[the little onion]

So, the usual christmas of tensions spent at the in-law’s. I was sitting at the house of a relative of my other half, when, a propos of nothing, they came up with a passionate “I hate cyclists” rant. Apparently we don’t belong on the road, we are just “annoying” by holding up “traffic”, whilst the tour de yorkshire keeps closing roads (it has never actually passed through their village, but did pass within a few miles of it three years ago). 

The surprising thing is that this particular relative is actually normally really nice and chilled out, so it was really stunning to hear anti-cyclist venom pouring out. 

 

Any tips on how to deal with this. Next time I tempted to politely listen, and then ask them if they also hate train passengers, scorpios and black people. It won’t go down well, but it will be fun to watch the reaction. 

Topic

[FluffyKittenofTindalos]

RMurphy195 wrote:

Organon wrote:

‘Cyclists, train passengers, scorpios and black people.’ Crickey, I am three of those. 

 

I tow a caravan, and drive a sports car, as well as ride a bike. Any advance on three?

 

Bonus points if you tow the caravan with the bike.

[RMurphy195]

Organon wrote:

‘Cyclists, train passengers, scorpios and black people.’ Crickey, I am three of those. 

 

I tow a caravan, and drive a sports car, as well as ride a bike. Any advance on three?

[Mungecrundle]

Stakkato’s Daughter

Stakkato’s Daughter

Welcome to the dark underbelly of cycling society, and well done for standing up to your ex-inlaws. But don’t let something like that consume you.

 

[Dingaling]

Well done.

Well done.

[Stakkato's Daughter]

I actually found this forum

I actually found this forum after finding this post from googling this very issue.

I found myself in this position after years of goading from the inlaws about a variety of subjects from my choice not to have children (I’m female) to running my own business instead of being an employee, and choosing to buy a house with land for my horses.  There was also one particularly memorable rant about how the father-in-law thought all animals should all be killed, as they were “dirty”, on Christmas Eve.  Never done in a sort of black humour way either.  Anyway, I’d bitten my tongue for so long at the rudeness and the anti-cycling rant (which contained the delightful content that the father-in-law was tempted to “mow down” cyclists when he saw them on the road, amongst other nasty comments) was the tip of the iceberg, particularly as me and my now ex-husband had met through cycling and a lot of the comments were directed at me personally.  So I informed them, there and then:

– That their behaviour was anti-social and unacceptable;

– That I was horrified about their poor attitudes towards health and fitness and lack of respect for the law, and that my parents (who are dead) would be terribly upset about the way they spoke to me;

– That their comments amounted to attempted bullying and were fairly abusive, and displayed a lack of respect for their husband’s choice of wife, and also her career (I’m a lawyer);

– That I was shocked and disappointed in the family that I had married into and was now questioning whether I could continue, and I walked out (the ex did come with me but gave me it in the ear the whole drive home).

Then followed a couple of half-hearted attempts by them by email to “discuss the issue” with me, which I ignored.  Wasn’t particularly impressed at my now ex’s inability to stand up to them or stick up for me either.

And that is how I dealt with it.  Should have done it a lot sooner, and what a feeling of relief when I did.  OK, so I’m a lawyer, and I can recognise this sort of goady/jealous stuff that some people tend to come out with when I’m around.  I can also be very authoritative when really pushed, although I normally would never use this outside work. 

Its not my idea of fun people to socialise with.  Life is much better not bothering and making sure they know why you have dropped them.

[David9694]

brooksby wrote:

alansmurphy wrote:

David9694 wrote:

The hierarchy/ inferiority stuff I’m not so sure about, enjoyable though it is to think that when there’s a lane out that the 69 reg Vogue is as stuck as I am in my little 57 reg.  I think in motoring there’s a “follow the car in front”/ we’re all in it together, sort of spirit reinforced in towns by specific traffic schemes – in short, the car and its progress is “normal”.  Bikes disrupt that “order” in the ways people have described – physically and psychologically. 

I disagree entirely (but respectfully). It’s got even worse with our new throw away society, there’s very few bangers on the road anymore, fewer teenagers or working class people trying to make a 20 year old Ford survive. They are all in a living room with digital media, protected in a bubble of parking sensors and safety. They don’t follow the car in front, they look for the first opportunity to pass it, find a quicker lane at the lights, bully their way into a gap, pass a car in the opposite direction at 60mph each by milimetres. Must get in front is determined by their car, their right, their self importance. Everything is an inconvenience to them but cyclists are bottom of the pecking order and there to be bullied and attacked. I just wish a driver would treat a car with even half the caution they do a horse!

I suspect that they only really treat a horse with caution because they know that a horse is, like,  THIS big! and they know that a horse can do a lot of damage to their Precious.

If cyclists were seen as likely to panic and damage cars then they’d be treated with more caution too.

I always wonder where Mr pony Hit and Run in the New Forest spirits away his boshed-in car….

I wonder which motorist is more dangerous to cyclists – the good, the bad or the indifferent? I agree about Mr Overtaky bargey bargey, must save those precious seconds, each reclaimed second means another £10 can be raised for the orphanage, but I credit them (unpleasant though they are) at least with exercising some judgment and interest in their driving  – NMotD 350 is exactly the sort of switched-off idiot I mean. 

muscle and wealth do win arguments and situations – the #metoo stuff now back in the news is an example of how attitudes can change, although I doubt every casting couch has yet been taken to the tip or dumped in a lay-by.
 

Another example I always cite is that of my 89 year old mother, in her electric wheelchair, one foot amputated. Cars slow down for her as she ambles about the edge of the town centre on some tricky junctions – for some it’s out of genuine grace and respect – for others, this is simply not an argument they’re going to win in the media/ social media.  She needs a Go Pro on the headrest!

 

 

 

[hawkinspeter]

Mungecrundle wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

As well as different environments, young people tend to have a more flexible mindset as they haven’t yet decided what they think is right or that they are not so invested in a particular ideology. This means that they are more receptive to new ideas and can see the advantages rather than just reacting with fear things changing.

You are so right. Children are our hope for a better future.

I’ve long thought that education should be a much higher priority in society (and not necessarily just the exam-passing rubbish that seems to be in vogue).

We should aim to provide as many alternate viewpoints as possible to kids

 

[Mungecrundle]

hawkinspeter wrote:

As well as different environments, young people tend to have a more flexible mindset as they haven’t yet decided what they think is right or that they are not so invested in a particular ideology. This means that they are more receptive to new ideas and can see the advantages rather than just reacting with fear things changing.

 

 

You are so right. Children are our hope for a better future.

[hawkinspeter]

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

 

Disagreements don’t always get resolved by implied violence. Sometimes it’s just a matter of old ideas dying off with the older population, but I don’t think that’s the case with cyclist hatred as it seems to cross age groups.

The thing is that it actually benefits most people to have a larger number of cyclists on the roads and so motorists and cyclists should have their goals aligned – quality transport options that get you from A to B quickly and safely. The problem is that there’s a lot of money made in keeping people in their cars, so we end up with biased media *cough*BBC*cough* and a lot of people eager to have an out-group to blame for all their repressed rage from sitting in traffic queues.

I think education is going to be more effective in getting people to realise that cyclists are not actually a curse upon the roads though there’s always some people that just don’t like to hear facts.

But why do the young have different ideas from the old? Because they experienced different conditions when growing up. And the conditions will have changed because of countless millions of individual and collective acts that weren’t based on consensus and weren’t always 100% peaceful and accepted by all. I’m not talking about getting into physical fights with people or setting off bombs or dropping bricks off motorway bridges or anything (though in the past that was sometimes part of it, it’s not really my point). Just seems to me that ultimately change happens because people just push ahead and do things to change reality rather than trying to persuade everyone to fully agree to them. Then you have to trust people will come to accept or even welcome the new conditions. So arguing to persuade every obstreperous or dim individual is not critical. (Right now those pushing to start a war with Iran aren’t relying on persuading everyone through theoretical arguments and rhetorical techniques – they are just hoping everyone will feel obliged to support it once they change the circumstances and get it started)

As well as different environments, young people tend to have a more flexible mindset as they haven’t yet decided what they think is right or that they are not so invested in a particular ideology. This means that they are more receptive to new ideas and can see the advantages rather than just reacting with fear things changing.

I’m not sure that a war with Iran is in the same kind of ballpark as that’s far more likely to be influenced by huge amounts of money and the possibility of owning large oil reserves.

[FluffyKittenofTindalos]

hawkinspeter wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Disagreements don’t always get resolved by implied violence. Sometimes it’s just a matter of old ideas dying off with the older population, but I don’t think that’s the case with cyclist hatred as it seems to cross age groups.

The thing is that it actually benefits most people to have a larger number of cyclists on the roads and so motorists and cyclists should have their goals aligned – quality transport options that get you from A to B quickly and safely. The problem is that there’s a lot of money made in keeping people in their cars, so we end up with biased media *cough*BBC*cough* and a lot of people eager to have an out-group to blame for all their repressed rage from sitting in traffic queues.

I think education is going to be more effective in getting people to realise that cyclists are not actually a curse upon the roads though there’s always some people that just don’t like to hear facts.

But why do the young have different ideas from the old? Because they experienced different conditions when growing up. And the conditions will have changed because of countless millions of individual and collective acts that weren’t based on consensus and weren’t always 100% peaceful and accepted by all.

I’m not talking about getting into physical fights with people or setting off bombs or dropping bricks off motorway bridges or anything (though in the past explicit violence was sometimes part of getting change, it’s not really my point). Just seems to me that ultimately change happens because people just push ahead and do things to change reality rather than trying to persuade everyone to fully agree to them. Then you have to trust people will come to accept or even welcome the new conditions. So arguing to persuade every obstreperous or dim individual is not critical.

(Right now those pushing to start a war with Iran aren’t relying on persuading everyone through theoretical arguments and rhetorical techniques – they are just hoping everyone will feel obliged to support it once they change the circumstances and get it started)

[brooksby]

alansmurphy wrote:

David9694 wrote:

The hierarchy/ inferiority stuff I’m not so sure about, enjoyable though it is to think that when there’s a lane out that the 69 reg Vogue is as stuck as I am in my little 57 reg.  I think in motoring there’s a “follow the car in front”/ we’re all in it together, sort of spirit reinforced in towns by specific traffic schemes – in short, the car and its progress is “normal”.  Bikes disrupt that “order” in the ways people have described – physically and psychologically. 

I disagree entirely (but respectfully). It’s got even worse with our new throw away society, there’s very few bangers on the road anymore, fewer teenagers or working class people trying to make a 20 year old Ford survive. They are all in a living room with digital media, protected in a bubble of parking sensors and safety. They don’t follow the car in front, they look for the first opportunity to pass it, find a quicker lane at the lights, bully their way into a gap, pass a car in the opposite direction at 60mph each by milimetres. Must get in front is determined by their car, their right, their self importance. Everything is an inconvenience to them but cyclists are bottom of the pecking order and there to be bullied and attacked. I just wish a driver would treat a car with even half the caution they do a horse!

I suspect that they only really treat a horse with caution because they know that a horse is, like,  THIS big! and they know that a horse can do a lot of damage to their Precious.

If cyclists were seen as likely to panic and damage cars then they’d be treated with more caution too.

 

[alansmurphy]

David9694 wrote:

 

The hierarchy/ inferiority stuff I’m not so sure about, enjoyable though it is to think that when there’s a lane out that the 69 reg Vogue is as stuck as I am in my little 57 reg.  I think in motoring there’s a “follow the car in front”/ we’re all in it together, sort of spirit reinforced in towns by specific traffic schemes – in short, the car and its progress is “normal”.  Bikes disrupt that “order” in the ways people have described – physically and psychologically. 

 

I disagree entirely (but respectfully). It’s got even worse with our new throw away society, there’s very few bangers on the road anymore, fewer teenagers or working class people trying to make a 20 year old Ford survive. They are all in a living room with digital media, protected in a bubble of parking sensors and safety. They don’t follow the car in front, they look for the first opportunity to pass it, find a quicker lane at the lights, bully their way into a gap, pass a car in the opposite direction at 60mph each by milimetres. Must get in front is determined by their car, their right, their self importance. Everything is an inconvenience to them but cyclists are bottom of the pecking order and there to be bullied and attacked. I just wish a driver would treat a car with even half the caution they do a horse!

 

[Mungecrundle]

“Yeah, I know what you mean,
“Yeah, I know what you mean, it’s like old people shuffling along the pavement when you are in a hurry. You just want to yell at them to get off the path and if that doesn’t work just shove them out of the way. OK, they may be there perfectly legally, but when the paths are busy they should stay at home and not inconvenience other people, putting themselves at risk is totally irresponsible.”

Of course if they agree with this then you might just have a genuine nutter on your hands, but if they think it an unreasonable thing to say then ask them why their attitude to cyclists is any different.

[dee4life2005]

Do they drive a 4×4, audi,

Do they drive a 4×4, audi, bmw etc.? If so, I’d reply with all of the experiences that I’ve had with such vehicles when out cycling, and proclaim that I hate them just as much as they drive one too so they must be equally as bad a driver. 

[Jimnm]

Just tell him you are

Just tell him you are contributing to and are trying to save the planet, ask him what are you doing?

[Author]

Replies