the ruin of cycling itself. Just a week of regular city
riding has revealed how much the spirit of cycling has been repressed.

We'll start with my local network of cycle lanes, which have been made so incomprehensible and
fatuously pedantic that no one takes any notice of them."

So cycling is getting the Top Gear treatment. James May is the new presenter on Top Gear (for a
year or so now.) He has to cycle to his Bentley because the nearest garage he could fit it in was 8
miles away.

SO that is two out of three TG presenters who regularly ride a bike (JC for exercise though he won't
admit to it).

..d

Mark Thompson said:

Quoted message said:

Anybody else see the article on cycling by James Moy in the motoring section of the Saturday
Telegraph? tinyurl.com3a3uaOpen ↗ (registration required I'm afraid)

Full Text:

As seen on TV: On yer bike? Give us a wave! (Filed: 24/01/2004)

Cycling is a great leveller, and must not be hijacked by miserablists, says James May

Last week, having been laid up for several days by a pox of such virulent and ancient strain that
it probably appears in medical text books with "ye'' in front of it, I resolved to do more
exercise.

So I bought a new bicycle. I should admit that I already have several bicycles. There is the
ancient, dark green Raleigh Superbe, a bike made of pig-iron and Bakelite and of a style that
means old people sometimes flag me down and attempt to place an order with the local butcher. Then
there is the peerless Brompton folder, the bicycle that makes life with a Bentley garaged eight
miles away vaguely feasible. There is also the Pashley roadster and even an old tandem awaiting
restoration.

Unlike some of my professional colleagues, I've always been a big fan of the bicycle. I believe it
might be the world's greatest invention. A bicycle seems to offer the rare commodity of something
for nothing; a machine that improves the efficiency of the human engine without consuming anything
extra, although you might want a Mars bar before a big ride.

And it's amazing how much the bicycle has come on in recent years. My new mount is something
called a Dawes Chilliwack - stupid name, but a great piece of kit, and car makers often get that
the other way round. It has 24 ``indexed'' gears, a sprung saddle post, brilliant brakes, sponge
bar grips and lights with LED bulbs. It cost less than £250, which is pretty remarkable.

Gone are the days when my bikes were made out of bits scrounged from neighbours and mates, and
when cotter pins hand-crafted in Taiwan out of the finest cheddar cheese sheared on uphill
sections to bring my chin into character-building contact with the steering-head nut. Pedal cranks
are ``cotterless'' now and the multi-adjustable handlebars are secured with a smooth and complexion-
friendly allen bolt. The bicycle has never been in better shape.

So it is my sad duty to have to report on the ruin of cycling itself. Just a week of regular city
riding has revealed how much the spirit of cycling has been repressed.

We'll start with my local network of cycle lanes, which have been made so incomprehensible and
fatuously pedantic that no one takes any notice of them. And rightly so, because attempts to
regulate bicycle riding run contrary to the urge for total independence that made us crave the
things as children. A mate of mine reports on a new cycle lane near his house that ends suddenly
and abruptly at the edge of a disused canal. At best this explains why disused canals are always
full of rusty bicycles.

And what's with these so-called "advanced stop lines" that allow cyclists to wait ahead of cars at
traffic lights? I fail to see how placing a cyclist, inevitably stuck in 22nd gear, in front of my
2·25-ton motor just as the lights change helps the cause of bicycling in any way. Never mind that
all this stuff costs hundreds of thousands of pounds that could have been spent on hospitals or
housing for the residentially challenged.

What bothers me most, however, is the demeanour of my fellow riders. Every morning I cycle along
the nearby riverside for six miles, in rain, wind, the lot. So do many other people. And so I
wave, I shout ``Good morning'' and other encouragements, or at least deliver the traditional
English acknowledgement of a faint nod.

What do I get in return? Nothing. They hunker into their waterproof-but-breathable gaily coloured,
cycling clothing, stare hard at lightweight front wheels extruded from 100 per cent unobtanium, or
tilt their heads so their eyes are shielded by their stupid polystyrene hats. In a week of riding
not one of dozens and dozens of riders - men, women, young and old - has returned my greeting.

I suspect that, because I ride in my normal clothes and a pair of proper shoes, they think I'm not
a ``real'' cyclist. And this is exactly where we're going wrong. There is not, and shouldn't be,
any such thing as a ``real'' cyclist.

Cycling, as I see it, is a celebration of elemental freedom; like the local pub, it is a great
social leveller that admits anyone and asks for nothing in return. There are no qualifications, no
exclusions and no burdens attendant on its pursuit. That's as it should be. That way, the machine
that revealed the marvel of personal mobility to the masses will continue to make sense a century
and a half after its creation.

But I can't help a nagging suspicion that it is now being hijacked, by mealy-mouthed local
government activists, people with a point to make and, worst of all, downright miserablists.

So if you happen to be one of those riders who uses my local route, do us a favour. Do something
positive for cycling. Give us a wave.

. James May co-presents Top Gear, which returns to BBC2 in April

Just get on with riding and stop whining Mr May. All the riders you saw were being part of the
solution, not part of the problem, applaud them for that instead of chastising them. Some folk wave
some don't. Why do people get hung up with this ? If I said hello to every pedestrian when I walked
through the city centre folk would think I was some sort of nutter.

--
The Reply & From email addresses are checked rarely. mseries.freeserve.co.ukmseries.freeserve.co.ukOpen ↗

In article <[email hidden]>,

David Martin said:

So cycling is getting the Top Gear treatment.

It must cause some serious cognitive dissonance to the more hardcode cyclists when a presenter of
Top Gear starts expressing sound views on cycling in general and helmets and cycle lanes in
particular.

ian

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:17:35 -0000, MSeries <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Just get on with riding and stop whining Mr May. All the riders you saw were being part of the
solution, not part of the problem, applaud them for that instead of chastising them. Some folk
wave some don't. Why do people get hung up with this ? If I said hello to every pedestrian when I
walked through the city centre folk would think I was some sort of nutter.

It vey much depends where you cycle too. If I'm out in the country all manor of cyclists, real and
virtual, will acknowledge me and me them. In town, as you suggest, it would be barmy, and probably
dangerous, to wave to every cyclist.

Colin
--

MSeries said:

Some folk wave some don't

Here is one of the tasks delegated to the stoker. To wave at cyclists and pedestrians 🙂

--
replace deadspam with btinternet to reply Tom Anderson Leighton Buzzard England

Ian G Batten said:

In article <[email hidden]>, David Martin

Quoted message said:

So cycling is getting the Top Gear treatment.

It must cause some serious cognitive dissonance to the more hardcode cyclists when a presenter of
Top Gear starts expressing sound views on cycling in general and helmets and cycle lanes in
particular.

ian

Why? Many of the problems facing cyclists are broadly the same as those facing motorists (and vice
versa). Additionally,many of the reasons why cyclists cycle are the same as the reasons why
motorists drive. [1]

Think about it - the problems are largely the same for all road users. We're all fed up with
unconsiderate road users; we're all fed up with being tarred with the same brush as those idiots;
and above all we're all fed up of having to be treated like idiots in order to protect those idiots
from themselves.

Or at least, thats my take on the situation.

[1] Obviously, cyclist != Bollen-esque lycra lout and motorist != Daily-mail reading cager in this
context - rather I refer to those whose choice in transport is largely based on the fact they
enjoy their choosen mode of transport, admit as much, and thus don't need to resort to dodgy
reasons to justify their choice.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Nathaniel David
Why? Many of the problems facing cyclists are broadly the same as those facing motorists (and vice
versa). Additionally,many of the reasons why cyclists cycle are the same as the reasons why
motorists drive. [1]

Think about it - the problems are largely the same for all road users. We're all fed up with
unconsiderate road users; we're all fed up with being tarred with the same brush as those idiots;
and above all we're all fed up of having to be treated like idiots in order to protect those idiots
from themselves.

Or at least, thats my take on the situation.

I disagree.
Get hit by a car you get bruses, breaks or death. Hit a car, the car gets a scratch. The problems are much more serious for riders.
Thats just my take!

"2LAP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nathaniel David said:

Why? Many of the problems facing cyclists are broadly the same as

those

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

facing motorists (and vice versa). Additionally,many of the reasons

why

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

cyclists cycle are the same as the reasons why motorists drive. [1] Think about it - the
problems are largely the same for all road users. We're all fed up with unconsiderate road
users; we're all fed up with being tarred with the same brush as those idiots; and above all
we're all fed up of having to be treated like idiots in order to protect

those

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

idiots from themselves. Or at least, thats my take on the situation.

I disagree. Get hit by a car you get bruses, breaks or death. Hit a car, the car gets a scratch.
The problems are much more serious for riders. Thats just my take!

I think you're missing my point somewhat. What I'm saying is that in order to reduce road
casualties, the government is having to regulate and nanny road users (motorised or otherwise).
Whilst I unreservadely agree that reducing road casualties is a good thing, and that regulation is
necessary I think its a great that regulation is necessary, and that cycling and motoring would be
rather more enjoyable if society behaved sensibly and didn't need regulating - it would be more
human for a start. Additionally, we could dispense with lots of unnecessary and ugly traffic signs,
cameras and calming schemes, our roads would be more friendly to all road users and we could take
traffic police off the roads onto doing other things - as all of these things would become
redundant. Everyone would win.

Now I'm not suggesting that if all traffic law was repealed over night that the roads would suddenly
become safer and more pleasant, however, I am saying we should be aiming for a society were people
can be trusted and don't need telling what to do. Sadly, the thinking at the minute seems to be the
opposite - Northants CC have felt the need to put up signs on the A428 to remind road users that
traffic at junctions might turn. I'm sure you'll agree that its sad that society has become so
irresponsible that LAs feel the need to state the obvious.

I think you're missing point by making it a car vs. bike issue, and too many people make road safety
a battle between the car and everyone else. The problem is sensible road users against idiotic road
users, regardless if they have 2 or 4 (or any number, or none at all) of wheels.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Nathaniel Porte
"I think you're missing my point somewhat. What I'm saying is that in order to reduce road
casualties, the government is having to regulate and nanny road users (motorised or otherwise).
Whilst I unreservadely agree that reducing road casualties is a good thing, and that regulation is
necessary I think its a great that regulation is necessary, and that cycling and motoring would be
rather more enjoyable if society behaved sensibly and didn't need regulating - it would be more
human for a start. Additionally, we could dispense with lots of unnecessary and ugly traffic signs,
cameras and calming schemes, our roads would be more friendly to all road users and we could take
traffic police off the roads onto doing other things - as all of these things would become
redundant. Everyone would win.

Now I'm not suggesting that if all traffic law was repealed over night that the roads would suddenly
become safer and more pleasant, however, I am saying we should be aiming for a society were people
can be trusted and don't need telling what to do. Sadly, the thinking at the minute seems to be the
opposite - Northants CC have felt the need to put up signs on the A428 to remind road users that
traffic at junctions might turn. I'm sure you'll agree that its sad that society has become so
irresponsible that LAs feel the need to state the obvious.

I think you're missing point by making it a car vs. bike issue, and too many people make road safety
a battle between the car and everyone else. The problem is sensible road users against idiotic road
users, regardless if they have 2 or 4 (or any number, or none at all) of wheels.

I agree that we need to get rid of idiotic road users; its just that when two wheels meet 4 the 2 wheelers always come off worse!

But how would that be acheived, more regulation to remove idiotic road users? More bans? Raise the age at which you can start driving? More punishments for cyclists and horse riders not observing road rules?

At least public transport would get a boost.

"2LAP" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nathaniel Porte said:

"I think you're missing my point somewhat. What I'm saying is that in order to reduce road
casualties, the government is having to regulate and nanny road users (motorised or
otherwise). Whilst I unreservadely agree that reducing road casualties is a good thing, and
that

regulation

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is necessary I think its a great that regulation is necessary, and

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

cycling and motoring would be rather more enjoyable if society behaved sensibly and didn't
need regulating - it would be more human for a start. Additionally, we could dispense with
lots of unnecessary and

ugly

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

traffic signs, cameras and calming schemes, our roads would be more friendly to all road users
and we could take traffic police off the roads onto doing other things - as all of these
things would become redundant. Everyone would win. Now I'm not suggesting that if all traffic
law was repealed over night that the roads would suddenly become safer and more pleasant,
however,

I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

am saying we should be aiming for a society were people can be trusted and don't need telling
what to do. Sadly, the thinking at the minute seems to be the opposite - Northants CC have
felt the need to put up signs on the A428 to remind road users that traffic at junctions might
turn. I'm sure you'll agree that its sad that society has become so irresponsible that LAs
feel the need to state the obvious. I think you're missing point by making it a car vs. bike
issue, and too many people make road safety a battle between the car and everyone else. The
problem is sensible road users against idiotic road users, regardless if they have 2 or 4 (or
any number, or none at all) of wheels.

I agree that we need to get rid of idiotic road users; its just that when two wheels meet 4 the 2
wheelers always come off worse!

Of course

Quoted message said:

But how would that be acheived, more regulation to remove idiotic road users?

That's the trouble - more regulation in order to reduce regulation is a bit of a contradiction :-)

Quoted message said:

More bans?

I certainly think people who are involved in accident where they failed to do everything reasonable
to avoid that accident should be banned for a minimum of say, three months. Ideally they'd be
retested, but the driving test system is under enough strain as it is.

Quoted message said:

Raise the age at which you can start driving?

I don't think so. Young people can be responsible.

Quoted message said:

More punishments for cyclists and horse riders not observing road rules?

That'd come later (if indeed at all)- obviously bad drivers are much more of a problem and need to
be sorted out first.

Quoted message said:

At least public transport would get a boost.

2LAP said:

Nathaniel Porte said:

"I think you're missing my point somewhat. What I'm saying is that in order to reduce road
casualties, the government is having to regulate and nanny road users (motorised or otherwise).
Whilst I unreservadely agree that reducing road casualties is a good thing, and that regulation
is necessary I think its a great that regulation is necessary, and that cycling and motoring
would be rather more enjoyable if society behaved sensibly and didn't need regulating - it
would be more human for a start. Additionally, we could dispense with lots of unnecessary and
ugly traffic signs, cameras and calming schemes, our roads would be more friendly to all road
users and we could take traffic police off the roads onto doing other things - as all of these
things would become redundant. Everyone would win. Now I'm not suggesting that if all traffic
law was repealed over night that the roads would suddenly become safer and more pleasant,
however, I am saying we should be aiming for a society were people can be trusted and don't
need telling what to do. Sadly, the thinking at the minute seems to be the opposite - Northants
CC have felt the need to put up signs on the A428 to remind road users that traffic at
junctions might turn. I'm sure you'll agree that its sad that society has become so
irresponsible that LAs feel the need to state the obvious. I think you're missing point by
making it a car vs. bike issue, and too many people make road safety a battle between the car
and everyone else. The problem is sensible road users against idiotic road users, regardless if
they have 2 or 4 (or any number, or none at all) of wheels.

I agree that we need to get rid of idiotic road users; its just that when two wheels meet 4 the 2
wheelers always come off worse!

But how would that be acheived, more regulation to remove idiotic road users?

There's plenty of regulation already. There's not actually much traffic law that I object to (except
a few odd quirks like dynamo lit bikes having to turn right from the left of the road). I just wish
people would (or could be made to) respect *existing* regulation.

Quoted message said:

More bans?

Now you're talking.

Quoted message said:

Raise the age at which you can start driving?

V. good idea. The current set up puts a particularly reckless age group on the road and, more
importantly, also puts them straight into car-dependancy. There is no longer a phase in many
people's lives where they get used to travelling without a car.

Quoted message said:

More punishments for cyclists and horse riders not observing road rules?

For *all* trangressors. But, back on old ground here, if we hve to focus efforts let's start on the
real killers - we can get round to horses later.

Quoted message said:

At least public transport would get a boost.

Yup.