Susan, I'm not sure you're getting that quite right. What we often see written is similar to: "I hate cyclists, they don't stop at red lights!" "I hate cyclists, they ride on pavements!" "I hate cyclists, they don't have lights at night!" These are classic examples of generalisations. This immediately gets the back up of people who cycle that don't jump red lights, ride along the pavement and light themselves up at night. When the generalisation is rightfully challenged, the person making it tends to dig deeper and we get into more generalisations and more recriminations for the generalisations. As a cyclist who doesn't jump red lights, stays on the road or designated cycle path and is properly lit at night, why should I have to those generlisations that as a person from somebody else? If you take it to the extreme, it's hate speech; speech designed to make people hate a group as a whole. Also, yes some cyclists jump red lights, ride on pavements and have no lights which is wrong*, but if you're going to be killed or injured by something doing either of the former two things it's pretty certain going to be a motorised vehicle that does it for you. Cyclists have killed two or three people in collisions in the last 10 years, motorists of course have killed thousands. What should our efforts in law enforcement be concentrated on. It's a no brainer for me!
Paul James ● 4157d