Road Rage - Why do Motorists Hate Cyclists?

Smiffi wrote:

..... Your view may be that as a cyclist you have the right to ride wherever and whenever you desire.....

You've got this the wrong way round. Being a cyclist doesn't confer any right, but being a member of the public does

As members of the public, we all (even Smiffi) have the right to use the public highway. We can do this on foot, on horseback, by bike, even rollerblades. It's what the public highway is for. So instead of reading "cyclist", "horserider" or "pedestrian", read "member of the public going about their lawful business"

However, should you desire to use a motorised vehicle you are required to observe further responsibilities (note, you have no right to use a motor vehicle, and passing your driving test conveys no rights regarding use of the public highway, rather states that you are licensed to use a vehicle on the highway under certain stipulations and conditions)

You need to ensure that you are licensed (revokable if the vehicle is not used in accordance with the law), insured (due to the high risk of massive damage you can inflict on people's lives should you fail to observe your duty of care), your vehicle must be taxed (scaled according to the local emission of harmful and environmentally damaging pollutants), and carry an MOT certificate (an annual declaration that at time of inspection the vehicle was safe to operate).

In spite of the above, you seem still to be under the impression that as a driver you have priority on the public highway over other members of the public simply by being behind the wheel. 

Dude, chill out. Your errand is not time-critical to the few seconds you have to wait before overtaking, and you certainly are in no position to claim that your journey is more important than any other member of the public's.

i told a police officer much the same thing after i got into a fist fight with a driver over me not using a shared path at 30 mph. She didnt have a clue what i was on about and said'' but hes paid tax for his car and got a licence so he does have a right to use the road''.........

It's quite absurd

I drive as well as cycle as most of us do, and I can tell you the number of minutes of lost due to cyclists in my life pales into insignificance against the time lost due to too many cars on the road, and the time lost on the motorway following a single (very avoidable) crash

or roadworks where the roads have had to be replaced due to the wear from millions of motor vehicles. Might as well ban all journeys that are not either commuting or collecting weekly food supplies as non essential and cuasing unecesary delays to others.

Going somewhere for a day out? not essential don't delay others

going to cornwall for a holiday? not essential don't dealy others

using the car for a very walkwable distance - dont delay others.

The roads would be practically empty.

The 1% is misleading as it takes account of motorways and trunk roads.
If you think that stopping a tiny bit of pollution is the answer then I should really like to know what the question is.

You should have a look at the stats in London on journey distance and journey purpose.

hirsute wrote:

The 1% is misleading as it takes account of motorways and trunk roads.
If you think that stopping a tiny bit of pollution is the answer then I should really like to know what the question is.

You should have a look at the stats in London on journey distance and journey purpose.

That’s precisely why I excluded cities and towns where cycle usage is much more skewed to “useful” purposes, and general road speeds are lower. In cities and larger towns cycling for commuting and shopping should be actively encouraged. It’s just antisocial cycling that I take issue with.

Antisocial cycling = recreational cycling then.
Have you measured the overall costs of this then taking account of well being, long term effect on the NHS.
Although you claim that there is tiny increase in pollution, do you have any hard numbers to support this rather than the pollution being unchanged or less.
How many of the 50-150 vehicles does it take not to go on a journey to break even with your more pollution claim?
As before "If you think that stopping a tiny bit of pollution is the answer then I should really like to know what the question is."

Mutual respect, you say? I'm all for the "why can't we all get along?" piece - when drivers stop killing cyclists, pedestrians and, ideally each other.

Confession time, I had a couple of days off this week and went out for a morning cycle ride BOTH TIMES and for LEISURE. It already feels better to say that, but there's more. I don't have a device like yours, but I may have added ten seconds to the vital journeys of three vans and a car, which I realise are timed with great precision, every second counts.  I plead in mitigation that the routes I take are calculated to minimise the impact of my riding, but I realise this does not go far enough.  I deserved to be shouted at, to be run off the road. I submit myself for judgement. 

'Reason' has nothing to do with it.

Cycloid wrote:

OK - Read cause

Well, I'm not convinced that the angry drivers are applying causality correctly. The vast majority of poor overtakes that I've encountered have ended up with the overtaking vehicle stuck at the next set of traffic lights or the next traffic jam whilst I happily filter on past. They're just having an emotional outburst as they're so frustrated so let's not pretend that appeasement can be effective.

So basically it doesn't matter what we do as they've already made up their minds. Even if we obey every possible law and regulation then we'll still be hated by them as they once saw a cyclist that looked at them a bit funny.

Personally, I don't tend to ride in groups so I'm not really affected either way by this but it just seems to me that the covid risk from cycling outside in a group is likely to be minimal. I don't know if there's any studies performed on groups of cyclists (apart from the computer simulations of aerosol distributions which I don't think are particularly useful in terms of disease transmission) so I could well be wrong. 

Put another way, huge swathes of drivers with zero experience of cycling or cyclists.  No-one to challenge them when they moan about cyclists - unless they try it on my village facebook, of course. 

Cycloid wrote:

It all starts just because we are different, an outgroup. From that point it's all downhill.

Bad choice of metaphor, 'all downhill' is actually a positive thing when it comes to cycling 

But I agree. It comes from a lack of understanding. A bit like when people say they hate maths.

Cycloid wrote:

When I used to race I was better at climbing than descending

Given that context, it's perfect!

I think my aversion to climbing is down to my mtb days, plus an inherent athletic ability that puts me firmly in the aerobic non-responder category 

Imagine we all paid £10 per bike per year, (*looks round garage says "oooh, expensive"*) would it make a scrap of difference?  There is no difference between smiffi's argument and eradication.

The answer is "no" to appeasement  - as I always say, these are people who are giving nothing back and don't care.  And let's not try to justify ourselves in car parity terms, "I've got a car", "I've got CUK membership" - we don't need to, it's irrelevant. 

Driving is now such a random experience - everyone recalls the times they had a clear run, they sailed through no problem, which makes the many times that doesn't happen all the more frustrating for them. The car adverts don't help.  

When I saw this one in print, I thought it had a distinctly glum air to it, like it was saying "you're going to street park me and trail a wire across the pavement every night, aren't you?" Still, feelgood vibes, eh? 

I stand corrected - otherwise it would have been another part of my confession. I simply meant "as opposed to commuting", or other bike journey sanctioned by Smiffi, the car enabler and friend. Mind you I did lean my bike against the base of a statue...

Buy a cargo bike (or robust bike and a trailer) for doing the shoppng etc, that way you can get your enjoyable exercise and justify going for a ride. 

An example of this occurred, today.
Had a click and collect order at Screwfix, on the opposite side of town, so I cycled over.
On the way back, through town, I was riding down a road where one side had been allocated to dotted line residential parking bays, with the occasional gap to allow oncoming traffic to pass. As the bays were not on my side of the road, I was pretty much free to progress all the way along.
Despite being a fairly quiet road, I had a couple of impatient "floor it, to get past the cyclist" incidents.
The irony is, that the thing which prevented cars from overtaking at will, and therefore being "delayed", was the disproportionate provision of facilities for cars. Part of the public highway has been allocated as what is effectively private parking - but the parked cars don't seem to attract the same sense of getting in the way as cyclists do.

It's all so ill-considered but, hopefully, the balance will shift, soon.

Cycloid wrote:

When I ride along a decent country road I often get impatient drivers behind me. .....

Pedal harder.

yes!yes this! if there were no cars coming the other way they would pass easily! the bicycle has nothing to do with it!

My commute takes me between towns and villages.

I do far more miles as a utility cyclist than a recreational one.

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions.

ktache wrote:

My commute takes me between towns and villages.

I do far more miles as a utility cyclist than a recreational one.

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions

I am making assumptions due to the lack of hard data.  I do know that CyclingUk estimate that less than half UK cycle travel is commuting/shopping/car-replacement miles, and since most of those miles take place in cities and towns, I specifically excluded those areas.  Of course, some people commute through villages and on back roads, but from the limited data available, and my experience of myself, friends, and family, the vast bulk of countryside riding is recreational.  If someone can cite a source that shows that this supposition is incorrect then I'm happy to revise my view.  

On that basis, you will be wanting walkers not to walk anywhere because they are causing pollution. Even if they stick to paths there will be times when they need to walk on the roads to get from path A to path B forcing cars to slow down for a bit.

No walking then...