Driver confrontation question

[Hip Priest]

I remember watching a programme about road rage. One of the drivers featured was a malevolent young git with a bright yellow Punto. He was so attached to his vehicle that he said he'd kill anyone who touched it, and he wasn't joking.

 

[theclaud]

Ummm.... When I wrote 'it hasn't happened to me', in the phrase you quote, that meant it hasn't happened to me. That's how language works.

Also... The two instances that come to mind were for a fuel cap left off and someone asking to be given a Pay & Display window ticket. I didn't make any mention of these women cutting cyclists up.

Not all tapping on windows is related to cutting cyclists up. The point was a broader one, mitigating an initially defensive response from some people to a tap on the window.

You have to read my whole post for that, which can get very dull as I am a verbose old bastard. Worth doing though, if you're going to quote me with a response that doesn't fit the point I was making.

If you weren't so pedantic about language (don't lecture me on how it works - you're way out of your depth) you'd realise that it's a generic 'you' in my example, and by implication a female one. It doesn't matter what the particular misdemeanour is - the idea that women should be excused from having to answer for driving that endangers (male) cyclists because it's scary when the nasty man in lycra taps on the window is patronizing and idiotic.

 

[400bhp]

Claud - you strike me as reasonably intelligent; bicycle too. Are we playing with semantics here?

The world isn't black and white. In some instances we can understand why someone would interpret a "knock" on a window as being agressive. I don't need to give examples as you appear intelligent enough to work them out.

Come on people-we're all in the same boat here aren't we? Cyclists who like to debate.

It's depressing reading many threads on here in the last few months. Why all the petty digs?

 

[theclaud]

Claud - you strike me as reasonably intelligent;

Such extravagant compliments are wasted on me, I'm afraid. You're missing the point, which is about whether one should confront drivers about dangerous or thoughtless behaviour. Petrol caps and pay-n-display tickets are a distraction.

 

[400bhp]

I wasn't an extravagant compliment-it's what I have observed.

There's a smallish bunch of people on this forum who are clearly good at communicating. That implies a certain level of intelligence.

Perhaps I am missing the point, but my understanding (I CBA to look at previous conversations but this waswhat i remember) was that bicycle was picking up on the wider point .

 

[Dan_h]

I remember watching a programme about road rage. One of the drivers featured was a malevolent young git with a bright yellow Punto. He was so attached to his vehicle that he said he'd kill anyone who touched it, and he wasn't joking.

That is just ridiculous, it is only a car!

If anyone even looks at my bike the wrong way though...

 

[Norm]

Are we playing with semantics here?

I wonder if someone who sets out their stall with...

(don't lecture me on how it works - you're way out of your depth)

... and follows with...

you'd realise that it's a generic 'you' in my example

...rather than, for instance, "Yes, you could read it that way but that was not my intention" would be very quiet were it not for the, ahem, "pleasures" of playing with semantics.

 

[Bicycle]

If you weren't so pedantic about language (don't lecture me on how it works - you're way out of your depth) you'd realise that it's a generic 'you' in my example, and by implication a female one. It doesn't matter what the particular misdemeanour is - the idea that women should be excused from having to answer for driving that endangers (male) cyclists because it's scary when the nasty man in lycra taps on the window is patronizing and idiotic.

TheClaud,


I have upset you. I apologise.

I'm afraid I am pedantic. Be thankful you're not one of my adoring children who get a stern look just for saying "If I was in his shoes".

I wasn't lecturing you. I was being inappropriately cheeky, feeling that my point may have been taken out of context. I'm happy that it wasn't and I'm sorry.

I am a bit of a soft target on car/bicycle threads on this forum, so perhaps I study the radar screen too carefully for incoming threats. Apologies once again.

As to being out of my depths lecturing on language - I hope I wasn't lecturing and I apologise if I was.

Nonetheless, languages have been my life for many years: philology, linguistics, language acquisition in childhood and as an adult and all sorts of other associated bollocks.

I write on the effect of conflict on language and trained people for many years in identifying a speaker's (or writer's) age, gender, region, social status etc on the basis of the spoken or written word. This was across a number of languages and dialects.

Some of the style guides for working into English used in some pretty hefty NGOs and IGOs are largely my work. Lots of interpreters milling around international entities have received training from me in liaison, consecutive and simultaneous interpreting. I know **** all about most things, but I know what I know.

I really wouldn't presume to lecture anyone on language (unless being paid to do so) and apologise for any slight, but it's one of the few fields where I haven't been out of my depths for quite a few decades. I was just being cheeky.

I hope you will forgive the implied slight.

Meanwhile, 400 horses, thanks for sticking up for me - and not for the first time.

 

[Dan B]

I'm afraid I am pedantic.

I don't believe that for a moment. You don't look at all afraid

 

[theclaud]

TheClaud,


I have upset you. I apologise.

I'm afraid I am pedantic. Be thankful you're not one of my adoring children who get a stern look just for saying "If I was in his shoes".

I wasn't lecturing you. I was being inappropriately cheeky, feeling that my point may have been taken out of context. I'm happy that it wasn't and I'm sorry.

I am a bit of a soft target on car/bicycle threads on this forum, so perhaps I study the radar screen too carefully for incoming threats. Apologies once again.

As to being out of my depths lecturing on language - I hope I wasn't lecturing and I apologise if I was.

Nonetheless, languages have been my life for many years: philology, linguistics, language acquisition in childhood and as an adult and all sorts of other associated bollocks.

I write on the effect of conflict on language and trained people for many years in identifying a speaker's (or writer's) age, gender, region, social status etc on the basis of the spoken or written word. This was across a number of languages and dialects.

Some of the style guides for working into English used in some pretty hefty NGOs and IGOs are largely my work. Lots of interpreters milling around international entities have received training from me in liaison, consecutive and simultaneous interpreting. I know **** all about most things, but I know what I know.

I really wouldn't presume to lecture anyone on language (unless being paid to do so) and apologise for any slight, but it's one of the few fields where I haven't been out of my depths for quite a few decades. I was just being cheeky.

I hope you will forgive the implied slight.

Meanwhile, 400 horses, thanks for sticking up for me - and not for the first time.

No you haven't. And do stop apologising. My point was simple - it isn't intimidating for cyclists to tap on drivers' windows, any more than it is intimidating to knock on someone's front door. People who feel intimidated by it probably shouldn't drive.

 

[theclaud]

I wonder if someone who sets out their stall with...... and follows with...
...rather than, for instance, "Yes, you could read it that way but that was not my intention" would be very quiet were it not for the, ahem, "pleasures" of playing with semantics.

I'm not "setting out my stall". I'm responding to someone who is talking nonsense. If he wishes to get drawn into pseudo-correctness arguments about using "you" instead of "one", then I'm not interested. There are times when one does not wish to talk like The Queen.

 

[theclaud]

I wasn't an extravagant compliment-it's what I have observed.

There's a smallish bunch of people on this forum who are clearly good at communicating. That implies a certain level of intelligence.

Perhaps I am missing the point, but my understanding (I CBA to look at previous conversations but this waswhat i remember) was that bicycle was picking up on the wider point .

]

That's the thing. Compliments, like apologies, should be unqualified. Don't bother with them otherwise.

 

[d87heaven]

Tap on the window or knock on the door, first thought is to wonder what they want. From a safety point of veiw most people only wind down a window an inch or two whilst in a car.
Same as people keep a chain on the door/foot behind when a stranger knocks.
Perhaps intimidation is the wrong/too strong a word?

 

[Bicycle]

People who feel intimidated by it probably shouldn't drive.

My wife feels intimidated by it.

I shall put on body armour before advising her that she shouldn't drive.

She has a nicer car than me, so I should do well out of this...

If she hasn't made herself a widow within eight seconds of the suggestion.

 

[400bhp]

]

That's the thing. Compliments, like apologies, should be unqualified. Don't bother with them otherwise.

Should.

Not must