Ship of Fools: What makes you furious?

Thread: What makes you furious? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025930

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I had an experience this evening that left me fuming, and I'm trying to unpick why.

I was at our joint church discussion group, usually an interesting, productive and thought provoking evening. However, on this occasion we had a visitor from the mainland who did a number of things over the course of the evening:
1) Decided that this would be a suitable time and place to hand out leaflets about a petition to "stop the government redefining marriage".
2) Casually dropped the word "sodomites" into the conversation, with the clear implication he was talking about homosexuality.
3) Strongly implied that those of us who were baptised as infants are not born again by water and the spirit and aren't really Christians.

Now, I'd prefer to avoid the dead horse(s) here, and focus on the level of anger this produced in me. If you disagree with me about the dead horse please try and substitute a less debatable injustice for comparison.

Now, I have no direct stake in same-sex marriage. I'm straight and already happily married to a woman and, while I have friends who are gay or bisexual, they're unlikely to be marrying any time soon. I'd like to believe my anger here is at what I perceive to be an injustice; that it was righteous fury. All I could manage was a curt "no thank you" through gritted teeth. First issue here is, of course, my lack of self-control. I would have liked to have calmly and politely challenged the gentleman in question on the issue, if only on the assumption that all Christians must automatically agree with him.

The third point came along later when I was already seething, but at least here my anger is explicable, if far from justifiable, as the insinuation was directed at my own faith and character.

I tried to think if there are other cases where I would perceive an injustice that would provoke a similar response in me. Some types of headship argument, perhaps, and certainly racism and xenophobia. I'm not sure whether it's the views themselves or hearing them presented as what Christians ought to think by someone in my own community. Certainly hearing public justifications of selfishness and greed masquerading as politics makes me angry. Obviously I see these views on the Internet, and don't experience the same level of fury.

I'd like to think that my rage is directed at the injustice and hypocrisy, and that is the only cause, but I have a niggling doubt that there is something else that I'm not prepared to admit that make me that angry.

I'm inclined to think that the rage itself is not of God. I don't think I have the right to that rage; it belongs to God alone if it is called for. I think that the fact that it left me speechless rather than erudite is perhaps an indication of that. I was too angry to challenge appropriately, and that means I was too angry.

Is there ever a place for righteous fury? Are there issues that make you unreasonably angry? How do you deal with it, has anyone managed to channel that anger into something useful?

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

What get's me mad is stupidity, by people you should know better . And I include myself
cause I can be stupid at times.
As to your visitor, did he ever hear of the virtue of Christian charity ? Of course 25 years ago I would have been giving him a big amen , I said I could be silly but I hope I have matured a bit. So there is hope for everyone and maybe we can all mature and get away from getting mad. Blessings PaulBC

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

Even though I would broadly (mutatis mutandis)agree with your "visitor from the mainland", I imagine that I too would have felt, if not blind fury, at least intense irritation, which might have resulted in taking the piss out of him with some sarcastic, faux naif questions.

I have often felt this exasperation with fellow-Christians with whom I agree, but whose personalities and modus operandi make them pains in the arse.

Like you, I am not clear as to the interpersonal dynamics involved, and am a little apprehensive as to what I might find if I delved too deeply.

Posted by Cedd007 (# 16180) on :

Been there; got the T-shirt etc. An ex-flatmate once got under my skin by announcing, very casually, after a discussion about baptism, “It's you Anglicans who've got the problem”. At the time I responded with inarticulate bluster. Years later he became a vicar. In other words there might be hope for your visitor.

If someone is doing something wrong it can quite naturally invite a physical response. Snatching leaflets from someone's hand isn't really in the spirit of a church discussion, but doing nothing allows inarticulate fury to set in! Shouldn't, therefore, someone have the authority either to say “do have a look at these leaflets” or, alternatively, “it's not our policy to give out leaflets in a discussion meeting”? Was there not a chairperson for the discussion? If there was, I'm inclined to think it was his or her fault for not challenging this gentleman's actions. Comments are slightly less of a problem because even in the absence of a chairperson offensive comments can be challenged by anyone in a discussion group.

A basic, and not altogether cynical, rule of Christian discussion meetings might be 'where two or three are gathered together there will be a dirty great argument'. Indeed, what our Lord actually said might indeed lead us to pray for the meeting in advance, as well as at the beginning of the meeting itself.

On a practical note, counting to ten before saying anything is probably a good idea on these occasions, or perhaps to a rather higher number in the situation you mention. If you're still shaking with fury and can't think of anything clever to say, there's always the statement of the b......g obvious ie 'You're giving out leaflets that we may not all agree with', 'That's a very offensive term', or 'Not all Christians would agree with that'. At least then you've said something.

Slightly better than this would be a humorous response, if you can think of one. I must confess that in our own church discussions when gay marriage is mentioned as 'the thin end of the wedge WHICH WILL END IN BIGAMY' I have quietly muttered the word 'Patriarchs' and got an enormous laugh. Better still, it gets people thinking rather than just indulging in rhetoric.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Sounds like you need to discuss what happened with the rest of the group. I would think there would have been others who would question the appropriateness of such an intrusion.

There are many things here on the mainland (if you are referring to the United States) that get me fuming--the lack of gun control, the GOP intrusion on the reproductive rights of citizens, the decline of the middle class, just to name a few. Redefining marriage is simply not on my list.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

Feeling trapped and powerless and being taken advantage of.

In fact, I can think of a situation which happened a few weeks ago where I got 'trapped in a web of politeness'. I was in a place where I'd come to see someone else and couldn't leave without missing them. The ethos of that place was to be polite and accepting and my ethos is to be nice to people who are obviously lonely and having a bad time.

However this got taken advantage of by someone who'd taken to trying to buttonhole me and then reeling off his grudges - so he'd end up bad-mouthing people I knew and regaling me with grudges going back decades. He did it again on this occasion - I wanted to tell him to piss off but was conscious of (1) where I was (2) trapped because there's no nice way to tell someone they're boring and nasty and you don't want to speak to them ever again.

So I finally made an excuse and left but I was seething with rage. Later I was able to look at things I could have said to draw some boundaries - but because getting trapped like that was unexpected I was caught out by feeling too angry to say something polite enough to feel OK with it. So I ended up letting myself get walked all over.

( I'd deliberately moved away from him and he came and muscled in on where I was sitting, taking someone else's seat to do it.)

There are probably certain unspoken expectations in your churches meeting - that people be 'Christian' gracious and nice and polite to each other, so if someone decides to violate those norms by bringing along something you experience as nasty and divisive and expecting people to sign up to it, then there's an element of being taken advantage of - put in a position where you have to be nice about something horrible, and the cumulative resentment that goes with it: of not easily being able to move away and of having to bite your tongue can make it a vicious circle of getting angrier and angrier and thus less and less able to express the anger in a socially acceptable way and thus even more resentful and even angrier...

I used the situation to look up resources and to brainstorm later how I'd act the next time and how I'd draw boundaries calmly with this person. As it happened I never got to practice this, as the venue we were both at closed recently.

You might want to have a talk with your group and ask about boundaries - are petitions/leaflets welcome or not? Where is the line drawn on hate speech?
cheers,
L

[ 12. July 2013, 01:07: Message edited by: Louise ]

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

People who are angry for limited or no reason, and decide to express this at whomever is present. I think the OP situation may be a situation of this.

Also, and more egregious, is people who enjoy causing pain, harm and discomfort of others. The enjoyment of pulling off the wings of flies, and the equivalent against other people.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Sounds like you need to discuss what happened with the rest of the group. I would think there would have been others who would question the appropriateness of such an intrusion.

There are many things here on the mainland (if you are referring to the United States) that get me fuming--the lack of gun control, the GOP intrusion on the reproductive rights of citizens, the decline of the middle class, just to name a few. Redefining marriage is simply not on my list.

No, he meant mainland Scotland. There is actually a bit of a cultural snub going on here as well to my mind. But I would have flared because the chap was damn rude, not because I necessarily disagree with him on the dead horses. On the topic of Baptism, on the other hand, I might have suggested 'outside and bring yer glass!'

BTW, it is a YMMV issue because one chaps wind up is another's self-evident truth. For example, even with gun control, criminals will still have guns; and 'reproductive rights' is another name for murdering those who do not happen to be born yet. As far I have been able to figure out both the elephants and the asses are gifted with making that one a political football. It depends which end of the telescope you are looking through.

PD

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

I'd be with Louise here: it's the feeling that the person has overstepped the boundaries of appropriate behaviour and you can't call them on it.

You don't say where this person had just come along, or been invited - either way, it was an offence against hospitality to commandeer the occasion for his own ends.

I remember being at a social evening at a friend's house once. I had a glass of wine, and another couple who were there (and drinking, I presume, neat lemon juice) undertook to tell me I was setting a Bad Example to other Christians. I actually felt the primary affront was to our host. And the unspoken rules that they were violating were of course the same ones which prevented me from telling them to go stick their head in a pig.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

Is there ever a place for righteous fury? Sure, if it gives us the courage or motivation to do the right thing when we wouldn't otherwise do it. Of course, theoretically, we could decide on the same response without the righteous fury and get the added benefit of remaining clear-headed, but that's not the kind of thing we're generally in a position to choose when the time comes.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

Is there ever a place for righteous fury?

Definitely. Often hard to discern tho!

I love the four fold benedictine blessing because it talks to this issue:

quote:
May God bless you with holy anger at injustice, oppression, and exploitation of people, so that you may tirelessly work for justice, freedom, and peace among all people.

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Is there ever a place for righteous fury? Sure, if it gives us the courage or motivation to do the right thing when we wouldn't otherwise do it. Of course, theoretically, we could decide on the same response without the righteous fury and get the added benefit of remaining clear-headed, but that's not the kind of thing we're generally in a position to choose when the time comes.

Exactly. I can't imagine the prophets speaking with the Zen-like tone of a meditation CD.

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I was too angry to challenge appropriately, and that means I was too angry.

I wanted to return to this, because it's a really good point.

One of my flashpoints is racism. It's so irrational and stupid. But when I get very angry (which is very rare), I become extremely emotional and incoherent. [Help]

It doesn't do me much good and I highly doubt it would do the offender much good either if I just yelled at them. Exploding at them simply escalates an already volatile situation, with the likelihood of a positive outcome, i.e. that person's mind and heart is changed, rapidly diminishing.

There is a place for righteous anger. Anger itself isn't sinful. Paul said, "In your anger do not sin," Ephesians 4: 26. Jesus certainly wasn't being a nice guy when He overthrew the moneychangers' tables in the Temple courts. At the same time, anger is so volatile an emotion that it's better to proceed with caution. Especially for us mere mortals.

And it is much better if people fuel their righteous anger at injustice into a campaign for justice.

I am not saying we should never confront anyone. But I think it is probably better if we confront a situation without being angry. Righteous confrontation need not, and probably should not, equal aggression.

Jesus and the moneychangers notwithstanding ...

Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :

Our church was engaged in a long-term building project that created genuine excitement and interest both in the congregation and the wider community. Before throwing the doors open to the public, there was to be a small, low key service of dedication (as low key as it gets when the bishop turns up, anyway) to end with holy communion. Church council members only, but there had been a similar dedication service before work began and there had also been family of council members at that, so I assumed the same would apply this time.

Only, as Lady J and I approached the doors before the start, the vicar stuck his head out and rather awkwardly told us the service it really was just for council members. So, I was in, she wasn't.

We were both a bit miffed - it could have been communicated better - but in the end I went in while she carried on with her walk.

The vicar began by telling we select few that this was a strictly informal service; indeed, if he saw anyone being formal he would kick them up the backside. Still coming down from the miffedness, I muttered to myself that it clearly wasn't that informal...

After some worship and a bit of bishop action my irritation was subsiding - I genuinely wanted to be part of this occasion. Then the proceedings were thrown open to spontaneous prayer. Someone prayed that this place would always be a friendly, open place of welcome.

At which point my annoyance all came back flooding back like a blocked toilet and I decided there was no way I could take communion under these circumstances. And so (very discreetly, I am an Anglican) I walked out, seething with hurt and fury.

So, what makes me furious, to answer the OP? In this case, apparently, a perfect storm of minor niggles. I have to say it doesn't happen that often.

Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I'd be with Louise here: it's the feeling that the person has overstepped the boundaries of appropriate behaviour and you can't call them on it.

And, for me, compounded by the ongoing feeling that there was, or should have been, something that I should have said or done at the time. The anger and frustration eat away.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Firenze:

quote:
I remember being at a social evening at a friend's house once. I had a glass of wine, and another couple who were there (and drinking, I presume, neat lemon juice) undertook to tell me I was setting a Bad Example to other Christians.

This is where I'd gently mention the wedding at Cana. And, no, the idea that Jesus produced fresh grape juice in those jars doesn't fly. Nobody would have pronounced that sort of liquid the "best" wine at a feast.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I can identify with this - there was a large group of people at a previous church whose small-mindedness and intolerance towards anyone whose lifestyle, choice of words, choice of partner, or choice of interests didn't fit their neat little image of what a Christian should be like, and who lost no opportunity to loudly proclaim against them. It didn't help that these people were strongly supported, listened to and approved of by those responsible for leading the church, because they were so 'godly'.

In the end I realised I'd have to stop getting so wound up (bad for my blood pressure) and take myself off somewhere else. They still have the same attitudes, but I didn't have to listen to them.

Posted by Liturgylover (# 15711) on :

I used to just feel embarrassed by this type of behaviour and then the anger would set in afterwards. Though I rarely encounter people as rude as you have described, I have now learnt the art of gentle assertion so that they are clear that their behaviour is rude and others may find it unnaceptable. Hopefully this will at least make them think twice before doing it again - it is amazing how if one person challenges, others are prepared to speak up.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

I think you are probably right to assume that your anger is not just about injustice or rudeness. All sorts of bad things are happening to people the whole time, including things that you probably think are worse than not being allowed to marry, but I expect you are not angry all the time. That is very natural as we could hardly function if we were always angry, but it surely means that feeling anger is telling us something about ourselves and how we handle certain situations, not just about the issues involved.

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

I have enjoyed this thread and am learning a lot, more about myself than about others.

I now live in a part of the country which has more right-wing Republicans, and fundamentalist evangelical Christians, than I ever imagined existed. This leads to casual discussions in which people you don't know well -- the kind of things that happen while dog-walking or shopping -- tend to assume that you share the world-view of their own circle, possibly confusing their circle with God's great wide world.

I'm not one to get furious. (I would probably say that "rather insensed" is my limit.) But I found that brief conversations nowadays often often led to derogatory (sometimes vicious) comments about the President, scorn for immigrant and Muslims, and that sort of thing. This often comes from people who know very little about the larger world, and who rely on stock phrases and attitudes provided from who-knows-what blog or tv commentator.

What insenses me is their assumption that I -- just because I'm a white male of a certain age -- would share their ghastly prejudices. That I am ... ugh! ... just like them. Since I don't know if I can control my tongue, I tend to disengage and depart quickly. I no longer care if this makes them uncomfortable or disrespected. To hell with them.

I also tend to get incensed when confronting people who either say "I assume you are a Christian" in the most unexpected, and to me inappropriate, places. Or ask outright and almost out of the blue, "are you a Christian?" My first reaction is "It's none of your business," which I'm unwilling to say out loud. Again, I've felt the need to retreat quickly. Now I say, "Probably not in the sense that you use the term. But it's been nice talking to you. So long."

Earlier, Evensong recommended reading a "Four-Fold Benedictine Blessing." The beginning of second blessing goes like this:

quote:
May God bless you with holy anger at injustice, oppression, and exploitation of people,

Then comes the zinger:

quote:
[B] ... so that you may tirelessly work for justice, freedom, and peace among all people.[B]

I've been wondering whether the energy I waste in getting upset about people I experience as bigoted and smug might better be spent on actually doing more to (a) help the victims of their bigotry and (b) confront and deal with my own varieties of smugness.

quote:
May God bless you with holy anger at injustice, oppression, and exploitation of people,

Then comes the zinger:

quote:
... so that you may tirelessly work for justice, freedom, and peace among all people.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I was at our joint church discussion group, usually an interesting, productive and thought provoking evening. However, on this occasion we had a visitor from the mainland who did a number of things over the course of the evening:
1) Decided that this would be a suitable time and place to hand out leaflets about a petition to "stop the government redefining marriage".

I find a cigarette lighter can be awfully prophetic in these situations.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:

Someone prayed that this place would always be a friendly, open place of welcome.

At which point my annoyance all came flooding back

That would make me furious - the disconnect between stated intention and practice. Even where both are well-meaning, the discrepancy somehow turns the initial disappointment into fury.

I remember having to get off a Tube train one stop early, because of a special announcement that for some unstated reason the train wouldn't be stopping at Kings Cross. Only a ten minute walk, but it would mean missing my train home and waiting an hour for the next. So I was a bit miffed. Until I saw the Underground notice (presumably intended for the guidance of tourists) saying "all trains stop at Kings Cross". At which point I was really livid... Somehow the lie is much worse than the original offense.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Thank you all for your thoughts, it has been an interesting read.

The group met again this week, minus our visitor. A number of people had approached me during the week, having noticed how upset I was, and checking if I was ok.

It was an interesting evening, and a man who I have a lot of respect for (he's very conservative - creationist indeed - but also very willing to listen to other people, and very humble in working out his faith) felt moved to raise the issues of gay marriage and gay ministry.

This didn't provoke my anger, perhaps because I know that any questioning or concern from this man comes from a place of sincerity and honesty. He wasn't looking to campaign, he was honestly seeking for truth and wanting to explore ideas. I wonder whether God held me back from speaking last week because the time wasn't right; that this was the time to have the discussion. Now, the mixed group of Presbyterians, Baptists and Anglicans had a range of opinions, and I wasn't surprised to find that most opposed gay marriage and gay ministers. This, again, didn't lead me to anger, because there was no presumption of agreement, no arrogance and, frankly, no rhetoric that set off my "fundamentalist" alarm.

Consequently I was able to lay out my reasoning and challenge some assumptions, and I don't think (and I certainly hope) that I was not too forceful in doing so.

It leaves me wondering whether the converse of the Spirit giving us the right words to speak is that when it is not the time to speak the Holy Spirit makes sure we shut up!

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

This is a very helpful thread for me - thanks.

quote:
That would make me furious - the disconnect between stated intention and practice.

Something like that has helped to drive me from a job recently. I think I've found I'm too much the child to deal with the 'We're going to relentlessly pursue quality and client satisfaction by <insert something cynical, stupid etc here>' - messages which my employer had taken to issuing on a weekly basis. Not having much in the way of reserves of urbane wit, or indeed self-confidence, I move rapidly to 'I'm not OK, and you f*ckers aren't either' and want to kill them all. What do Christians pray for, in terms of a healthy sense of self from which to ride out this sh*t? Not more Ego, surely?

In the meantime the future does not look very remunerative, unless I can come up with a different strategy from mentally machine-gunning everyone, or/and then finding relief in wine (real wine [Razz]

) and sleep.

Since I'm from a rather low church background, the idea that prayer might help strikes me as pertinent, but a bit abstract. Since spontaneous offerings like 'Lord, I just-wanna smash that c*cksuckers face repeatedly into the concrete floor' seem likely to take me in the wrong direction with my rage, I've taken to mentally reciting the Lord's Prayer, which is about all I know that seems suitable.

I have to say it seems to help, though it leaves me feeling like a bumpkin, mumbling incantations to myself. I suspect it might be possible to feel OK about this.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Since I'm from a rather low church background, the idea that prayer might help strikes me as pertinent, but a bit abstract. Since spontaneous offerings like 'Lord, I just-wanna smash that c*cksuckers face repeatedly into the concrete floor' seem likely to take me in the wrong direction with my rage...

That might be a very good prayer. God already knows what's on your mind, and if you bring up the subject, it gives him an opening.

Moo

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I'd like to think that my rage is directed at the injustice and hypocrisy, and that is the only cause, but I have a niggling doubt that there is something else that I'm not prepared to admit that make me that angry.

I'm inclined to think that the rage itself is not of God. I don't think I have the right to that rage; it belongs to God alone if it is called for. I think that the fact that it left me speechless rather than erudite is perhaps an indication of that. I was too angry to challenge appropriately, and that means I was too angry.

I tend to see this sort of anger as a human instinct - not good or bad in itself, but just an emotion that one feels and which can be very strong (especially if one is very tired, or hungry, or hormonal). I think it can be used for good or bad. Sometimes something can be so unexpected that I can't think of words to address it - just a feeling of anger, or confusion, or shock. So I wait to process it and then decide if I am going to address it. Although sometimes I address it there and then, which tends not to be the best option.

For myself, if I have a strong reaction of anger, I find it is from a mix of things, which generally include physiological factors like hormones/fatigue/sensory overload. I don't find it's ever a pure, righteous 'I am angry on God's behalf' type of anger. There's often a personal feeling of helplessness - a feeling of 'People are using illogical, inconsistent, self-centred reasons for their decisions, and won't acknowledge this, and people's lives are being adversely affected as a result - we are all subject to this kind of irrational, biased decision-making, and there are always inequalities of power.' And I am no doubt internally comparing with times when I have been on the receiving end of such behaviour, and feeling the feelings I felt at the time.

For me, various things can make me angry. For instance, when people make derogatory, sweeping statements and assumptions about groups of people, and no one challenges these assumptions because they are generally accepted, or seen as harmless fun. So things like sexism and racism, or even homophobia, don't make me so angry, because they get a lot of opposition. And I feel angry when people seem all self-righteous because they are opposing these things that it is common to oppose, but they still have prejudices that they don't acknowledge. Double standards can make me angry. And passive aggression, and when people play one-up-manship games and power games, rather than treating everyone like equals.

I tend to think about something afterwards, and decide whether it's worth addressing it - I think about how the influence this person will have, the likelihood of their changing, whether I can make a positive difference or if I'll just make things worse, etc.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Since I'm from a rather low church background, the idea that prayer might help strikes me as pertinent, but a bit abstract. Since spontaneous offerings like 'Lord, I just-wanna smash that c*cksuckers face repeatedly into the concrete floor' seem likely to take me in the wrong direction with my rage...
That might be a very good prayer. God already knows what's on your mind, and if you bring up the subject, it gives him an opening.

Moo

Yes, I say prayers like that, and they do open a dialogue with God. I find it useful, especially in terms of separating my own emotions and personal anger with what the person has done and how it should be addressed. I have decided I might as well tell God exactly how I'm feeling as he knows anyway, so it's better to talk about it with him and listen to what he has to say than to go my own way with it.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Since I'm from a rather low church background, the idea that prayer might help strikes me as pertinent, but a bit abstract. Since spontaneous offerings like 'Lord, I just-wanna smash that c*cksuckers face repeatedly into the concrete floor' seem likely to take me in the wrong direction with my rage...
That might be a very good prayer. God already knows what's on your mind, and if you bring up the subject, it gives him an opening.

Moo
Yes, I say prayers like that, and they do open a dialogue with God.

The rector of a church told me a story about his struggles with a very obstructive man in his parish. The priest kept trying to love him, but he couldn't manage it.

One day he prayed, "Lord, I just can't love this man." The answer came back, "I'm glad you finally realize that. Now get out of the way and let me do it."

Moo

Posted by Grammatica (# 13248) on :

This discussion is doing me a great deal of good. I want to thank you for it. I needed to read these things.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

What makes me furious?

Cyclists (especially family groups) who persist in clogging up one of our local lanes which happens to be a busy route between the local town and 5 popular, tourist attraction villages.

At HUGE expense a cycle track was constructed about 5 years ago: this caused major upheaval involving compulsory purchase of a strip of prime agricultural land shared among several farms. However, track was built and opened to great fanfare - and it was pointed out that by removing 3 narrow and sharp blind bends it would make cycling safer.

So how is it that one still encounters cyclists on the most dangerous stretch of the lane? Best example to-date: family of 5 riding 3 and 2 abreast, with a c5 year-old on the outside on a bike with stabilisers... [Eek!]

You agitated for safety and you got it - bloody well use it [Mad]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

If you got on a bike yourself and tried to use the cycle track you might find out why people avoid it, if it's anything like 95% of the so-called "facilities" around here.

Posted by OddJob (# 17591) on :

Apart from the cycling posts, is there a common trend here, namely one Christian applying their principles to their view of the World, then expressing shock and surprise when others reach a different conclusion? It's the reciprocal situation to being with a group of people, each holding strong and outspoken, but diverse political views. In practice there's often unanimity about the action the Government should take in any actual situation, even where you'd expect views to differ.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Karl: a medical condition precludes me from using a bicycle but the children use the track - in preference to the lane too. It is broad (you can get 3 abreast) and has a good surface and, unlike the lane, doesn't end up with over 6 inches of water when we get heavy rain... and yes, we still get cyclists in the lane even then.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

So how is it that one still encounters cyclists on the most dangerous stretch of the lane? Best example to-date: family of 5 riding 3 and 2 abreast, with a c5 year-old on the outside on a bike with stabilisers...

Maybe that family live on the lane, in which case the cycle path isn't much use to them. Maybe they are going to somewhere on the lane, in which case ditto.

(And like Karl, I have a well-earned skepticism about cycle paths. At least if you're cycling on the road, you can be fairly certain that there won't suddenly be a tree, a park bench, or an ornamental planter plonked square in your way.)

Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Feeling trapped and powerless and being taken advantage of.

Exactly.

When still fairly new in South Africa I took a Xhosa class. On one occasion the teacher treated us all to a lecture on racism in Britain today.

I have an English accent that everyone picks up on in the first sentence, so he knew there was a good chance that I was from the UK. Plus, while I agree there is plenty of racism in Britain, he was simply getting his facts wrong - such as "Stephen Lawrence was beaten to death by the police". And I was still reeling from the overt racism I was seeing in SA.

So I ended up feeling attacked, without being able to respond.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Karl: a medical condition precludes me from using a bicycle but the children use the track - in preference to the lane too. It is broad (you can get 3 abreast) and has a good surface and, unlike the lane, doesn't end up with over 6 inches of water when we get heavy rain... and yes, we still get cyclists in the lane even then.

Look at it this way. Either:

1. Cyclists have a bona fide reason unknown to you to use the road instead of the cycle path.

2. They aren't aware of the existence of the cycle path; perhaps the signage isn't that clear if you don't know it's there.

3. They're doing it solely to annoy you.

Now which do you think is more likely?

Can I also point out that the "most dangerous" part of the lane will be dangerous not because of cyclists but because of motorists. Why, then, is it the cyclists who should clear off instead of motorists driving more carefully?

[ 23. July 2013, 09:42: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Either:

1. Cyclists have a bona fide reason unknown to you to use the road instead of the cycle path.

They doubtless have a reason, but it does not have to be bona fide.

I have several times got home a good 10 minutes late because lycraman is cycling at rush-hour down a busy, two-way road, with too much oncoming traffic to allow easy overtaking and hence a massive build-up of cars behind him, while he blithely ignores the quite adequately signed and EMPTY two-way cycle lane that is available. His reasons I can only guess at, but I lean heavily towards concluding that he is just too achingly kewl, or serious, to be seen dead in a cycle lane when there is a real man's road to be cycling on.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Either:

1. Cyclists have a bona fide reason unknown to you to use the road instead of the cycle path.
They doubtless have a reason, but it does not have to be bona fide.

I have several times got home a good 10 minutes late because lycraman is cycling at rush-hour down a busy, two-way road, with too much oncoming traffic to allow easy overtaking and hence a massive build-up of cars behind him, while he blithely ignores the quite adequately signed and EMPTY two-way cycle lane that is available. His reasons I can only guess at, but I lean heavily towards concluding that he is just too achingly kewl, or serious, to be seen dead in a cycle lane when there is a real man's road to be cycling on.

And yet in my 45 years that's never happened to me. Weird innit? However, I've frequently been 10 minutes or so late because the road is full of queued motor vehicles.

You are aware that the DoT advice is that one should use the road, not a cycle path, if one is travelling above 18MPH? Perhaps that's why he's on the road, as a competent road cyclist will average 20-25mph on the flat.

Now, I'll grant you that in the situation you describe it's only courteous to pull in at lay-by or similar to let traffic pass, but I'd also say that what to you looks a perfectly adequate cycle path may not be to the cyclist. Does it, for example, require him to stop and give way at every side road?

Are you talking about a cycle lane (on road) or a cycle path (off road?) There's a difference there as well; the former at least tend to be free of obstructions although generally far too narrow; the latter are often poor of surface (not obvious unless you're a road cyclist) or very slow because of requiring giving way at every side road.

Trust me, as a road cyclist who often eschews cycle "facilities" and generally sticks to the road, it isn't because we enjoy having traffic bearing down on us. It's because, like you, we want to get home in a reasonable time without dodging bits of broken glass and having to give way every 200 yards.

Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :

The cycle path in question is 2 miles long and uninterrupted by sideroads, paths etc. However:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
You are aware that the DoT advice is that one should use the road, not a cycle path, if one is travelling above 18MPH? Perhaps that's why he's on the road, as a competent road cyclist will average 20-25mph on the flat.

I was not actually aware of that, and as the one thing I will grant lycraman is a decent lick of speed, relatively speaking, this effectively kills my complaint stone dead (with your other informed comments as the final shots in the back of its head). Thanks for the information; I shall endeavour to suppress my fury from hereon.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Karl, (and others)

1. The few houses in the lane are occupied by elderly - not people with children.

2. The signage for the cycle track is excellent.

3. The "most dangerous" part is because there are 3 90 degree bends ALL with adverse cambers - bad in the dry whether on 2 wheels or four, potentially lethal in the wet, even without the added joy of soil being washed onto the road from fields meaning the surface is nothing more than loose gravel etc.

4. I'm not knee-jerk anti-cyclist, but I am anti those who seem determined not to use common sense (or have a sense of self-preservation).

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Some of you get furious about far nobler things than I. The common theme in most of the times that I REALLY fly off the handle is being accused of doing the wrong thing when I was in the process of trying to do the right thing. It doesn't particularly matter what the right and wrong things are, it's the attack on my integrity that leaves me seeing red and breathing fireballs.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

Can I also point out that the "most dangerous" part of the lane will be dangerous not because of cyclists but because of motorists. Why, then, is it the cyclists who should clear off instead of motorists driving more carefully?

I disagree. Yes, the energy transference will more negatively affect the cyclist, however cyclists are as often at fault as the motorists, IME.
Sharing the road is fully the responsibility of both cyclists and motorists. However, as they incur more damage, it is prudent for cyclists to be more cautious.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Sharing the road is fully the responsibility of both cyclists and motorists.

Yup.

My particular bugbear are the cycle clubs we have around here. I quite often encounter a gang of 20 or so lycra-clad cyclists on my drive home, and they insist on riding in a clump and occupying the entire lane.

I know that you're having an enjoyable ride with your mates, and I'm happy for you, but this is also my commute home, and I'm hoping to be able to see my children before they go to bed. If you ride in single file like considerate people, the width of the roads around here mean that I barely have to cross the centerline in order to pass you at a generous safe distance. In your clump, I have to move fully into the opposite lane, which usually means I have to wait.

Yes, I know you're not going to delay be by more than a minute or so, but it's the principle of the thing.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Fuck the principle. Riding in clumps is just stupid.

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

If we're talking cyclists, perhaps if they stopped at red lights, it would be helpful as well.

M.

Edited to add: I'm not posting as a motorist here but as a pedestrian.

[ 25. July 2013, 06:56: Message edited by: M. ]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by M.:
If we're talking cyclists, perhaps if they stopped at red lights, it would be helpful as well.

M.

Edited to add: I'm not posting as a motorist here but as a pedestrian.

I'd be happy if motorists did the same.

Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :

On cycle paths, do people know about the Warrington Cycle Campaign Facility of the Month?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by M.:
If we're talking cyclists, perhaps if they stopped at red lights, it would be helpful as well.

M.

Edited to add: I'm not posting as a motorist here but as a pedestrian.

Perhaps if motorists didn't ignore speed limits it would be helpful as well.

What's that? Wrong to tar them all with the same brush?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

Can I also point out that the "most dangerous" part of the lane will be dangerous not because of cyclists but because of motorists. Why, then, is it the cyclists who should clear off instead of motorists driving more carefully?
I disagree. Yes, the energy transference will more negatively affect the cyclist, however cyclists are as often at fault as the motorists, IME.

Research findings don't agree with your experience.

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/drivers-at-fault-in-majority-of-cycling-accidents-28489/

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3758677.ece

http://lcc.org.uk/articles/addison-lee-chairman-wrong-to-blame-cyclists-because-most-crashes-are-caused-by-bad-driving

quote:
Sharing the road is fully the responsibility of both cyclists and motorists. However, as they incur more damage, it is prudent for cyclists to be more cautious.

Indeed. But it beats me how caution on my part can do anything about motorists pulling out of side roads in front of me, overtaking on my side of the road and driving straight at me, overtaking me and turning left at the same time, or any of the other things that actually kill and injure cyclists.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Fuck the principle. Riding in clumps is just stupid.

Is it? Which is easier to overtake? 20 cyclists 2 abreast, and therefore forming a group of 10 cycle lengths, or them in a long line forming a group of 20 cycle lengths? The former requires a smaller break in the oncoming traffic.

Generally, if you have enough space to overtake a lone cyclist you would have enough to overtake two abreast as in 99% of cases you will need to cross the centre line and therefore need no oncoming traffic anyway. If you're routinely overtaking lone cyclists without crossing the centre line, odds on you're too damned close. 1 metre clearance (that's end of handlebars to your wing mirror) is a minimum at 30mph; above that 1.5 to 2 metres should be given.

Trust me, closer than that and it can be very frightening, and is one of the reasons you see so many cyclists on pavements (something that annoys me) - they're too damned scared of the cars.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

By far the most common cause of serious accidents to cyclists is motorists turning across their path and siding into them whether at a junction or when overtaking. In most cases the motorist either didn't see the cyclist at all, or else misjudged their speed and assumed the were behind them. Cyclists are effectively invisible to motorists, even when wearing shiny yellow things or when using flashing lights, because the motorists are, quite sensibly, paying attention to the road ahead, and to other motor vehicles, and tend to miss what is between them and the kerb and what is behind them.

There are a number of ways cyclists can help protect themselves against that:

- occupy their full lane so overtakers need to cross into the next lane
- avoid riding in the gutter
- ride two or more abreast
- ride more slowly
- avoid riding in cycle lanes by the side of the road or on the pavement (sidewalk) if road junctions cross their path
- move to the front of a queue of stationary or slow traffic and position themselves in right front of the lead vehicle so they are easily seen
- start moving off from red lights just before they change

The most dangerous place for a cyclist to be is approaching a junction on the pedestrian side of moving traffic - whether in the gutter or on the pavement or on one of those roadside cycle lanes.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

I am generally courteous and considerate to cyclists . Until recently when encountering a 'clump' on my regular route home.
They were occupying the whole of one lane and part of the other doing about 5 mph uphill . A couple of them resisted my attempt to overtake, and it was necessary to sound the horn in order for them to show me some consideration.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I am generally courteous and considerate to cyclists . Until recently when encountering a 'clump' on my regular route home.
They were occupying the whole of one lane and part of the other doing about 5 mph uphill . A couple of them resisted my attempt to overtake, and it was necessary to sound the horn in order for them to show me some consideration.

Well don't let one group change your attitude to everyone else [Biased]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The most dangerous place for a cyclist to be is approaching a junction on the pedestrian side of moving traffic - whether in the gutter or on the pavement or on one of those roadside cycle lanes.

..... or anywhere near the wheels of an articulated lorry .

Common sense is extremely important on both sides of the cyclist/motorist divide.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The most dangerous place for a cyclist to be is approaching a junction on the pedestrian side of moving traffic - whether in the gutter or on the pavement or on one of those roadside cycle lanes.
..... or anywhere near the wheels of an articulated lorry .

Common sense is extremely important on both sides of the cyclist/motorist divide.

"Suicide lanes" don't help. These are the on-road cycle lanes that are on the left of a road near a junction, putting the cyclist following the "obvious" route right into the wrong place. Of course, the compounding issue here is that if there's an ASL at the head of the junction, the "suicide" lane is the only legal route into it for the cyclist. Who, on getting there, will find that the lorry that's about to kill them is blocking said ASL.

Recipe for disaster. The safest thing, of course, is to ignore the suicide lane, filter (if safe) to the front of the queue and sit in front of the lead vehicle, bearing in mind the blind spot directly in front of HGVs, even if that means crossing the stop line because the ASL is full of illegally stopped motor vehicles, and entering the ASL not through its feeder lane, and set off on the red+amber.

Unfortunately just "waiting your turn" isn't safe either as some berk will squeeze past you and then left hook you as he turns left.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I am courteous to cyclists, even the ones who I think are bastards. And yes, plenty of motorist are bastards and plenty are clueless and careless.
On open, straight road; riding multiple abreast might be safer. On twistie roads, especially in the hills or mountains it is stupid.
Cyclists should move over when cars approach and motorists should give plenty of space when passing. Simples.
But maintaining position because one feels the right to do so is dangerous, stupid and inconsiderate.
Ultimately, the motorist has the most responsibility as they have the most dangerous conveyance.
I suppose cyclists behaving poorly irritate me because, in a collision, the car might need dent repair, the cyclist might need mourners. Though I suppose "I was in my rights" makes as good an epitaph as any.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Can I make one alteration?

"Cyclists should move over to let faster traffic pass when it is safe and reasonable to do so."

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

'Here lies the body of Jonathan Gray
Who died defending his right of way;
He was right, dead right, as he sped along,
but he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.'

How did we get side-tracked?

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by M.:
If we're talking cyclists, perhaps if they stopped at red lights, it would be helpful as well.

M.

Edited to add: I'm not posting as a motorist here but as a pedestrian.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd be happy if motorists did the same.

Yes, I agree with that but certainly crossing red lights seems to happen more with cyclists than with motorists, at least in central London and my little part of Surrey (the areas I most frequently walk in).

Originally posted by Karl Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Perhaps if motorists didn't ignore speed limits it would be helpful as well.

What's that? Wrong to tar them all with the same brush?

I'm not sure what this has to do with my point about crossing red lights, although I'm sure some motorists do speed through them. I'm equally not sure what your last 2 sentences are getting at - I'm not suggesting that all cyclists break the lights, if that's what you mean.

Perhaps I should have made it clearer that my comment was a rather casual and shorthand way of suggesting the following: 'In my experience, and in the areas in which I am most likely to walk, there are quite a few cyclists who break the law by not stopping at red lights and I find - speaking only for myself - that it makes it difficult, somewhat anxiety-inducing and possibly even somewhat dangerous to attempt to cross the road.'

So sorry I wasn't clear.

M.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Can I make one alteration?

"Cyclists should move over to let faster traffic pass when it is safe and reasonable to do so."

Certainly. Safety for all should be paramount. Courtesy second, legality after.

Apologies, Eirenist, last on this from me.

Now back to our regular, scheduled outrage....

Posted by barrea (# 3211) on :

What makes me furious is the fact that Ship of Fools won't clean up it's act and ban all swearing from it's boards . Other Christian sites would not allow it and some of the secular sites to do not allow swearing. Not every one wants to see the F word and the C word banded about when reading posts. I think that the Hell site ought to be banned, it is absolutely disgusting and I have now stopped reading it, not that I used to read it much before. Nobody seems to realise how offensive SOFs has become has become, even on Purgatory.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
What makes me furious is the fact that Ship of Fools won't clean up it's act and ban all swearing from it's boards . Other Christian sites would not allow it and some of the secular sites to do not allow swearing. Not every one wants to see the F word and the C word banded about when reading posts.

I'm not sure that kind of language is un-Christian. I don't recall the Bible saying anything about it.

It is distasteful to me, but it doesn't bother me enough to make me stop reading.

Moo

Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
How did we get side-tracked?

Well, road rage on the part of different road users is probably one of the most common forms of anger. One might speculate why. The cyclist/car driver case does seem to be particularly fraught.

I think that cars are a particular problem because the driver is sealed in a box which isolates them from the world. Do drivers of open cars behave differently?

Another problem is that often the anger arises when one's sense of entitlement is violated. Not being able to overtake something going slower than one wishes to travel is an example. How many drivers say "I've paid my road tax", even though there is no such thing. Vehicle Excise Duty is paid according to the pollution from the car. Some pay nothing, are they less entitled to use the road?

I also wonder if there is a sense of superiority from car drivers: "I have a car and therefore I am of higher status than the poor and insignificant person on the bike."

But as a cyclist (and driver and pedestrian) I also get very annoyed at those who go through red lights and ride on footpaths, because it gives drivers cause to vilify all cyclists.

There are also a lot of very bad pedestrians as well, of course!

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Higgs Bosun:

quote:
I also wonder if there is a sense of superiority from car drivers: "I have a car and therefore I am of higher status than the poor and insignificant person on the bike."

There's a pecking order among car drivers too. Those of us in small nondescript (low-polluting) models are frequently carved up by people driving gas-guzzling 4x4 monstrosities or low-slung sports cars. Actually, you might be onto something with the open-top idea - I've noticed people in those tend to drive more considerately.

As a cyclist, I think the most frightening situation is going straight on in a dedicated cycle lane at a junction where there's a left lane controlled by a separate filter light... you have cars on both sides and the constant fear that someone will cut across the cycle lane without noticing you. Is that what you meant by suicide lanes, Karl?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Higgs Bosun:
quote:
I also wonder if there is a sense of superiority from car drivers: "I have a car and therefore I am of higher status than the poor and insignificant person on the bike."
There's a pecking order among car drivers too. Those of us in small nondescript (low-polluting) models are frequently carved up by people driving gas-guzzling 4x4 monstrosities or low-slung sports cars. Actually, you might be onto something with the open-top idea - I've noticed people in those tend to drive more considerately.

As a cyclist, I think the most frightening situation is going straight on in a dedicated cycle lane at a junction where there's a left lane controlled by a separate filter light... you have cars on both sides and the constant fear that someone will cut across the cycle lane without noticing you. Is that what you meant by suicide lanes, Karl?

No, they're bad but marginally better because at least you're not put on the left of left turning traffic. The Suicide Lanes are the one ones in the gutter that lead up the left hand side of the lane containing traffic some of which will turn left.

Left filter lanes are of Satan, especially where they're the type where the left hand lane becomes a left filter requiring the cyclist to change lanes into a right-hand lane where he's not expected. Especially bad when they occur uphill at around 10% gradient as Sheffield is particularly fond of so you're having to do this lane change wobbling up at 5-8mph.

With tramlines.

[ 25. July 2013, 13:28: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
What makes me furious is the fact that Ship of Fools won't clean up it's act and ban all swearing from it's boards . Other Christian sites would not allow it and some of the secular sites to do not allow swearing. Not every one wants to see the F word and the C word banded about when reading posts. I think that the Hell site ought to be banned, it is absolutely disgusting and I have now stopped reading it, not that I used to read it much before. Nobody seems to realise how offensive SOFs has become has become, even on Purgatory.

I've posted on those other Christian boards. They're generally pretty dull. Allowing - erm - freely worded expression - on SoF is one of the things that like it or not contributes to its diversity and liveliness.

Ditto Hell. Do you know, historically, why the Ship has a Hell? It's because, ultimately, it needed one.

I am aware that some secular boards don't allow naughty words. This is because they are not specifically aimed at adult debate. SoF is. The belief is that like the telly after 9pm, growm-ups can either cope with the contents of Roger's Profanisaurus, or know where the Off switch is.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Is it? Which is easier to overtake? 20 cyclists 2 abreast, and therefore forming a group of 10 cycle lengths, or them in a long line forming a group of 20 cycle lengths? The former requires a smaller break in the oncoming traffic.

Around here, the latter. The roads are sufficiently wide that a bicycle, several feet of space, and a car, very nearly all fit in half a road. On a typical UK road, I'd probably agree with you that 2 abreast is easier to overtake safely.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

Left filter lanes are of Satan, especially where they're the type where the left hand lane becomes a left filter requiring the cyclist to change lanes into a right-hand lane where he's not expected. Especially bad when they occur uphill at around 10% gradient as Sheffield is particularly fond of so you're having to do this lane change wobbling up at 5-8mph.

There is a cycle lane round here that does exactly that - there's a filter lane on the right for cars turning right, and a "cycle lane" marked by dashed white lines crossing this diagonally, for bicycles that want to go straight on. And yes, it's up one of our rare hills (but no trams!). I've seen cyclists come close to being flattened several times.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Yep, that's it.

Car moving forward intending to turn left. Driver knows perhaps that there is a pedestrian a few metres behind car. Driver uses mirror to check traffic behind and to right, eyeballs oncoming traffic, and looks into side road to ensure its empty. One last glance at mirror and moves off at about five or six metres a second. Pedestrian goes at two metres per second max, so car clears junction before pedestrian tries to cross.

Replace pedestrian with cyclist moving at same speed as car. Whoops!

Even worse if car is 18 metre artic. Driver can't see a thing to left, and when turning vehicle squeezes space between corner and kerb, or even overhangs kerb, forcing cyclist onto sidewalk at best, under wheels at worst.

Solution: cyclist positions themself in front of motor vehicle where they can be clearly seen, in lane, at least a metre away from kerb.

No solution: cyclist slows down or waits by side of road. Why no solution? Because they are then in the same danger from the next car or the next.

Some of the problem is ignorance. Cyclists often genuinely don't realise how restricted a view motorists have. Especially large vehicles. You are on a bike, you can see and hear all sorts of things. You are regularly looking behind you and to your right and left (or you are if you have any sense). Drivers can't see you the way you see them, they can't hear much at all, and they rarely look round - they are actively taught not to, they are trained to keep their eyes on the road ahead. So they really don't know you are there, so you have to make yourself visible by placing yourself in their filed of vision.

Drivers often genuinely don't realise how fast normal cyclists can go, or how much danger they are in from even small potholes and obstacles in the road, or how hard it is for them to start uphill. So they swerve or wobble or even change lanes to avoid things you can't see. And they are sometimes very reluctant to come to a complete stop if they can keep moving forward even at less than walking pace, especially uphill.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

As a comment on how wonderful bike lanes are in this country: on the lovely CS2 London Superhighway - 3 cyclist deaths and counting, there's a blue painted lane down part of the bus lane which is regularly parked over. Some of the junctions with lights have blue cross-hatched boxes where bikes are supposed to wait in front of the traffic. Guess what is mostly sitting in those boxes? Yep, cars.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

I'd agree with Ken that a lot of the problem is caused by ignorance. Some of the rest of it is just bad manners, with a side-order of entitlement: 'Is 20 seconds of my time worth risking someone else's life? Hell, yes!'

It's amusing (in a twisted way, and provided you still have all your limbs intact) when you catch up with these inconsiderate drivers at the next set of traffic lights.

I've become much more cautious about cycling since I learned to drive and realised how difficult it is to see cyclists in the dark... even for those of us who bother to look.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

Those who use foul language in rational discourse merely betray the poverty of their vocabulary and/or imagination.

Discuss.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Those who tie themselves into knots to avoid sullying their lips with 'foul' language would not recognise righteous indignation if it bit them in the arse.

Flanders and Swann disapproved of the indiscriminate use of swear words because 'if all these words come into common use we will have nothing left for special occasions'. They were not opposed to all use of strong language.

Furthermore, ideas of what constitutes foul language vary considerably.

I hope I have used enough polysyllabic words by now to convince you that I do not suffer from poverty of vocabulary, but if not I have plenty more where those came from.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

i expect the Jewish leaders of the time were fairly furious when one JC took to chucking the furnture around....?

Spect he didn't use 'nice ' language either.

Or is it perfectly reasonable to imagine Christ hurling furniture around withOUT being furious?

Now THAT's creepy.....

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Is it? Which is easier to overtake? 20 cyclists 2 abreast, and therefore forming a group of 10 cycle lengths, or them in a long line forming a group of 20 cycle lengths? The former requires a smaller break in the oncoming traffic.
Around here, the latter. The roads are sufficiently wide that a bicycle, several feet of space, and a car, very nearly all fit in half a road. On a typical UK road, I'd probably agree with you that 2 abreast is easier to overtake safely.

It doesn't make any difference in Newport. The majority of cyclists are on the pavement, and a increasing number are on the wrong side of the road (yes, facing the oncoming traffic including other cyclists and bikers!).

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
i expect the Jewish leaders of the time were fairly furious when one JC took to chucking the furnture around....?

Spect he didn't use 'nice ' language either.

Paul could be very outspoken. When he spoke out against church leadership that said all new Christians should be circumcised, he had this to say.

quote:
I wish they who trouble you would cut themselves off.

Here are other translations of this verse.

Moo

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Those who use foul language in rational discourse merely betray the poverty of their vocabulary and/or imagination.

Discuss.

Only true if it constantly permeates everything. Which would be true of ANY word, like, that, like, got used all the time, like, when it totally, like wasn't necessary.

Whereas a well placed swear word can be a thing of great power. I'm not particularly fond, for example, of having swear words liberally strewn through the songs I listen to, but there is a Pearl Jam song called 'Jeremy' that has a line: "he seemed a harmless little fuck". And there is simply no way to have anything like the same impact that this has in context. The swear word conveys a sense of contempt that is crucial to the song's narrative. It's absolutely the right word for the moment, and it doesn't display a lack of thought. Quite the reverse.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
i expect the Jewish leaders of the time were fairly furious when one JC took to chucking the furnture around....?

Spect he didn't use 'nice ' language either.

Or is it perfectly reasonable to imagine Christ hurling furniture around withOUT being furious?

Now THAT's creepy.....

Not using "nice" language doesn't mean swearing when he did it.

No one said he wasn't furious, it's just pretty unlikely I think that he used language of the "f" variety. Since Jesus did have a considerable amount to say about love and justice - and swearing at someone or to provoke then is hardly love - I'd take it that he didn't swear. He didn't need to for a start and being the ultimate example to us, he wouldn't want to.

The real test for those who argue that it is perfectly ok to use swear words is to ask them whether they

a) use it in church from the pulpit
b) whether they'd use it to their children or parents
c) where do you go - that is, what do you use - now those words have really lost their impact

If the answer to a and b is "no" then their swearing is simply for effect. There are lots of better ways to achieve this effect without that kind of language.

if it's c then it simply demonstrates the cultural conditioning they've got into.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
What makes me furious is the fact that Ship of Fools won't clean up it's act and ban all swearing from it's boards . Other Christian sites would not allow it and some of the secular sites to do not allow swearing. Not every one wants to see the F word and the C word banded about when reading posts. I think that the Hell site ought to be banned, it is absolutely disgusting and I have now stopped reading it, not that I used to read it much before. Nobody seems to realise how offensive SOFs has become has become, even on Purgatory.

IIRC the argument in the past has always been that this is not a Christian web site.

Be that as it may, I find swearing distasteful (in any context) whatever its source. It's sad that, on the ship, a proportion of those who recognise themselves as believers are as culturally conditioned in this area as everyone else.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Is it? Which is easier to overtake? 20 cyclists 2 abreast, and therefore forming a group of 10 cycle lengths, or them in a long line forming a group of 20 cycle lengths? The former requires a smaller break in the oncoming traffic.
Around here, the latter. The roads are sufficiently wide that a bicycle, several feet of space, and a car, very nearly all fit in half a road. On a typical UK road, I'd probably agree with you that 2 abreast is easier to overtake safely.
It doesn't make any difference in Newport. The majority of cyclists are on the pavement, and a increasing number are on the wrong side of the road (yes, facing the oncoming traffic including other cyclists and bikers!).

I've heard of Salmon Cyclists but not actually seen one in the flesh. These things tend to be geographical; anecdotal evidence is that red light jumping is particularly popular in London.

The pavement thing is weird. Why does an adult cycle on the pavement? I can only think of two reasons:

1. They're terrified to go on the road; I blame lack of cycle training - my local school has recently stopped doing Bikability for no reason I can gather other than "can't be arsed."

2. They started on the pavement as a child (as we all do) and have never realised that that's actually a societal concession (contrary to popular belief there is no law allowing children under a certain age or on bikes smaller than a particular size to use pavements) and that when they grow up the road is where they're meant to be.

Interestingly, if I do a count of cyclists on my way to work I generally find that it's about 50:50 - the 50% on the pavements are generally cheap full-suspension "mountain bikes" (scare quotes because they would actually fall to bits if you took them anywhere more challenging than a canal towpath, partly because the entire bike costs less than a serviceable rear suspension unit, and partly because the whole bike is made of cheese) with the saddle way too low. I've almost never seen a road bike illegally on the pavement. That could be used in support of either of my two hypotheses above.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Missed edit window, but excellent article here: http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki/cyclists-ride-pavements

FWIW I reckon a lot of offenders have the same attitude as a lot of motorists do to speeding - "yes, I know it's illegal but everyone does it so I will anyway."

[ 26. July 2013, 08:14: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Reading all those posts about cycling reminded me of the Sunday I couldn't make it to meeting because of some group who had adopted the local lanes for some social day out. They hadn't put up one of those CAUTION CYCLISTS notice, with a date, which would have affected my leaving time, and possibly route, though there isn't much choice.
The particular lane being a very odd one, with quite wide parts with single lane parts between them, and bendy, the options for overtaking are very limited.
First I came across an odd cyclist, followed by another, who was prepared to slow a bit in a wide part (I flashed my emergency lights in thanks) but then I found the peleton. They were not racing, which would have been an adequate speed, but pootling along for a pleasant Sunday outing. They took, initially, no notice of my presence. Then they decided that it would be appropriate to go into single file, which would have worked on a fairly straight road of constant width with two lanes. Totally impossible on the road concerned. 20 odd bikes, spread out, single lane so the option of giving them enough space wasn't there, and the chance of meeting an oncoming vehicle....
I had to give up and go down a side lane to find my way home. Only to find that that route would have been a no better alternative as there were oncoming cyclists on that lane as well.
The other infuriating road users round here are the drivers who feel that the 30 mph limit doesn't mean them, and insist on overtaking me on one particular part (two lanes, good visibility) as if I have deliberately been obstructing them. Mind you, I'd rather have them in front than behind, so close I can't read their number plate.
Oh, and back to cyclists - the other Sunday, different road, but still difficult to overtake on, I was behind a single lycra wearer for some time - he was going at a fair speed, I gave him some room ahead of me, and when I eventually got past, he waved. Much appreciated, that. Showed he knew I was there, and appreciated the way I had been driving.

Posted by wishandaprayer (# 17673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
What makes me furious is the fact that Ship of Fools won't clean up it's act and ban all swearing from it's boards.

I always wondered what type of person regularly writes in to Ofcom...

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I've read Karl's link. This is why my bike is in my garage and I don't use it. My architect designed village is a bit of a Milton Keynes Mini-me, apart from not having cycle paths. It bans bikes from the many footpaths.
The bit of road on which the cars who do not observe the speed limit, see above, gave me the heebie-jeebies on the one time I cycled down it to buy replacement brake blocks.
I hardly ever see utility cyclists about, and I know why.
This causes a sort of slow burn irritation rather than fury.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

But how does a liberal scattering of offensive words constitute 'swearing'? You're not invoking the name of God to bear witness to the truth of what you're saying. It is unfortunate that, partly due to the historical development of Christianity, we have come to regard the act of love as disgusting. Like the name of God, it should not be invoked lightly. It is a divine gift and a foretaste of Heaven, too precious to be used as an expletive.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
What makes me furious is the fact that Ship of Fools won't clean up it's act and ban all swearing from it's boards.

What makes me furious is aberrant apostrophe's. [Biased]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well, swearing has it's proponents and it's opponents; its well known that faulty education is to blame.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The real test for those who argue that it is perfectly ok to use swear words is to ask them whether they

a) use it in church from the pulpit
b) whether they'd use it to their children or parents
c) where do you go - that is, what do you use - now those words have really lost their impact

a) sometimes b and c) often

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I'm not sure what the 'real test' means in any case. All language is context dependent, so what?

The fact I don't use certain words and expressions everywhere, doesn't really invalidate using them somewhere, does it? For example, I call my wife certain affectionate and idiosyncratic terms, which I would not use to the milkman, or my neighbour. I can't see that this has any implications for language use, except that it is sometimes specialized, sometimes not.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The real test for those who argue that it is perfectly ok to use swear words is to ask them whether they

a) use it in church from the pulpit
b) whether they'd use it to their children or parents
c) where do you go - that is, what do you use - now those words have really lost their impact

I use foul and abusive language far more on the Ship than in RL, simply because it isn't real life and one has fewer tools available.

In RL I tend to speak slower and drop the tone of my voice for emphasis or when I might otherwise let rip. I abruptly stop talking when interrupted if I am interrupted! That gets through after about three goes.

The children didn't pay much attention when Daddy swore, but when I spoke slowly, they did and still do.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Different contexts allow different use of language - what is acceptable on the workshop floor is not necessarily the language appreciated by your mother (daughter, please take note).

The armed forces tend to the earthy in their forms of expression, so it's worth checking the origins of abbreviations and acronyms. I was told that my language was unacceptable when asked on a training day if anyone knew what PPPPPP meant. I did, but I also thought the guy would have checked it before use or asking the question. It did also make me think QED

And going back to the original question of what makes me furious, the only times I've been so angry that I've acted without thinking were when people were being hurt. I still don't know how I caught up with the leader of a group of scouts in the Lake District up on the tops in snowy conditions, snow up to my knees, packed up, an asthmatic with cold and exercise as triggers, but I was furious. This leader was losing one of his troop - one poor lad miles behind and struggling. There was no-one keeping an eye at the back of the troop. I stormed up to him and told him that he needed to take better care of his charges and not lose them in snowy conditions. The guys I was with were embarrassed, so goodness how mortified the leader was, and he was crimson by the time I'd finished. However, when we met them again later in the day, the lad who was struggling had two others with him back marking, carrying his pack between them. So I still don't feel that guilty.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It just seems odd to me that people come to this forum, which is known as a lively and irreverent one, and then complain. There are tons of nice polite Christian forums, where swearing isn't allowed, aren't there?

It's like going to the pub, and complaining that you don't like all the alcohol around.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm not sure what the 'real test' means in any case. All language is context dependent, so what?

The fact I don't use certain words and expressions everywhere, doesn't really invalidate using them somewhere, does it? For example, I call my wife certain affectionate and idiosyncratic terms, which I would not use to the milkman, or my neighbour. I can't see that this has any implications for language use, except that it is sometimes specialized, sometimes not.

Yes to this. There are formal and informal types of language. The suggestion that I must only use terminology I would comfortably use everywhere would mean I would spend my entire life speaking like I was at a podium. Or writing legislation. No contractions for starters. No for starters for starters.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes to that. We have an incredibly complex and subtle multi-tracked communication system, which can adapt to many different situations and speakers. Thus, if I go to see my GP, I don't slap her on the back, and shout 'awright, me old china'.

We are multi-tracked, not mono-tracked.

I can understand people not liking swearing. Actually, I don't like swearing bans! What next?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

The real test for those who argue that it is perfectly ok to use swear words is to ask them whether they

a) use it in church from the pulpit
b) whether they'd use it to their children or parents
c) where do you go - that is, what do you use - now those words have really lost their impact

If the answer to a and b is "no" then their swearing is simply for effect. There are lots of better ways to achieve this effect without that kind of language.

if it's c then it simply demonstrates the cultural conditioning they've got into.

Replacing searing with sex in your examples. Wouldn't have sex on the pulpit? Then do not anywhere else.
As Sioni and others have mentioned, this communication form is limited. We lose tone, expression and body movement.
Several points here.
A swear word can serve as emphasis that is lost online.
Swear words are far from the most hurtful or unChristian language I've seen used on the Ship.
Your abhorrence demonstrates your cultural conditioning.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It's also about forum rules, isn't it? Obviously, forums differ widely, and I tend to avoid those which ban swearing, as I suspect they are going to be too polite and reverent for me. For others, they are probably just right. Horses for courses.

Don't go in the steakhouse, if you are a vegetarian, or love horses.

[ 26. July 2013, 15:44: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by wishandaprayer (# 17673) on :

Surely this isn't the place for people to impose their culturally formed (evolved?! [Big Grin]

) views onto others. It all stinks of total moral absolutism - I know the best way, so you better fall in line.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

Moo said

quote:
Paul could be very outspoken

Aye - what about that bit where he's talking about his unimpeachable high-class Jewish credentials, and then comes the punchline (KJV I think) "I consider it all but dung".

In other words..."what a load of ****!".

Strong language can convey strong emotional punch, to me, and we're emotional creatures. IMV it's a vital part of speech - but fails when mis-used for inappropriate purposes, which is what I guess this bit (bad language) of the thread is about.

But over all, this is a thread about fury! Perhaps strong language might be expected.

The thread has me reading about the seven deadlies, and Wrath in particular. Anyone have any insights on historical disciplines for growing out of it? Perhaps that needs a new thread?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Your abhorrence demonstrates your cultural conditioning. [/QB]

And what culture might that be? Do tell!

[ 26. July 2013, 23:14: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
Surely this isn't the place for people to impose their culturally formed (evolved?! ) views onto others. It all stinks of total moral absolutism - I know the best way, so you better fall in line.

Thanks, but no thanks.

It works both ways - from those who abhor swearing and from those who practice it.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's also about forum rules, isn't it?

Sort of .... but more an informed discussion about forum rules.

Most people just look foolish when swearing. If you can switch it on and off, why don't you use the off switch all the time? What point are you trying to make, what are you aiming to gain or look like?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's also about forum rules, isn't it?
Sort of .... but more an informed discussion about forum rules.

Most people just look foolish when swearing. If you can switch it on and off, why don't you use the off switch all the time? What point are you trying to make, what are you aiming to gain or look like?

Well, if you don't like swearing, why do you come here? There are tons of forums which ban it.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Most people just look foolish when swearing.

This is your perception, not a universal truth.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Most people just look foolish when swearing.
This is your perception, not a universal truth.

As is anyone who says that swearing is ok.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

It's all about perception, isn't it?
'I use vigorous language, you are a bit outspoken, he is a foul-mouthed boor.'

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Also about free speech?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's also about forum rules, isn't it?
Sort of .... but more an informed discussion about forum rules.

Most people just look foolish when swearing. If you can switch it on and off, why don't you use the off switch all the time? What point are you trying to make, what are you aiming to gain or look like?
Well, if you don't like swearing, why do you come here? There are tons of forums which ban it.

I've never been a fan of the "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen" attitude as it can exclude the very person who can give a warning when the group is headed in the wrong direction*. While the 10C's don't forbid swearing it's clear from them, the board guidelines and the FAQs that "strong language" should be used creatively.

*eg, "Are you sure that strawberry omelette needs anchovies, Heston?"

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I am usually very creative with swearing. Occasionally, I fall into the mundane and the quotidian, but I usually recover myself, and enter into another purple patch, even Keatsian at times, I venture to say.

Posted by barrea (# 3211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
What makes me furious is the fact that Ship of Fools won't clean up it's act and ban all swearing from it's boards.
What makes me furious is aberrant apostrophe's.

Sorry to offend you, but at 86 years old I have only just found out what aberrant apostrophe is.
I was too busy working at 14 years old to learn all the details.

Posted by barrea (# 3211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It just seems odd to me that people come to this forum, which is known as a lively and irreverent one, and then complain. There are tons of nice polite Christian forums, where swearing isn't allowed, aren't there?

It's like going to the pub, and complaining that you don't like all the alcohol around.

I have already stopped going on the Hell site I don't want to stop all the posts in purgatory. but it might have to come to that.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well, I am very sorry about that. I think that at the age of 86, you are entitled to some comfort and ease. I shall endeavour to reduce my sweary quotient if I hail you on the fo'c'sle.

Posted by barrea (# 3211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, I am very sorry about that. I think that at the age of 86, you are entitled to some comfort and ease. I shall endeavour to reduce my sweary quotient if I hail you on the fo'c'sle.

Good of you [Biased]

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

quote:

originally posted by quetzacoatl

Well, if you don't like swearing, why do you come here? There are tons of forums which ban it.

I don't really understand this view which seems to amount to the idea that you must either like everything about ship of fools or nothing about it. Swearing doesn't bother me at all although I don't see the point of it, but there are several things I don't like about the ship of fools. The reason I sometimes come here is that there are also several things I do like.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I almost never swear. I believe swearing is too useful to be indulged in willy-nilly. It is a great way to vent anger and frustration - thus I use it as sparingly as I can.

This has the added benefit that when I do swear, my family and friends know that I am truly in earnest!

[Smile]

[ 30. July 2013, 06:52: Message edited by: Boogie ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0