Originally Posted by
I-Like-To-Bike
Yes, Someone does. Everyone who doesn't fit your approved profile for a cyclist is one of the unworthy untermenchen on bicycles who don't count in your scheme of cycling.
Self Identified Cyclists? Is that the new name used by those who preciously identified themselves as Real Cyclists, True Cyclists, Competent Cyclists, and/or Serious Cyclists?
Originally Posted by
buzzman
Looks like ILTB beat me to it but I will add a voice to the chorus. Yes, you are right I
do have issues. I have issues with those who claim the moniker (self identify) as "
cyclists" and presume to speak and advocate for every one who rides a bike.
I am really curious how you "self identify" as a "cyclist" and what parameters you are using to make that claim.
If you don't mind carrying over this conversation to
this new thread since it veers us off the topic of "come from behind collisions" and bicyclist fatalities- though maybe there are no real "bicyclist" fatalities involved according to some posters or none/not enough worth getting concerned about.
Both of you need external validation of who you yourselves think you are, pretty serious issues.
What matters in an identity is not someone else's understanding but each person understanding of themselves.
Many, perhaps most people who ride bikes don't think of themselves as "cyclists", even though they ride bikes. Call them that and you'll likely get an ear full of what they think "cyclists" are like. Down here, it involves a rather negative view of lycra, leg shaving, racing, performance enhancers, a particular attitude, and a big dose of "you're not from around here, are you?".... But they still ride bikes... And they do make up a disproportionate number of fatalities.
A neighborhood kid loves riding, but you'd get an earful if you called him a "cyclist". I can't take him on any rides, but the MUP as he insists on riding against traffic.
Me? I'm many things, but I'm not a "cyclist" either... I do ride bikes a fair number of miles a year.
However, I do not ride on sidewalks. Unless there's no other way, a couple bridges over highways are not in my opinion suitable to taking a lane. There's no way a driver could see you in the lane in time to slow down given the usual and customary speed (well over speed limit). The sight lines are just too short for those speeds, yet those are the speeds.
But then, I'm not advocating anything for anybody. Just recognition of the reality that certain behaviors have an extreme risk. Given the numbers of people who ride bikes and do those things, they skew the overall data enough to make the data not applicable to those that don't.
And that the numbers are such that even if you did the high risk behaviors in the same proportion as people who ride bikes. Your overall risk of death is reduced given the offset of the most common way to die, cardiac issues. Think driving across country to flying. Some people do die in airplanes, but it is very few per trip/mile. So if fly instead of drive, there is a extremely small risk of dying in the plane, but it is ever so much less the dying in a car had you drove.
Originally Posted by
buzzman
I guess you've kind of answered what I just asked in the other thread I created to address this issue, which, for me, is a separate issue than the "come from behind issue" of the OP. If you don't mind, I'd like to quote this in the other thread and respond there.
Mirrors are a good thing. Allows me to be more aware of what's coming at me, and at times the need to get off the road. Freddly? perhaps... But don't really care...