Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think


Lewes Forum New message

Threatening behaviour

4
 
On 30 Aug 2011 at 12:45pm cycleman wrote:
This links to an earlier thread originally entitled 'near death experience' which i had hoped would be about improving safety for cyclists but has developed into a mix of interesting contributions and abuse.
'man white van' posted 'Appologies cycleman, next time I'll make sure it's a 'death experience'. Give you something to really whinge about.'
There is no reason I should not report that to the police as threatening behaviour. I can't believe that it is still there and this person is still able to post on this site.
Why do we have to put up with this? Threatening to kill someone does not represent freedom of speech.
1
 
On 30 Aug 2011 at 12:52pm Mr Forks wrote:
I believe it probably represents the term 'humour' in some peoples eyes, not condoning, just saying!
1
 
On 30 Aug 2011 at 12:59pm Yawn... wrote:
Humour is supposed to be funny.
 
 
On 30 Aug 2011 at 1:21pm 'ere be monsters wrote:
It was a ludicrous posting and I can't imagine it was done by the person in the van that you hurled abuse at. Perhaps getting the Police involved could be a little over dramatic, unless you do actually think that this particular poster knows who you are and is a real threat to your life of course.
4
 
On 30 Aug 2011 at 2:23pm Fellow Cyclist wrote:
I am a keen cyclist but sometimes when in my car I see behaviour by cyclists that makes me cringe. Recently I was travelling through Offham towards Lewes when I met a tailback of traffic. It was caused by two cyclists riding alongside each other thus making it very difficult to get past them. A bit of consideration please.
 
 
On 30 Aug 2011 at 4:43pm bastian wrote:
I have to add that I did know someone who was killed doing that,as some one overtook they caught his sleeve pulling him under their wheels...not pleasant for his teenage friends.
howver there is alot of abuse on this site but I think that particular comment could have been meant to be humourus for other readers
2
 
On 30 Aug 2011 at 5:37pm Southover Queen wrote:
"I think that particular comment could have been meant to be humourus for other readers"
That's sort of my point, bastian: I don't see how wishing someone dead under the wheels of a van can ever be funny, even if there's not the remotest chance of it happening. What's more, even if it were funny, it's at the expense of Cycleman whose only sin seems to have been not to have had a serious enough accident. It's not exactly likely to foster a friendly atmosphere, is it?

Do other site users actually want a site where the default position is aggressive and negative? Maybe those who've been here for ages are used to it, but believe me when your first post is greeted with sarcasm and derision (and worse) it's very off-putting. I don't mind a bit of a scrap and I'm used to online forums, but my guess is that most people post once and don't ever come back. Is that what you all want?

2
 
On 30 Aug 2011 at 8:04pm Peter Byron wrote:
I have found Cyclists to be rather aggresive and anti-cars, now that is just my experience, but the fact they have to share the road with cars seems to bring out the devil in them, in my humble experience, mind you here in AD the cyclists are are whole different category, the live with cars and do not seem to have an agenda as they do in UK. Myself, am far too exhausted to cycle anywhere, too busy having a whale of a time to be honest. Best to all, Peter.
 
 
On 30 Aug 2011 at 8:32pm wallander wrote:
It's worth saying that the vast majority of cyclists either are or have been or will be motorists at sometime in their lives so it is not as if you are talking about two different tribes. Some cyclists are just very lazy and think that being on a bike absolves them from any responsibility for acting sensibly. There are plenty of adults who ride around Lewes at night without lights. If you say something they will often tell you to f... off. Hopefully they are insured so I can claim for damage to the paintwork as they go over the top of my car.(Joke) I cycle a lot myself and know what a pain lights are. It's no excuse.
2
2
On 30 Aug 2011 at 9:16pm Clifford wrote:
Peter Byron wrote: 'I have found Cyclists to be rather aggresive and anti-cars...'

And even more so, anti-pedestrians. Who hasn't been irritated by one of those 30-something middle-class twerps in shorts and helmet thundering along the pavement? As I keep saying, if you're grown up to ride a bike without stabilisers, you're grown up enough to ride on the road.
1
 
On 30 Aug 2011 at 10:47pm Grunge wrote:
Clifford, what on earth is this hang-up you have about class? Grow up. Do you have to prove your pedigree before acquiring a bicycle? I don't think so.
I will be more supportive of cyclists when they use a bell to warn unsuspecting pedestrians of their otherwise silent approach, when they carry insurance to cover any damage or injury they cause to others, and when they obey the rules of the road like anyone else.
1
1
On 30 Aug 2011 at 10:52pm Clifford wrote:
Grunge - what is this hang-up you have about references to class? Are you one of those people who tries to pretend class doesn't exist? To repeat '30-something middle-class twerps in shorts and helmets'. They know who they are and I think you probably do too. I see, as well, that you don't see anything wrong with cyclists riding on pavements.
1
 
On 30 Aug 2011 at 10:57pm Grunge wrote:
I certainly resent cyclists cycling on pavements, and would stick my umbrella into their spokes if I were brave enough.
I just wondered, as in the old cliche, if you wanted some salt and vinegar for the chip on your shoulder. Everyone's different, Clifford, and thank God for that; life would be a bit boring if we were all the same. No offence intended.
 
 
On 30 Aug 2011 at 11:02pm Pearlie wrote:
'No reason I should not report that' is that a double negative?
 
 
On 30 Aug 2011 at 11:02pm Pearlie wrote:
'No reason I should not report that' is that a double negative?
 
 
On 30 Aug 2011 at 11:29pm Harold wrote:
I find both those on foot and two wheels do not know what a drive /dropped curb is for and that cars and vans can reverse over the pavement onto said areas,if you walk or cycle close behind a van you cannot be seen, you may get hit, also for those on two wheels or four, there is a give way marking on the road at the bottom of Spital road /western road junction, this means stop if something is coming, not speed up....
1
 
On 31 Aug 2011 at 1:35am expat two wrote:
Jesus! Haven't you people heard of 'trolling'? Toughen up and accept it as a fact of life on internet forums - if you can't ignore it, accommodate it, or respond in like terms then internet forums are not for you.
 
 
On 31 Aug 2011 at 8:34am 'ere be monsters wrote:
SQ, I think you may have made a valid point about first time posters not understanding the postings by some on the forum and feel differently to how then posters want them to. This thread and the one it span off from began with the personal account of a near accident between a cyclist and a van. The result was the cyclist verbally abusing the driver of the van. Using such an over emotive phrase as "near death experience" was bound to attract derisive replies. Such replies would be recognised as black humour (something that as a nation we are renown for) and ignored by most who regularly visit this forum. Do you not think it a little strange that someone who feels they were nearly killed by an inconsiderate driver should not want to report that to the police, yet suggests he should report a banal posting that in reality poses absolutely no threat to his life?
1
 
On 31 Aug 2011 at 2:27pm Southover Queen wrote:
"SQ, I think you may have made a valid point about first time posters not understanding the postings by some on the forum and feel differently to how then posters want them to. " Thank you; I appreciate that.

"Using such an over emotive phrase as "near death experience" was bound to attract derisive replies. Such replies would be recognised as black humour (something that as a nation we are renown for) and ignored by most who regularly visit this forum."

Mmmm. The trouble is that none of us here were witnesses to the event, and we don't know whether it was exaggerated or not. Cycleman insists that it wasn't, and it seems that my mistake was to take him at face value. My difficulty is that I don't have enough information to arrive at any other conclusion, and I'd suggest that neither did the people who posted derisory comments immediately afterwards. By all means question the OP, get some more detail and then respond, but my problem is that everyone here jumps to conclusions based on negligible information and their own set of prejudices. So, for instance, if you're a pedestrian who's irritated by cycles on the pavement, your post attacks Cycleman for doing this.

I'm all for black humour, but not for black humour that's just not funny. Cyclists are vulnerable road users, so wishing them dead is just crass.

"..yet suggests he should report a banal posting that in reality poses absolutely no threat to his life?

I think this was a response to the general tone of the whole discussion, which was very hostile and also totally ignored the actual subject he was trying to introduce. No-one should be making death threats even if they're never going to carried out. Should Cycleman have reported the first incident to the police? I don't know; I don't have sufficient information and honestly it's not really relevant as far as I'm concerned.

In my early days here there was a suggestion that the introduction of registration might persuade some of the more aggressive and negative posters to moderate their behaviour, and particularly to stop people creating multiple personalities to flame other users. I don't know, but if it's true that most of the hostility emanates from one or two people who enjoy trolling then maybe that would be a good option. Certainly it's not a welcoming place for a newcomer.
1
1
On 31 Aug 2011 at 4:40pm Brrrp wrote:
Golly gosh and gee whizz, methinks some people like the sound of their own voices... swap emails and discuss it in private if you two insist on banging on about it.
Oh, and who gave you, SQ, the right to decide what constitutes funny?
It's getting a bit boring now.
3
 
On 31 Aug 2011 at 6:56pm Peter Byron wrote:
Relax my friends, the way this economy is going and the past behaviour of PROFIT driven banks we shall all be on our Bikes soon, there will be hardly any petrol available and will be too expensive, so let us all raleigh together ha ha. Best to all, Cyclists, Pedestrians and driver alike, we share the world and the roads my friends. PB
 
 
On 4 Sep 2011 at 10:28am gavin wrote:
Back to the OP - can you imagine Cycleman down the (new) cop shop explaining to some spotty 19 yr old copper that someone whose pseudonym is white van man made a threat to kill them on an anonymous forum. Can you that copper reaching over to press the big red button (cf X Factor or whichever of those crap programmes has big red buttons) to mobilise the local PCSOs to get on the case without delay. The phone lines between GCHQ and Lewes would be red hot as ISPs are summonsed to provide details of IP addresses etc etc.
Or maybe they just pat him/her on the head and send them off home with a promise to keep an eye out for men driving white vans whilst posting on this forum!
Hoorah for common sense!
Gav

Check it out here »
 
 
On 4 Sep 2011 at 11:38am Cllr Ashley Price wrote:
The difficulty is everybody sees other road/pavement users depending on how they themselves use the road.
There are some fantastic, well mannered cyclists out there, but from a pedestrian's point of view (as I don't drive) the ones (both adults and children) that come flying down Lansdown Place/Friars Walk the wrong way AND on the pavement and nearly knock you over (but give you abuse if you say anything to them) are beyond belief.
The most unbelievable one though was a father who was teaching his young daughter to cycle DOWN School Hill and weave around traffic (including lorries and buses) going up the Hill.
 
 
On 4 Sep 2011 at 11:42am Cllr Ashley Price wrote:
Oh, not forgetting the numerous cyclists that don't bother to stop at red lights, even when people are trying to cross.
On the other hand, I have been in the car when my wife is driving and seen cyclists weave all over the road making it impossible for my wife to pass them and we've had to proceed at a snail's pace.
But to balance the argument, I have also seen cars and other vehicles completely ignore the fact that it's a cycle lane and drive along it and hoot at the cyclists.
 
1
On 4 Sep 2011 at 11:49am demon wrote:
have you lot got nothing to do with your selfs but moan .get a life you bunch of conservatives
 
 
On 4 Sep 2011 at 11:54am Cllr Ashley Price wrote:
"Demon" you don't like the fact that people are "moaning" - yet you take the time to read, respond and insult them? And, to set the facts straight, I am a Green Party member - not Conservative.
 
 
On 4 Sep 2011 at 2:49pm girdle wrote:
Suddenly 'Conservative' is an insult?! What a pl0nker Demon is - poor attitude and an inability to string two sentences together without making schoolboy errors.
I'm off to shout obscenities out of my car window - "Get a life you Lib Dem!", "Sit on this you Green!". Oh yes, the fun I'm going to have!
G
2
 
On 4 Sep 2011 at 9:28pm SUSAN wrote:
When people say that pavement cyclists should ring a bell to warn people that they are passing, could you please remember that many people are deaf or hard of hearing?
They should just not be there at all. I used to enjoy walking, often quite long distances, but now there is no pleasure or relaxation in it as most pavement cyclists are aggressive, threatening, arrogant and careless.
1
 
On 5 Sep 2011 at 8:28am Cllr Ashley Price wrote:
Not just deaf and hard of hearing, Susan, there could be disabled pedestrians or elderly who will find it hard to get out of the way quickly, when they have a cyclist coming at them at speed and furiously ringing their bell.
1
1
On 5 Sep 2011 at 5:35pm Occasional Cyclist wrote:
"I used to enjoy walking, often quite long distances, but now there is no pleasure or relaxation in it as most pavement cyclists are aggressive, threatening, arrogant and careless."
I think a cyclist might say the same about cycling when cars or road layouts make cycling dangerous and unpleasant
 
1
On 5 Sep 2011 at 5:39pm Occasional Cyclist wrote:
It is a person on bike, a person driving a car people that like to whinge. Probably more reflective of the person than the fact that they are cycling
1
 
On 10 Sep 2011 at 5:35pm trixiebelle wrote:
The law states that you shouldn't ride a bike on the pavement. If you think the roads are dangerous then don't cycle on them. And contact your MP to sort the roads out - he is the Transport Minister after all....
Trixi


5 posts left

Your response


You must now log in (or register) to post
Click here to add a link »
Smile
Smile Wink Sad Confused Kiss Favourite Fishing Devil Cool

terms


 

Lewes Twitten 89:132
Lewes Twitten

Two thirds of the population say that it is dangerous to cycle on UK roads. If we are to encourage more people to use bikes... more
QUOTE OF THE MOMENT
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
George Orwell