- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
forum
So why do cyclists get a bad name?
I haven't cycled into central London to work for many years now but often have to drive in and out. Yes, there's bad driving and riding on both sides, but to give an idea of why so many have a downer on cyclists, here are my observations from just one short leg of a journey in this afternoons rush hour.
At cyclist coming towards me from opposite side of a crossroads who was chatting on a mobile phone, makes a left and all the way to the next lights and who knows where one handed still chatting.
A minute later, I overtake a lady well in front of red light cross roads. She rolls up my inside through the stop line, sees that the traffic crossing us is stationary, then swings a left straight through the pedestrians crossing on the green man.
A mile down the road, ladies ambling two abreast swinging out past stationary vehicles etc with not a look or signal or a care in the world. Only went to single file to get up the inside of queuing traffic before resuming two abreast in font of said vehicles.
Within another mile, three kids (teenage at a guess), all on one bike riding on the wrong side the road against the traffic (as in opposite kerb).
Why post? Admittedly they may have been 'fair weather' non-commuting cyclists this afternoon, but they were a let down. I see enough bad with the commuters too to understand both sides of the argument.
If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.
Latest Forum Topics
Latest Comments
- chrisonabike 1 sec ago
Maybe Simoninspalding can reassure them - being in a Holland is OK....
- brooksby 32 min 37 sec ago
Drivers are getting their knickers in a twist over the width of this new cycle path...
- Steve K 34 min 47 sec ago
Yeah, I'll give you that ...
- BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP 42 min 45 sec ago
About 20 years ago I was delivering a work shop in a school in Islington (for those who fall for the media myth that Islington is some kind of...
- BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP 1 hour 5 min ago
They still have all those brexit benefits they can brag about.
- timmyotool 1 hour 55 min ago
The only gilet I'd buy would be the ultra packable type, and I've not seen anything lighter (sub 40g) than the sportful ultralight. That's now...
- marmotte27 3 hours 31 min ago
Don't forget, each of these places is a life hazard.
- VeloUSA 6 hours 7 min ago
It seems what you're searching for is a USB Micro to USB Type-C.
- Owd Big 'Ead 8 hours 9 min ago
Shetland Islanders must be a right bunch of Jessie's these days. The total population of the islands is less than 23,000 and Lerwick where the...
Add new comment
69 comments
I actually think there's a lot more realism here than on some cycling-specific sites. As with the roads however, there are some people with strongly-held opinions who have not yet learned that repeating something loudly and often doesn't make it true.
Wow - You're a really difficult customer aren't you. Sounds like you just like an online argument. I said road bike because I ride a road bike, is that OK? You said in your first statement that I was just plain wrong and now you're telling me there's no law so it's actually just a matter of opinion and preference? So am I plain wrong or is it just my opinion? You're debating with me about riding in CL (Central London to be completely clear for you) and what is or isn't safe and you don't even ride there? That's end of conversation for me, someone just arguing for the sake of it. All the best.
They're not cyclists. They're people on bikes. Cyclists know how to ride properly. I don't want to be treated as part of the same minority group as them.
For example, out on on Saturday I stopped with a couple of others to let the ride regroup. A driver stops, winds down the window and, pointing back down the road, says "They all jumped a red light!" There was no way to know we were together (and I don't even know if the people referred to were part of the group, they were that far back).
When I replied "What are you telling me for?" they looked disgusted and drove off. Clearly every person on a bike defines everyone who rides in the eyes of many non-cyclists.
Sorry, I didn't intend you to think I meant you were wrong to ride where you chose - that is your choice of course - just that you were wrong to tell everyone who made a different choice that they were wrong!
I'm only making my point so strongly because I felt your statement was unjustified, wrong and dangerous. If others read it and thought there was some reason they should undertake rather than overtake, and put themselves in unnecessary danger as a result, that needs to be challenged.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2011/apr/04/cyclists-pa...
http://www.cyclescheme.co.uk/community/how-to/filtering
http://www.cyclelaw.co.uk/overtaking-and-filtering-whilst-cycling
As well as myself, my girlfriend, my kids, many of my friends all cycle on the roads, and safety is a big issue for me When I see statements like yours my hackles raise. I apologise if you think my point was just to be a git - that's the farthest thing from my mind, but the safety of cyclists is very important to me.
I don't expect you to change your mind (you are free to ride however you wish) but I don't want you to persuade anyone to change to a riskier behaviour in the mistaken belief that overtaking is "wrong" and undertaking is "right". Read the links, or don't, but if anyone here is unsure what to do, please read the links I included here before you decide how you will ride.
You said it was alway wrong to pass on the right. Not sometimes wrong, or only wrong in Central London (which would be weird), just wrong. He said that you were wrong to say it is always wrong, and that the correct way to pass is situation dependant. Later you added the clause about CL (seriously, why abbreviate that and expect people to guess it correctly?), though why you would feel CL is any different to other city centres across the country is a little beyond me.
He was right and you were wrong. And with this post it is you that comes across as a tool, not him. I rather expect he just wanted to actually talk to you, to let you know you had it wrong and to help you become a better and safer cyclist.
Eh, I should have waited. You were much nicer in your reply than I was.
Eebijeebi, those people are going a-to-b in a manner that reflects them not having 2 tonnes of killing motorized machine along for the ride. Pedestrians are even more "without a care in the world", because they have even less weight of killing potential. In the car, you are bringing a lot of danger to everyone, mostly to other people than yourself. Stop judging these people who bring approximately 10,000 times less danger to the rest of us than you do. Nice that you asked the question though, fair play.
I did say that because that's my view, it was a very small part of a much wider statement that was picked up on but still a view I stand by. I already agreed with another comment that filtering is a different story but I don't agree with cyclists generally riding along the outside of vehicles. I think it's dangerous and my reasoning to back that up is that cars often swerve in to the left when a cyclist goes up the outside. This is dangerous for cyclist on the inside which is where you're always told to ride even from a very young age. If you're struggling to get up the inside at any point, maybe just wait a second. I abbreviated to CL as I'd already said Central London a couple of times so thought it would make sense. I've ridden through CL for 5 years now, up to 18 miles commute a day for some jobs and never had an accident which leads me to believe my riding is safe or I've been very, very lucky. However, no one is too good at anything to learn. I've seen PurpleDogs very reasonable reply as have you now so hope this clears up any misunderstanding, thanks for getting involved.
I would suggest that all road users should be equally aware of being surrounded by '2 tonnes of killing machine' and that they are as responsible for their actions as drivers are for theirs.
Killing potential does not relate to 'fault' in an accident.
That kind of attitude is what really gets up the decent drivers noses, especially the inference that it's only the drivers who should be judged.
Really interesting articles and I've learnt something today. I believe I do make safe decisions on my bike and they've kept me safe for a long time, I also agree with some of the comments on the Guardian article about assuming drivers haven't seen you - It's generally what I do. You're right in that I shouldn't have said that you 'shouldn't' do it because you clearly can if the situation presents itself so it's about doing what's best at the time (mainly filtering by the looks of it). To be honest, I'd still stick to the inside in general unless completely blocked but I guess the wider point is to do whatever is safe, like you said. Please accept my apologies and safe riding!
No worries
Hopefully, between us, we might even have ended up doing a little good?
In addition, I also notice a lot of 'hardcore' cyclists on my commuter route that seem to disappear once the darkness sets in. Perhaps they 'retreat' to indoor training and fair weather weekend riding.
I think that's problem solved as far as I'm concerned!
In all seriousness, if even just a hand full of people read those articles, it's been a worthwhile conversation.
It all depends what their motivation for cycling is. I suspect a lot of the 'hardcore' don't really have any great interest in utility cycling but use their commute for extra training miles rather than considering the bike as a primary form of transport. When it comes to lights and mudguards these guys aren't interested. It's a shame but really no different to runners who turn to the treadmill in the winter.
Cyclists are human. Most humans are f**king stupid most of the time.
This is the absolute heart of the matter.
I shout at cyclists doing stupid things on my commute. I also see an enormous amount of dozy driving and dozy walking.
Difference is: other pedestrians and cyclists irritate me; drivers risk my life.
Killing potential does relate to liability.
Not taking the additional amount of care appropriate for wielding additional killing potential does relate to fault.
Quite the contrary, I've found that it's the decent drivers who are fully aware that they bear the higher responsibility. People who let something that should be common sense get up their noses are usually road raging idiots.
Quite correct.
Absolutely agree with this...
I would also suggest that the 'decent drivers' are also the ones that are not looking out for all the minor indiscretions of other road users to fuel animosity for particular groups.
What I mean is... if a guy rides through a red light when it is clearly safe to do so, and in no way inhibits your journey, is it really your concern?
If someone does something that forces you to take avoiding action or unreasonably inconveniences you, I understand the frustration, however for everything else, the problem is with you and your reaction.
Van driver parked on yellow lines - van driver is an idiot
Car driver on mobile phone - car driver is an idiot. And a dangerous one.
Lorry driver speeding - Lorry driver is a dangerous idiot.
Cyclist goes through red - gives cyclists a bad name.
Cyclist filters legally - gives cyclists a bad name.
Cyclist doesn't wear helmet or high vis - gives cyclists a bad name.
What gives cyclists a bad name is the perpetual label that whatever any one of them does should be reflected on all of them. It has to stop.
They have a bad name simply because car drivers generally don't want them on the road. It doesn't matter what we do as cyclists it doesn't seem to improve much. It will only happen when there are so many more cyclists and they will have to take note, and many of those drivers become cyclists.
I personally don't see what the fuss is about, but of course we come from one of the most 'tribal' countries in the world where everybody is labelled and scrutinised and judged on what they do. You can see the way people look at you sometimes...funny enough I do the same in that respect and say, Daily Mail reader. I simply don't care what others think of me but i remain polite as best as I can.
1. Riding through a red light? What's good for the goose.
2. Problem with reaction? Reaction was to come on a cycling forum and effectively say, "From what I can see I understand why many have a downer towards cyclists on the road'.
3. Re fault and killing machines why should the cyclist not give the same attention and ride to the same standard as you would expect the driver to adhere to?
I don't see anyone here suggesting that only drivers should be judged. Everyone is subject to the same rules of the road. What I am challenging is the popular assertion that cyclists have a bad name and have some collective responsibility to assume the moral high ground before they can be taken seriously.
Speaking personally, as a motorist, all the factual evidence I can see suggests that we are the problem, not cyclists, and the roads would be far safer if there were more people cycling and fewer driving.
I don't think it would actually transform attitudes if every cyclist behaved perfectly, and as Michael Hutchinson said "Why should my safety be dependent on the behaviour of other people?"
There's nothing tribal about this, and there are very few adult cyclists who are not also drivers. I think we need to challenge the notion of the "bad name" whenever it is trotted out. Not in a sensationalist or confrontational manner; simply by asking people to look at the facts and consider if they have really thought about what makes the roads dangerous, or if they are just repeating what everyone else said.
Absolutely.
Try this: next time someone says that xxx "gives cyclists a bad name" try asking them to replace the word "cyclist" with any other "group"
Black people, gay people, Jewish people. Anything you want really.
Then ask if they'd use the same kind of contextual argument. Of course they wouldn't - at best they'd be accused of putting forward a stupid argument, at worst they'd be up on charges of inciting racial/religious hatred or homophobia.
As mentioned above, if a "cyclist" jumps a red light and it doesn't affect you or anyone else, is it a problem? Now let's say a pedestrian crosses the road on a red man and it doesn't affect you or anyone else, does that give all pedestrians a bad name?
Pointless argument and one that's easy to refute.
The actions of the people mentioned would be bad regardless of what they were on but it's more polarised as unlike driving anyone can get on a bike and ride. This I feel leads to having more road users with little or no idea of how to act safely. We all have our horror stories of seeing what these inexperience riders do,
I know it's not popular or probably even remotely enforceable but I do feel if you are going to be on the road with a bike you need to prove you can be.
Also considering how small a % of road users are cyclists their actions are far more noticable and I feel because they are more likely to impact someones journey , slow them down , get past them in traffic etc they have a higher chance of been remembered over other more commonplace traffic. You could even argue that good roads users will remember them more as they will be cautious around them.
And as much we would like to think it's only inexperienced riders who contribute to the ire cycling can get we cannot discount the more experienced ones who seem to have an entitlement complex exhibit poor behaviour as well.
Human beings are selfish c***s whether on four wheel, two wheels or two legs.
I know, it sucks.
Got to get this one off my chest. To the complete Darwinian f#ckwit who was cycling on the A368 in Somerset last night (opp direction to me) at 2115 in dark clothes, no helmet, no lights, reflectors, nothing!...barely visible. WTF do you think you were playing at! Like me, every motorist who saw you (at about 2 car lengths!) must have said WTF!! and non-cyclists would have had 'zero sympathy' for reports of cyclists who get 'totalled' on the roads. Highly likely he's never heard of this forum anyway.
THAT WAS ME! Not really - he sounds like a pillock.
There are loads of kids in South london who cycle around on black bikes, wearing black clothes and no lights at night time...quite often with more than one kid on the bike. Is there any kind of cycling education now? When I was a bairn it was all cycling proficiency tests and public service ads about safe cycling. It was boring as a kid - but at least it instilled a bit of common sense about safe riding.
I think we should be a bit ballanced in our attitutes to unlit/low-viz cyclists.
On one hand, cycling on a 'proper' road at night without lights is maddness, no argument there.
On the other, I don't get upset when I see kids without lights in well-lit, built-up areas. I went out for a spin last night after dark and saw 4 or 5 of the usual suspects: young lads, no lights, on the pavement, one of them giving their mate a backie. I had no trouble spotting them and the same goes if I'm driving the car. I just don't think it's a big deal and I'd rather see these kids outside and being active than indoors locked onto games consoles, even if they don't play by all the rules.
1. Its not though is it? All road users know its wrong and that's why we don't do it... we get frustrated by those that do run them because we'd all love to be doing what they are doing really. That doesn't mean it should dictate how I see all other road users... The way some car drivers 'interpret' the lights in my home town is laughable... however I don't right off all car drivers as red light jumping lunatics.
2. As mentioned so many times already, this isn't a tribal thing, its a bunch of individuals utilising a particular form of transport, what one person on a bike does has nothing to do with me in exactly the same way that one car drivers inability to understand red means stop doesn't mean you are going to jump every light.
3. Do you not feel that the car driver, in control of the machine that is more likely to do serious damage should bare more responsibility? But in answer....
- as a car driver, you have undertake mandatory tuition and should have reached a level of competency that means you know how to conduct yourself appropriately on the roads.... many cyclists/pedestrians have not had the luxury of this schooling.... you could look at it like this... when a cyclist is being an idiot, at least he has the excuse of ignorance, where as those idiot car drivers have consciously chosen to flout the instructions of their schooling.
- As touched upon... a cyclist will be a bit annoying, hell may even hold you up on your journey a bit, but chances are, they are ultimately only going to really hurt themselves. Every time a cyclist seriously hurts another road user its national news... that is a stark example of its rarity as an event. Being late, being a bit frustrated is never good, but it pales into insignificance compared to being seriously maimed or killed.
Pages