chris harrison said:Just how much espirit de corps should cyclists exhibit toward each other? I speak as someone who
doesn't go through red lights, never rides on pavements, avoids going the wrong down one-way
streets, generally stops on or near the front white line at junctions, always uses lights (often
when it's not dark) and has much reflective tape, clothing and equipment.
IMHO there is an unjustifiable "us and them" attitude in this group and it's (probably) similar in
uk.tosspot, in which in this group (drivers == bad) and (cyclists == good) and if there is any
description of an altercation it's generally accepted that (cyclist == in the right) and (driver ==
in the wrong) because after all cyclists are vulnerable road users and so have a right to be
specially protected by motorists.
Often it is justified, but equally often it isn't. Cyclists are indeed vulnerable road users and
motorisits have a duty of care towards them as they do towards all other road users, but no more so
than they do towards any other road user. Motorists don't deliberately target cyclists, irrespective
of the stories that are often told here - those same stupid motorists who star in anecdotes in here
will be acting just as aggressively towards all other road users. As far as I can see, there is as
much aggressive thought and behaviour towards motorists by cyclists (and indeed towards other
cyclists) as the other way round. The difference is that a motorist in a ton of car is scarier in
all ways to a cyclist than a cyclist on a flimsy bike is towards a motorist. Neither forms of
aggression are in any way acceptable, though.
If I'm honest, I probably see more examples of stupid cyclist behaviour as a percentage of cyclists
seen than I do driver stupidity. Cycling stupidity is generally the most stupid, because the person
who is most likely to be injured by it is the cyclist - how stupid is that, to deliberately enhance
your own chances of being injured? It's stupider than stupidity shown by a car driver, who is far
more likely to injure others rather than himself - note that I am not equating "less stupid" with
"morally more acceptable" though, because of course it's far more acceptable in a moral sense to
increase your own risk though your own stupidity than to increase someone else's risk through your
own stupidity.
So, no, I don't think that being a cyclist engenders in itself any particular esprit de corps with
other cyclists. I have many things in common with many other cyclists, but then there are
intersections of commonality as a cyclist with many motorists, and as a motorist with many cyclists,
etc ad infinitum. I probably have a lot in common with many football supporters, too, although I've
only ever watched half a dozen games on the TV in my life! As an Australian living in England, I
even have something in common with the English Rugby team, but it's slipped my mind what? Oh yeah,
that's right, I live here :-)
Trev