I have been writing for road.cc for the last 15 years, and in that time I have dedicated a lot of my energy towards advancing cycling safety and cyclists’ rights. That’s because the numbers speak for themselves: cyclists are vulnerable road users, we are killed at a higher rate than most other groups, and we have a ridiculous amount of hate thrown at us too.
Now, while I still believe in promoting cycling and defending our right to use the road whenever possible, I admit that I have started to become more of a realist since I’ve been forced into my car more after moving to rural Warwickshire. Most cyclists are safe, considerate, and polite, but I think we need to acknowledge that some people are arseholes, whether they’re behind the wheel or behind a handlebar.
A couple of weekends ago, I was in West Sussex for a short break. It was a Friday morning in the school holidays, so we decided to go to West Wittering Beach, which is about an hour from where we were staying. After Chichester, there is one long, straight road with a single carriageway on both sides. As I turned onto this road, there was somebody on what looked like a Colnago Master in front of the car that was three ahead of me. As we were driving south, a constant flow of northbound traffic meant there was no chance of safely overtaking the cyclist. Luckily, nobody tried to squeeze through.
Now, this road is about five miles long and typically takes around 10 minutes to drive – however, the guy refused to move into the bike lane (which admittedly was just some painted lines, so it might not have been possible to pass at a safe distance) or pull into one of the many driveways, laybys etc on the way, meaning that stretch of road instead took me 25 minutes to drive. As I mentioned, I was three cars back, but I lost count of how many were behind me after a while.
Of course, legally the guy did not have to pull over. Nobody was tailgating in a dangerous attempt to ‘force’ him to pull over, but in my opinion, what he did was the equivalent of not holding a door for somebody, or not saying thanks to somebody for waiting. Technically he did nothing wrong, but quite a few people in that queue will have driven away thinking that person was an arsehole – around 30 drivers plus some of their passengers having their cognitive bias against cyclists reinforced.
The guy on the Colnago could have been driving a tractor, riding a horse, or any other mode of transport – but he happened to be on a bike. Arseholes exist in every walk of life, and I think as cyclists, we need to add nuance into our conversation, because some people are arseholes and their actions should not be defended. Equally, their actions should not reflect on anybody else in their group.
It’s not like this is a new concept amongst drivers in particular. Nobody in their right mind would claim that because one person is driving like an arsehole, that automatically means that all drivers are arseholes.
This thought distortion goes some way to explain why conviction rates for drivers who kill diverge so much depending on the victim’s mode of transport. A 2014 Freedom of Information request from the BBC uncovered that 65% of killer drivers are found guilty if they caused the death of another driver, versus only 44% if they killed a cyclist. People are more able to define bad apples in a group they’re a part of, and 75% of the UK adult population drive compared to just 10% of adults who ride. It’s no wonder they struggle to see that an individual cyclist can be an arsehole rather than all cyclists collectively.
So, I want us to agree that some cyclists can be arseholes, and to say loud and proud that the person who kept me stuck in a car with two young children – being forced to listen to Hey Duggee over and over for 15 minutes longer than I needed to – was being an arsehole, regardless of their mode of transport.
62 thoughts on “Sometimes, cyclists can be a**eholes too — and it’s OK to say that”
George, I could literally have written that article myself. Chapeau Sir!
Spot on!
Ah, that’s where you lose everyone, particularly when the group is an out-group / they’re “other”.
I’m not quite clear on this phrase and how it relates to the statistics. Does this mean “we have more sympathy for other members of a group we’re part of?”
Don’t those rates just show that we don’t care so much about those outside of our group? (As the “bad apples” are in the same group – motorists – in both examples?)
Or is it that this is motornormativity: vulnerable road users are seen to be annoyances, contributing to their own misfortune? Or at least we sympathise with the killers as people not in cars are hard to spot and they don’t behave like drivers?
@chrisonabike Something I learned whilst working in ‘Elf ‘n’ Safety is that so long as the slower highway user is making good progress, no worries. If dawdling that’s taking the pee. Boo hoo that some road users in their rot-boxes had to slow down for 10 minutes or more, you’re on holiday you don’t have anywhere you need to be calm your jets luv!
@chrisonabike I think what he is saying is that we understand people within our own groups so when someone is actually being a twat, we can recognise that. ie. a cyclist sees another cyclist ignoring a bike lane and generally thinks “thats probably because its shit and you’re better off on the road” whereas a driver thinks “fucking entitled cyclist, hes not using the cycle lane because he wants to piss me off”.
There are plenty of behaviours that to outsiders of an activity seem stupid but to someone inside they are perfectly logical and reasonable therefore people inside the activity are far better placed to say if someones behaviour is poor.
We do, but…
…simply making progress along the road at your own pace is not being an arsehole. The argument that he could simply “move into … one of the many driveways, laybys etc” hides a couple of false assumptions – that this would be essentially cost free for him (whereas in fact stopping and starting requires much more effort on a bike than in a car), and that it would be a one-off (whereas if the road is busy enough for a queue of 30 cars to build up he’d likely be stopping every couple of minutes to let people past. Or, alternatively, that all that cost to him is worth less than the 15 minutes extra it took to drive (7.5 minutes on average per car), which sounds pretty selfish on the part of the driver.
@mdavidford I think you’re misunderstanding societal norms and courtesies.
Firstly, you are de facto claiming that the road was completely pan flat because, if it wasn’t, stopping causes *zero* inconvenience to the cyclist in terms of energy expenditure (as they can just do a rolling start) and costs a few seconds of time. It seems strikingly unreasonable to assume that a few seconds of the cyclist’s time is worth (cumulatively) hours of everyone else’s.
Secondly, George has already kindly pointed out that there was, in fact, a cycle lane that could have been used, but instead the cyclist chose to ride in such a position that no one could safely get past. If the cyclist had merely moved to the left for even a few seconds, the bottleneck he’d created would have been relieved.
Finally, and perhaps slightly more controversially, it’s revealed that the cyclist was riding a Colnago Master. This is a vintage bike dating back decades, and certainly not the kind of machine that would be suitable for commuting or utilitarian cycling. I think it’s tentatively safe to say, therefore, that the cyclist wasn’t engaged in a meaningful journey and was economically inactive, holding up purposeful travellers and negatively disrupting the local economy.
Just my tuppence worth.
Woah. Deja vu.
Ah – they always get around to playing the old classics eventually.
Tentatively doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Also, who are you to place greater value on one person’s use of a road over another’s. If I am exercising instead of sitting in front of the to am I not reducing my burden on the NHS. My experience of pulling over on a long ride to visit parents (130km). I pulled over as was holding up a stream of commuters. More for my own safety. I then walked to a nearby cafe, had a tea and cake. I still found it challenging to rejoin the flow of traffic having graciously let 20 mins of streaming traffic get on their way. No one wanted to afford me the same courtesy I had afforded 100ds of drivers.
@mdavidford I mean, if I am holding up a couple of cars or even a single car and I can easily slow slightly to let them past after they have been behind me for a while or I know that theres scant few places to pass me for a while I will often do it. Makes little odds to me. I don’t feel obliged to do it but at the same time I am generally polite in everyday life and if I can make someone elses life a little easier for almost not effect on mine I will do it.
No the cyclist is not required to pull over but its common decency to do so and I would have done so. I would have let the traffic clear and then pulled out and done the same thing again if it built up again over the next few minutes. If i’m going slow enough to back up that much traffic then pulling over isn’t much work and if i’m going fast then that many cars probably won’t back up.
That’s me done then. Thanks for everything.
@perce Don’t go mate, with our Nigel back on the scene we need our esteemed Binface more than ever!
@George Hill Were you honestly delayed by 15 minutes?
The alternative to cycling on this road is an off road path – the Salterns Way – that is extremely bumpy and uncomfortable on anything other than a full suspension mountain bike, and which takes a very circuitous route to West Wittering. Riding on this route would have delayed the cyclist by 30 minutes or more and would need changing to a different bike. Why should the cyclist be put to so much inconvenience?
But perhaps the cyclist had experienced one too many motorists not extending him any courtesy by for example entering narrow sections he was already in forcing him to stop or swerve into the door zone or the margins?
The basic fact is if we as Cyclists want respect on the roads from other groups of users then we must act in a respectful and responsible way towards other road users. As a moderator on an Equestrian group campaigning for better understanding the complaints about Cyclists silently zipping past Horses are numerous. The abuse hurled at the horse riders when the Cyclists are respectfully asked to slow down and give a warning are again numerous. So if we want respect then its a two way street. Stop jumping red lights, stop riding on pavements and treat others as we wish to be treated. Its really that simple.
@DaveSpokes ‘Silently’? Really, Dave? That’s bollocks and you know it.
The thing is, most of us do behave respectfully on the roads and trails. We’re just utterly sick of being tarred with the same brush, by the people we share the roads and trails with, as the idiots who don’t. As has been said before, no-one sees a car driver driving like a tool and therefore decides all car drivers are tools. That reductive bigotry only seems to extend to cyclists for some reason, and it’s got to stop. It really is that simple.
@smallbeer thats honestly the bit that shows its not actually anything to do with cyclists behaviour. We are all tarred with the same brush despite our behaviour being utterly banal and irrelevant vs drivers constant rule breaking.
I was riding down a long straight road with a traffic light gated section where they were doing road works the other day. It was probably 7am. There was no one coming in the other direction, there was absolutely no reason to stop at the red light and I have no idea if it would have even responded to me being there as plenty of lights don’t. I jumped it. There was no risk, I didn’t inconvenience anyone.
A car stopped at the light after I had gone through and when they caught up with me they beeped at me as they passed me. I knew exactly what they were thinking and I know as sure as night follows day that that driver has never once in their life beeped their horn at another driver for doing something that had zero impact on them.
Drivers hate us because were cyclists and we are fair game. Its as simple as that. If there was any logic to it, drivers would have utter contempt for other drivers.
Unfortunately its not bollocks, those very same people praise motorcyclists. The trouble is that as a group we get very touchy when anyone points the finger at our behaviour. As illustrated by every single reply to my comment. I stand by my point that if you read it properly simply says we aren’t all angels and that some of our number give the Motorons ammunition. The hate towards us is completely out of order but we need to take it on the chin and start acting like responsible adults not children who get straight out of our prams when we get a bit of justified criticism.
@DaveSpokes we simply disagree with this position. When your behaviour doesn’t actually reflect peoples attitudes towards you, changing that behaviour won’t fix those attitudes. Cyclists get really tetchy about it because we are sick of being told that its our own fault that people hate us and that by definition, its partly our fault when people intentionally put our safety and lives at risk to save (in most cases) fuck all time.
Cyclists could magically become model road users tomorrow breaking zero rules and attitudes towards cyclists would barely move.
I was not excusing the “hate” out there, it is fed by social media and the morons that use it. I was simply saying that if we want the hate to die and reduce then we must individually treat other road users with the respect we want back. I live up a single track road. On more than one occasion I’ve had cyclists sail past passing places coming towards so we’ve both had to stop whilst the brain donor on the bike squeezes past on the verge…if they’d have slowed by the passing place I could pull in and they could have accelerated past. Its that sort of twattery that really ticks off the non-cyclists. Its not riding within the Highway Code etc. I fully expect some Road Warrior to answer this with some moronic comment which just proves my point. I despair of a small percentage of our number but we can mitigate at least some of the hate by riding properly and courtesly.
Absolutely.
With an elementary knowledge of psychology, UK motornormativity and media narrative and knowing that there are far fewer “cyclists” than “motorists” (anyone “both , and…”?) I’m betting on:
“Cyclists could magically become model road users tomorrow breaking zero rules and attitudes towards cyclists would barely move.”
… being the case, and the following not moving the plot forward:
“must individually treat other road users with the respect we want back.”
The latter is a very good ideal. But leaving aside “who will make this happen?” a non-motorist on most roads will continue to be “in the way” regardless, and the KSIs will continue. Note roads are now designed for motorists to make progress at 20-30+ then wait for a minute at the next traffic light…
The Dutch (out of all Europeans) have taken the “avoid the issue” approach furthest: fundamentally different modes in their own spaces, except where the more dangerous one is seriously restricted / outnumbered.
@DaveSpokes Its funny, I was on reddit the other day and someone put a video up of a horse rider in the US shouting at a cyclist that they need to stop and be more careful around horses despite the cyclist having completely stopped a good way away from the horse. I said that as a cyclist in the UK I have had nothing but positive or complete boring interactions with horse riders. About 20% are miserable and don’t say a thing as I very slowly pass them and say hello but 80% are friendly and appreciative of my behaviour. Even if some were assholes I wouldn’t think “fuck em all” I’m going to just fly by and not worry. Someones safety isn’t something that should have anything to do with how I feel about their hobby.
The idea that a subset of cyclists bad behaviour is a legitimate reason to dislike the whole is just perpetuating the idea that its OK to think like this and its not. Especially when it comes to peoples safety and make no mistake, cyclists safety and lives are 100% put at risk as a direct result of the prejudices against us that far too many people hold.
@mctrials23 100% agree.
I am always wary around Horses, they’re pretty terrifying animals, so I ALWAYS make sure I call out and pedal slowly. My interactions with the riders is friendly and polite 99% of the time.
We did have one horse rider who gave us grief, despite us being stationary, on a trail down to the Sussex coast. She moaned that her horse was skittish around bikes. We kept silent when that point was made, but then later discussed why the hell the horse was out on mixed trails!
@Bezzard74 Berry Yeah, I don’t want a hoof to the face and I appreciate that horse riding accidents aren’t entirely uncommon and the injuries from them can easily be life changing hence the reason I am very careful around them. I was stuck behind a couple of riders for a few minutes the other night and they didn’t realise I was there. I eventually made myself known and they immediately moved over and we had a nice exchange of thanks and pleasantries and went on our way. I can’t imagine thinking that they were slowing me down so fuck their safety which is precisely the attitude too many drivers have towards us.
And yes, utterly baffling when people ride horses in public that aren’t able to do it safely. Same as dogs that can’t respond to commands when they are off the lead. One of my boys was scared horribly by a dog that wouldn’t leave him alone. Hes three and the dog was almost the same size as him. The owners weren’t apologetic. He didn’t hurt my child but he scared him and he completely ignored all commands from his owner. Some people just have no self awareness and dog owners especially don’t seem to be able to fathom the idea that their dog is not wonderful and well behaved and scares people.
@mctrials23 Oh I could go on for days about irresponsible dog owners! Long/extendable leads, no recall! Sorry to hear your boy was scared! I love dogs, even though i’ve been bitten a few times (first time was as a postman, yes, it really does happen haha!) The last time was a yappy little thing called pickles, not on the lead, snapping around my ankles, zero attempt to recall by the owners – obviously i was known as Pickles for the rest of the ride (the bite didn’t break skin, so no attention needed).
If cyclists treated drivers in the way that drivers treat cyclists there would be 100 extra dead each year.
@DaveSpokes sounds like the mirror of “I was bit by a horse once; they’re awful animals”?
I’m guessing you’re not with George on this one, and it’s tempting simply to call “full house!”
… but maybe a question would be better:
I wonder if all those who frequent the horsist boards would concur that the respectful and responsible way they behave on the roads has lead to barely any misbehaviour towards them by drivers (or indeed cyclists)? Or is any that occurs explained by the presence of the odd cowboy?
(And could the psychological studies have it right and it’s hard for us to judge this fairly as we all have a double-standard towards dangerous behaviour by motorists as opposed to other antisocial/ dangerous behaviour?)
I am with George on this one. There is no excuse for or legitimate reason behind the levels of hate aimed at Cyclists. Fuelled by the many morons on Social Media. However if we don’t treat other road users with respect and ride within the rules of the Highway Code then can we expect others to respect us? Its a 2 way street and everytime a cyclist does something stupid it puts another stick on the fire. Its not right just a reality. It is no excuse for the appallingly low standards of driving and that is not my point. As the old phrase goes people in Glass houses…..
I think George wasn’t quite saying “collective responsibility” – maybe I’m wrong?
If I have you right, you *are* saying that? That there is a “we” and the fact that kids in Croydon don’t ride their bikes like advanced motorists drive their cars in Aberfeldy means that I deserve no respect? Or is it more “I *know* ’em when I see ’em”?
Humans are a lot more sensitive to the bad – I recall the one close pass every so often very strongly but forget tens of perfectly adequate ones.
I’m actually not that fussed about “respect” – for one that’s normally judged by feel. I think the discussion is helped by a more “civil engineering” focus. Allowing for the fact that humans do work on feeling so law and engineering has to account for that…
George, I agree with your premise in principle, but the given example does not qualify as arsehole behaviour, frustrating maybe, though that may be more the fault of the incessant Hey Duggee theme, but not over the minimum threshold of arsehole.
Arsehole behaviour would be if the rider was inviting cars to overtake then swinging out and blocking the manoeuvre, or being verbal at cars being driven a respectable distance.
@mctrials23 if it’s missing a paragraph break before that line that would make more sense.
Otherwise if that sentence followed the thought from the last (the stats) logic would imply the meaning was that jurors, magistrates etc – using their greater insight from being motorists themselves – are *correctly* identifying drivers who kill other motorists as taking the mick while those who merely kill cyclists being less blameworthy.
Which may be how a fraction of the public does in fact think…
@chrisonabike well thats the flipside isn’t it. If you behaviour is bad but completely normalised then despite people being part of that group, they massively minimise the danger of that behaviour. Partly through conditioning and partly because they almost certainly exhibit that behaviour themselves and don’t want to admit that they are bad drivers or simply lucky not to be on the wrong side of the dock.
Mrs H has a commute of exactly 12.5km to work, and when she rides I ride with her morning and evening for companionship, exercise and as a mobile soigneur/bodyguard/mechanic before riding back to work from home. When she was first contemplating commuting, during the pandemic, I went scoping out various routes. The one she rides now I did, early one Sunday morning, in a shade over 23 minutes at an average speed of 32.5 km/h (I didn’t jump any lights either, though I must admit they were nearly all in my favour). When I ride at weekday rush hour I’m pleased if I make it in under 40 minutes for each leg. This is almost entirely due to car traffic, in which I’m constantly getting enmeshed, yet not once has a car pulled over to let me through or waited to let me out even though I’m quite plainly the faster vehicle and it won’t cost them anything to let me go first. At least fifteen minutes lost four times a day every day because car drivers don’t have the courtesy to recognise that they’re holding me up and pull over, literally about eight full days a year wasted. Arseholes indeed.
Last time I went to West Wittering I sailed from Bosham, landing on the quieter beach on the northern side of East Head spit. I surprised a few nudists in the dunes on the walk to the main beach for an ice cream. Did not get held up by any cyclists 👍😁.
The Birdham-straight gets extremely busy in the summer. If the cyclist pulled over, they might struggle to rejoin the flow of traffic. It really gets that bad.
A while back I cycled down the canal to the marina. I must have spent 10 mins waiting for a gap in traffic so I could cross the Birdham road.
That cyclist didn’t design the road, he was just using it as designed.
Your obvious writing skills would be better used by sending a letter to the authority responsible for the road suggesting improvements to the road design. Writing a complaint about one person solves nothing.
Presumably, George, you were driving along the A286, which is the only long straight road from Chichester to West Wittering. For the benefit of those who (like me) don’t know it, this is the alleged cycle lane running along it. It’s a gutter, looks to be no more than 40cm wide if that with vegetation encroaching from the side. I wouldn’t ride in that and I’m prepared to bet you wouldn’t.
Seriously, what is the point of this article, which could walk straight into the Daily Mail as long as you changed the cyclist to an immigrant? Is road.cc trying to appeal to the carbrain market now? When the stupidest, most irritating previously-banned-under-a-dozen-different-names-over-several-years troll (mods, it’s revelling in making it clear who it is, you surely have sufficient evidence now to make good on your promise of banning it every time it returns?) says “I could literally have written that article myself” you really should ask yourself some questions. Yes, some cyclists are arseholes. Come to London and you’ll see me regularly shouting at and arguing with red light jumpers, ‘phone users and others. Hell, I even stopped recently to offer a car driver my video footage when she hit (gently, fortunately) a RLJ cyclist (he soon dropped his threats of calling the police and legal action and scarpered when he realised he was on camera). So what? All this article represents is a solipsistic lazy moan from someone who very much should know better. It doesn’t contribute anything to the debate beyond clickbait. Disappointing.
@Rendel Harris Rendel, Rendel, Rendel. Stop taking yourself so seriously.
Road.cc is part of a business. This business makes money through advertising and subscriptions (and content licensing?), and I would hazard a guess that it’s the advertising side that makes more money than the subscriptions side.
In order to make revenue from advertising, visitors have to come and view online content. Some content is sponsored, and some content is generated by journalists: staff members who get paid a salary, pay tax and therefore economically need to justify their salary. This means that the stories have to be engaging and enticing. I happen to believe this is a pertinent, engaging and timely story, because (as you are well aware) it aligns with public perceptions of cyclists, and I wholeheartedly endorse its conclusions.
It tells a story of someone (George) who has the perspective of a cyclist, but became frustrated by the selfish behaviour of someone else cycling. I have had similar experiences myself, and as you mention you’ve also been frustrated in different ways due to antisocial behaviour of a minority of cyclists.
George is concerned that the behaviour of the cyclist in question reinforces negative public perceptions of cyclists. His disgusted reaction is perfectly reasonable. I’ve seen a similarly disgusted response from black people about Jason Arday. Arday “let the team down” because his downfall gives succour to racists to claim black people are given an unfair advantage in academia and aren’t competent. Cause and effect. Just like this article.
And on to comments. Comments are part of what makes this site appealing. They enhance stories with personal anecdotes and lived experiences. When I comment, I take the time to articulate a well-reasoned, interesting point of view. I do this to create discussion and examine my own beliefs. You are perfectly free to ignore anyone else’s comments if you disagree with them and don’t want to engage, or even if you just think the person is – as is the tag line of this article – an arsehole.
Perhaps you could consider posting them occasionally?
Doesn’t it ever strike you as just a bit odd that your “well-reasoned, interesting” [sic] comments hardly ever get a single like, never gain any replies supporting your arguments (at least not since Rich_cb flounced off in a huff because Labour got into power and thisismysuername and all his other aliases were banned) and have got you banned from this site at least a dozen times under your various aliases? I know most people have some cognitive gap between how they believe they should be perceived and how the world actually perceives them, but strewth, you’ve got a chasm into which one could fit the Mariana Trench and still have room for the Grand Canyon.
I think it’s a pity rich_cb took off as while I often disagreed with them and that could be vexing many of those disagreements were *interesting*. (Well, apart from the chart wars…)
Even where it seemed the arguments were shaped by our different ideologies I believe that was what they thought. As opposed to more common “find out what many people think then invent a character who says the opposite”. Or “I have been cycling around my small patch for the last 70 years with no issues so I know exactly how you should do it and that you’re wrong”.
Plus IIRC they were well informed about cycle infra in their patch.
@chrisonabike – I think rich_cb’s comments went downhill quite a bit. They used to be mainly argumentative, but nonetheless had some reason behind them, but then they started spouting some quite horrible right-wing/capitalist views which devalued and reduced people to how much money they make as well as pushing the whole oil agenda. They should have just stuck to their cycling opinions which were, as you say, well informed.
@hawkinspeter A fair bit of “antiwoke, anti DEI” racism crept in towards the end of his tenure as well, as I recall.
@Rendel Harris – yeah, I can’t deal with that kind of thing when cycling is inherently an inclusive activity (not that all cyclists treat it as such).
Yeah, I think you’re right, it did get a bit more “oh yeah? Well what about this?!” latterly.
There’s a lot more polarising going on. I blame myself. And the unicyclists.
Bless you, I didn’t realise you place your self-worth on the number of likes you receive on an internet forum. I’ve never yearned for the approval of others, I’m just satisfied in the knowledge that I’ve constructed a coherent and noteworthy post.
The best one I’ve done so far was the one I gave with your pipe, ale and suggestion to move to my leafy cul de sac. I have to admit I cheekily read it back to myself a few times and chuckled *every single time*!
And yet not three weeks ago you were actively canvassing likes. Good liars need good memories, Nigel.
I liked his graphs.
Is the ultimate conclusion/TLDR (too long don’t read) of this article simply:
If the cyclist had a nice safe segregated cycle lane, I would not have been held up for 15 minutes but was still ultimately going at more than 0mph the whole journey.
?
(And yet I won’t ever complain about being stuck stationary in queues of motor traffic, even when some of the cars in front of me are much slower than mine and the drivers should get out of the way.)
Every day on my ride to work I am held up by a column of slow-moving motorists. Not one of them ever pulls into one of the many driveways, laybys etc on the way, meaning that stretch of road instead takes me 10 minutes to cycle instead of about two. They simply never think about how their choice of vehicle inconveniences other road users.
I think your article completely misses the point. If drivers want to be in front, they should get out earlier.
Since when were we defined by the mode of transport we use?
Some people are kind, courteous and law abiding, some people are arseholes. Some people drive cars, some people ride bikes. Non of these are interlinked in any way.
You will find good and bad across all society and good or bad. They might cycle they might not. They might own a BMW SUV, they might not. broad brushing people because that’s what the shameless gutter press likes to do to justify their existence doesn’t mean we should also.
Congrats road.cc, you baited my engagement. That only works for so long though, you get that yeah? Eventually people get sick of places that purposefully court controversy by publishing the dumb opinions of dumb people and just stop going altogether.
Motorists are entitled. Everywhere, at all times, they believe they have the right to proceed onwards and that everyone else is obligated to get out of their way, even when legally and practically they don’t have a leg to stand on. You think you’re advocating for “politeness” George, but you aren’t, you’re arguing for submitting to dominance achieved through violence and fear.
Answer me this – if it was a farm vehicle holding you up with no safe opportunity to overtake, would you be writing an article opining on the “impoliteness” of farmers, doddering along holding everyone up when they could easily pull into a driveway and let everybody past? Afterall, if a cyclist should have to put everyone else’s convenience before their own and spend half their journey stopping and starting and waiting at the side of the road for bunched up cars to go by, that should go doubly for a farmer in a tractor who has a big engine to get him going again every time, right?
Or perhaps, just perhaps, you’re letting the petrol fumes get to you and next time you should probably leave it a few days after last huffing a tailpipe before you decide to write a clever article with half your braincells MIA.
Yeah, of course cyclists can be arseholes. I don’t think I’d call this guy one, although I’m sure the Daily Mail would disagree. Perhaps ask them to publish it instead? You can lead with “I’m a cyclist…”
Side point: why is the lead image on this item a ‘cyclists have priority’ sign? What’s that got to do at all with the content? Is the implication meant to be that ‘things have gone too far’ and cyclists should get back in their place (in the gutter/hedge)?
I’ve posted this opinion a few times, but it feels relevant here.
In the general population, there’s always going to be some percentage of arseholes (e.g. rude, inconsiderate, selfish etc) and what we should be aiming for is to get those arseholes to not drive motor vehicles as that reduces how much harm they can cause. Ideally, we want them to be walking, but as we know, cycling is so much better for longer distances. So, every time we see arseholes on bikes, at least they’re not riding/driving something heavier that goes much faster.
Also, when someone keeps doing stupid things on bikes, they’re likely to come off and hurt themselves at some point, so at least there’s a negative feedback loop that should normalise the worst behaviours.
Or staying home.
@mdavidford – are those the new 0-minute cities that I’ve heard so much about?
@hawkinspeter fool-tolerant design?
Fool-foiling designs sound better but they tend to have unfortunate side-effects – at least when combined with human nature *.
“Sustainable Safety” – design expecting mistakes and some rule-breaking eg. corner-cutting – but be *forgiving*.
That means while *feedback* is provided (see adverse camber, slightly uneven driving surface etc) favour “everyone gets to their destination safely” over “the rules must be respected even at risk of collateral damage!” The penalty for failure shouldn’t be serious injury or death.
* Few want to be thought a fool and some may prove it if they believe that assumption was made.
@chrisonabike – the Highway Code is a good example of fool-tolerant rules. The emphasis is on how to minimise causing danger to others, but also avoiding collisions even if the other road users are being arseholes (e.g. not running over cyclists even if they’re blatantly cycling on the wrong side of the road)
@hawkinspeter Hmm… while there is sensible stuff in there it’s even better where the design and human nature carries more of the weight than rules or guidance.
Speed limits being one; if it was just on the rules that would be a lesser way of ensuring safety than the road / space design. (Of course just changing a number on a sign *does* work to some extent, presumably in part via the “anchoring” effect and “when in Rome”).
I’m thinking more of what we have in eg. UK motorway-design-level thought and applying that *.
One example would be the Dutch taking the observation that a certain fraction of people will make dangerous overtake no matter the rules, paint or even considerations of their own safety and a muffed overtake can have very severe consequences … and then simply banning overtaking on some classes of roads (and even bringing in physical barriers some places).
Hey presto – a whole class of problems they don’t have! (It’s not perfect of course, lots of legacy roads there).
* Only some classes of vehicles allowed, everyone going the same direction with no crossing traffic or stopping / parking, rumble strips at edges, energy absorbing crash barriers, curved layout to stop people falling asleep…
“They want us all locked in our homes…!”
“Not all, only some…”