Media coverage that promotes a “turf war” between people in cars and those on bikes is “divisive, unhelpful and only serves to fuel the problem we have on our roads,” says Chris Boardman, as British Cycling publishes a State of Cycling report which finds that more than two-thirds of its members who responded to its survey believe that conditions have not improved for cyclists within the past five years.
The report, which you can find here, makes for depressing reading. Among the key findings of the research, based on 15,000 respondents to British Cycling’s survey – the largest such exercise it has ever undertaken and equivalent to one in ten of its current membership – are:
70 per cent do not believe that conditions have improved in the last five years
66 per cent are concerned about their safety when riding on Britain’s roads,
87 per cent of cyclists are ‘close passed’ at least once a week
The three most common hazards encountered by people on bikes are close passing (79 per cent), unsafe road surfaces (68% per cent) and vehicle speed (34 per cent)
76 per cent of British Cycling members do not believe that cycling is taken seriously by their local authority, while 81 per cent say the same of national government
77 per cent say their employer could do more to encourage people to cycle to work.
Boardman, who remains a policy advisor to British Cycling in addition to his role as Greater Manchester cycling and walking commissioner, said: “Five years ago I appeared on breakfast television to talk about what would make people on bikes safer, and caused uproar on social media for having the cheek to wear my normal clothes, and not hi-vis and a helmet.
“Despite the evidence repeatedly telling us that it’s sustained investment in better infrastructure that keeps people safe, for 20 years society has continued to tell us that the answer lies in safety equipment.
“It speaks volumes that 96 per cent of those surveyed do wear a helmet on the road, and yet today’s report still reveals the shameful fact that the vast majority don’t feel safe.
“I sincerely hope that this will act as a wake-up call for us, to let evidence lead our decision-making and make bold decisions on funding and investment, rather than simply taking the easy option and telling people to look after themselves.”
Some elements of the mainstream media – for example, the Sunday Telegraph last month – continue to report on cyclists and motorists as though they are two mutually exclusive groups, but as British Cycling points out, nine in ten of its adult members hold driving licences.
The governing body’s research resulted in a couple of near-identical levels of response regarding its members’ views of some road users – whether behind the steering wheel, or riding a bike – that could perhaps erroneously reinforce that perceived division.
Those were that while 71 per cent agreed that drivers are often hostile towards people on bikes, 72 per cent said that they often see people on bikes riding in a way which puts themselves in danger.
The government’s review of cycling safety launched in the wake of Charlie Alliston being jailed for causing the death of pedestrian Kim Briggs, leading to calls for an offence of causing death by careless or dangerous cycling, is still ongoing.
Perhaps mindful of that, Boardman, who rejected the divisive language often employed by the media and, acknowledged that people riding bikes needed to do so in a responsible manner, but said that punishment of law-breaking road users needed to be “proportionate.”
He said: “The idea of a turf war between motorists and people on bikes is divisive, unhelpful and only serves to fuel the problem we have on our roads. We know that 90% of our adult members are also drivers, and we are all at some point a pedestrian too.
“We all need to take responsibility for our own actions on the road – whether you’re a cyclist skipping through a red light or a motorist using your phone at the wheel – we need an enforceable commitment to punish people in a way that is proportionate to the danger they pose.”
The three key recommendations of the report, based on the research, which British Cycling believes would “help individuals, businesses and policymakers drive a cultural shift in the future state of cycling in this country,” are:
A public mutual respect campaign for all road users
Ring-fenced funding for cycling and walking in line with levels suggested by the Walking and Cycling Alliance
The establishment of a national network of major employers by the Department of Transport to better understand how the Government can help small and large businesses to get more of their employees riding to work.
British Cycling’s chief executive, Julie Harrington, commented: “Both the growth in our membership and the response to this survey reflect the evolution of the role which cycling plays in Britain today.
“While we have achieved great things within the sport, our biggest battle lies ahead in the towns, cities and communities we are seeking to help transform, and the support of our members is absolutely vital in helping us to drive that forwards.”
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
55 thoughts on “Chris Boardman calls for end to drivers v cyclists rhetoric as British Cycling reveals two-thirds of bike riders say roads no safer than five years ago”
70 per cent do not believe
70 per cent do not believe that conditions have improved in the last five years Got worse
66 per cent are concerned about their safety when riding on Britain’s roads, Yes
87 per cent of cyclists are ‘close passed’ at least once a week Every time I go out on the road
The three most common hazards encountered by people on bikes are close passing (79 per cent), unsafe road surfaces (68% per cent) and vehicle speed (34 per cent) I agree
76 per cent of British Cycling members do not believe that cycling is taken seriously by their local authority, while 81 per cent say the same of national government True
77 per cent say their employer could do more to encourage people to cycle to work. Probably right
I Think I’ll stay in on my turbo
CXR94Di2 wrote:
That is so true.
My previous employer was very supportive of my leisure cycling and used to promote my charity rides among clients which encouraged quite a few to donate to the various causes. On the other side, there was no dedicated facility for me to securely lock up my bike at the office, and I wasn’t allowed to take it inside because they didn’t want it cluttering up the place when clients visited. They finally relented on that when our subtenant moved out to new offices and I was allowed to leave it in their now unoccupied office space, but that meant carrying it up three flights of stairs.
Now I am a teacher, I try to ride in a few times a weeks but there’s no separate facility for staff so I have to lock it in the students’ bike shed and, let’s put this politely, teenagers are not gentle when getting their bikes out of there and don’t really care about other bikes getting knocked about. Two bent derailleurs and and various handlebar and level resetting sessions have not yet put me off, but will in time. Given staff car parking is at a premium, a bit more encouragement for us to ride in would probably make quite a difference.
CXR94Di2 wrote:
But you won’t, because the boredom will be excruciating…
As well as mutual respect, I
As well as mutual respect, I’d like motorists to have a better knowledge of what cyclists are allowed to do on the road and why they would choose to ride in that way. The use (or not) of cycle lanes and close passes are the two biggest sources of conflict on the roads.
Incisive stuff from CB,
Incisive stuff from CB, drawing out the lessons of the survey in clear chunks, especially;
“Despite the evidence repeatedly telling us that it’s sustained investment in better infrastructure that keeps people safe, for 20 years society has continued to tell us that the answer lies in safety equipment.”
The government’s pathetic funding of cycling is an insult, and just a sop to keep cyclists quiet. We need a fully funded, ambitious programme, with short, medium and long term targets, not endless bidding wars for one off tiny pots of money that achieve almost nothing. And we definitely need an end to the interminable promotion of helmets as the answer to cycling safety.
Unfortunately it is not
Unfortunately it is not “rhetoric”,the” us and them” mentality exists
blodnik1 wrote:
Indeed.
It’s fuelled by irresponsible publications/websites on both sides.
GCN rightly called road.cc out on this the other day.
Rich_cb wrote:
Unfortunately it is not “rhetoric”,the” us and them” mentality exists
— Rich_cb Indeed. It’s fuelled by irresponsible publications/websites on both sides. GCN rightly called road.cc out on this the other day.— blodnik1
Who is GCN? And when did British people pick up irritating US terminology, saying things like ‘called out’? You’ll be saying ‘woke’ and ‘optics’ next.
Your point is bollocks, by the way. The ‘us and them’ mentality comes entirely from one side, the side who actually have the ability to act on it. Cyclists menacing motorists is rare to non-existentas a phenomenon. And utlimately it’s fuelled by political decisions about allocation of road space and road design that works to set people against each other.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Look up the word ‘mentality’.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
The irony of your response to an article calling for an end to divisive rhetoric is wonderful.
ridiculouscyclist wrote:
I struggled not to laugh!
ridiculouscyclist wrote:
So you still don’t understand the point? Or are you just pretending to be dim?
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Is the point that the ‘us and them’ mentality is entirely the fault of ‘them’ and not ‘us’?
Rich_cb wrote:
So you still don’t understand the point? Or are you just pretending to be dim?
— Rich_cb Is the point that the ‘us and them’ mentality is entirely the fault of ‘them’ and not ‘us’?— FluffyKittenofTindalos
Inofofar as there is a ‘us and them’ mentality, and that that is a problem, yes. To claim that people objecting on websites to bad driving and motor-centric road design is an equal part of ‘the problem’ is dishonest. That’s the same old ‘both sides’ dishonesty that crops up in any number of disputes that in reality are in no possible sense symetrical. It’s just a lie.
As far as such a mentality is a problem, it’s entirely down to how it finds expression in driver behaviour.
[edit] even if you are talking about the media commentary that fuels it, rather than how it comes out on the roads, it’s still absurd to pretend that the tiny number of active cyclists and their negligable media presence is somehow of equal importance to the vast motor industry media presence. It’s again, just a lie.
But of course the ‘problem’ of a ‘them and us mentality’ is not the primary one anyway.
Ultimately I think the real problem is motorists not paying the true cost of their habit. We need to stop subsidising driving, it’s massively inefficient.
[edit] interesting Economist article on the topic…I didn’t realise Uber was a loss-making enterprise. The cost of motoring is one issue where the libertarian/neo-liberal arguments are worth listening to (at least as a starting point). We have a strange form of socialism-but-only-for-the-better-off when it comes to the roads.
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2019/05/08/riding-alone-in-a-car-is-an-increasingly-unaffordable-luxury
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
If the ‘us and them’ mentality is harming cyclists then, as a society, we should be doing what we can to reduce it.
This is what Boardman is trying to achieve.
The tone of articles on road.cc is often needlessly inflammatory which can only worsen the ‘us and them’ mentality and unfortunately make cycling more dangerous.
Edit: thanks for economist link. I agree with you about ending subsidies.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
I agree that it’s bollocks.
It’s not road.cc’s fault that cyclists get close passed and the site highlights one of these a day. Perhaps he’d rather we brush it all under the carpet.
The ‘us and them’ thing comes mainly from the media, including the BBC Scotland’s John Beattie on twitter yesterday (some excellent responses though). And he claims to ride a bike every day. Yeah, sure you do, you shit-stirring wanker.
Simon E wrote:
Road.cc is part of the media.
Do you honestly not see the irony in what you’re posting?
We all have a responsibility to tone down the rhetoric even if our influence is relatively small.
Look at how Boardman engages with irresponsible articles etc. We should all seek to emulate that rather than perpetuate the cycle of anger and division.
Rich_cb wrote:
I agree that it’s bollocks.
It’s not road.cc’s fault that cyclists get close passed and the site highlights one of these a day. Perhaps he’d rather we brush it all under the carpet.
The ‘us and them’ thing comes mainly from the media, including the BBC Scotland’s John Beattie on twitter yesterday (some excellent responses though). And he claims to ride a bike every day. Yeah, sure you do, you shit-stirring wanker.
— Simon E Road.cc is part of the media. Do you honestly not see the irony in what you’re posting? We all have a responsibility to tone down the rhetoric even if our influence is relatively small. Look at how Boardman engages with irresponsible articles etc. We should all seek to emulate that rather than perpetuate the cycle of anger and division.— FluffyKittenofTindalos
Road.cc is up there in reach and influence with LBC (whose presenters, barring one, are uniformly and relentlessly pro-motoring) or the Beeb and the Daily Mail? You sure about that equivalence?
Nah, you aren’t convincing me.
This is pretty much the same sort of false-equivalence that comes up with arguments about Trump (“hey, Nazis on one side, and those extreme radicals who want some sort of single-payer health care on the other, both sides are to blame”) or whenever racism is discussed (“what about this black guy who once said something slightly negative about white poeople?”).
And again, no problem with Boardman’s approach, but the ‘cycle of anger and division’ is not really the fundamental problem anyway and insofar as it is, it’s not the likes of road.cc that is driving it. Go ring up presenters on LBC or complain to the Mail or the BBC. Not only do those have vastly more effect, they also go way beyond vague implications of ‘them and us’ they actively tell lies to encourage hate.
There’s no ‘irony’ in pointing out the facts.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
You seem to have completely ignored my point to make an argument about equivalence.
If you believe that the ‘them and us’ mentality directly contributes to harm to cyclists then anything that exacerbates that mentality is making that harm worse.
That is true regardless of the influence any individual or organisation might have.
The harm is greater when the influence is greater but the harm still exists when the influence is less significant.
By contributing to the mentality, even in a minor way, you are contributing to the harm suffered by cyclists.
Rich_cb wrote:
Yes, ‘we’ may have a responsibility to tone down the rhetoric; but so do ‘they’, and ‘we’ are not the ones doing the vast bulk of the aggression, or the killing…
If every single cyclist behaved perfectly, and the government introduced bike number plates and some form of registration fee, it still wouldn’t change a darned thing – it is the very presence of bicycles on the road which offends so many motorists, and therefore it’s their problem, and there’s nothing ‘we’ can do about it.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-in-great-britain-provisional-estimates-year-ending-june-2018
Statistics on reported road casualties in Great Britain for the year ending June 2018 shows there were:
1,770 reported road deaths
26,610 people killed or seriously injured
165,100 casualties of all severities, a decrease of 6%
How many of those were deaths by collision with motor vehicles? (edit) How many were collisions with bicycles?
And finally: how many motorists have said, “There are just too many cyclists on the road and they’re too darned aggressive – I’m going to hand in my licence and start taking the bus”?
Simon E wrote:
+1. Everyone (except cyclists) thinks its ok to talk about “bloody cyclists”. Roadcc are right to flag up the close passing thing.
Cyclists wouldn’t need councils and governments spending huge amounts on infrastructure if the stupid and lazy drivers took some responsibility for their driving. Yes, there are some bad cyclists, but they are very few in number, and cause less problems than the majority of dirvers, nearly all of whom could drice better.
Simon E]
Have to admit I thought Beattie was pro-cyclist (he does ride every day) but his posts on this are appalling. (He didn’t even get the distance right) Good to see the ever excellent Callum Skinner calling him out.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
well a little part of me did cry when I saw BC had distilled the 3 mains points of the survey in to the “key asks” 🙁
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
When I hear “called out” I always think about period drames, knee breeches, and slapping someone’s face with a handkerchief or a glove…
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
I saw this beauty the other day: https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/driver-suffers-broken-jaw-after-2842277
hawkinspeter wrote:
Sounds as if the ‘cyclist’ was not in fact cycling at the time the injury was inflicted. So I blame pedestrians.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Man in car hits man on bike with car
Man in car gets out of car
Man on bike hits man from car with fist
I’ve been the man on the bike… seems fair enough to me. And yes I understand that my outlook, and use of violence, is reprehensible.
What we need here in
What we need here in Australia are drivers to actually learn about and be tested on giving space to cyclists in their driving test, and for harsh penalties for drivers that hit/injure/kill a cyclist and are found to have driven the vehicle in a negligent manner. A car is a weapon. Until a driver gets 15 years in prison for hitting a cyclist due negligence or aggression, nobody will view the matter as important. Only then will cyclists be given the respect to be seen and treated as a fellow human.
Unfortunately, these days the courts give suspended sentences and community service, and we as cyclists may as well be a stray witches hat left on the side of the road.
72 per cent said that they
72 per cent said that they often see people on bikes riding in a way which puts themselves in danger.
I wonder how much of this is because motorists don’t know
1) why cyclists take certain road positions
2) what cyclists are legally allowed to do in the first place
There are probably quite a few people that think that unless a cyclist is hugging the gutter or using a cycle lane, then they are putting themselves in danger…
poppa wrote:
As in any number of “See-You-Next-Tuesdays” who drive according to their PERSONAL invention of what the Highway Code SHOULD be, to fit their fat-arsed ignorance.
poppa wrote:
As in any number of “See-You-Next-Tuesdays” who drive according to their PERSONAL invention of what the Highway Code SHOULD be, to fit their fat-arsed ignorance.
My employer dropped cycle to
My employer dropped cycle to work (governmental employer as well) as the dumbos in finance said it was too complicated to administer. After the fact they have then hilariously tried to get people to cycle to work or car share…..
hawkinspeter wrote:
I don’t think knowledge of what cyclists are allowed to do would make a huge diffrence. Respect is a huge part of it. Cyclists do have a part to play, but from drivers side people need to stop making up rules. I have pointed out to people before that cyclists are allowed to cycle in the road and cycle lanes are not always approprite. I then get replies about “sharing space” and “courtesy” and the like, basicly claiming that cyclists are in the way and should move out of the way. It’s the same behavior that leads to people “letting drivers out of side roads” i.e. slamming their brakes on and flashing their lights. It is the same behavior that leads to idiots pootling down slip roads assuming that everyone will move out of the way rather than them getting up to a sensible speed.
I would say it makes things worse. It is this kind of funding that results in 10 meter strips of cycle lane, shared use spaces that don’t work or are inaccessable and narrow strips of white paint. All add to the councils claims of being cycle friendly and mean that they can charge employee costs to that and shave a few more pounds off spending.
Ironic that we are talking about mutual respect and you start name calling. Any salary sacrafice is complex to administer, and C2W is made more complex by the fake rental and buy back bit, rather than just being a simple(ish) before tax loan. Even if it is simple it is still an admin overhead, and when budgets are tight continuing to support a nice to have employee benefit is the first to be dropped when you have legislative requirements like IR35, making tax digital, pension auto enrolement and loads of other pressures mean that something has to go. Something that is not a legal requirement or business critical is going to be high on the list of places to reduce workload in the face of a headcound freeze or cut. Blaim austerity and the tory belife that the public sector is lazy and inefficent. I have worked in both and the main problem is the public sector is not allowed to invest in the future.
John Smith wrote:
I agree with the Guardian article already posted (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2019/may/09/the-uks-feral-roads-deter-cycling-we-need-enforcement-not-calls-for-respect) – I don’t particularly care about a driver’s opinion of me as long as they’re not driving aggressively or shouting out of their window at me for using a road as the nearby cycle path isn’t suitable.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I don’t dissagree that enforcement is needed, but I also think this is a tool for forcing people to treat other road users with respect. My quibble was more over the question of knowing the law. I think most drivers do know what the law says, they just think they are more important and start picking on details and willfully missusing parts of the highway code. There are many areas where drivers do not understand the law (passing on double white lines for example) but I do not think they don’t know the law on close passes or cycle lanes. What I think goes through most bad drivers heads is “I’m held up for two seconds. The highway code says that you should not hold up other road users, therefor I can ignore the rules on giving space”.
Why do BC members think the
Why do BC members think the roads would be any safer than five years ago?
The government has done nothing and meanwhile the media has gone to town on “rogue” cyclists, Charlie Alliston and cyclists in general as being ‘sub-human’.
Many police forces have often been obstructive or reluctant to act, dismissive of cyclists’ complaints and slow to adopt the use of camera footage. Meanwhile dangerous, aggressive drivers too often get away with it and the courts hand out lenient sentences while uninsured illegal and banned drivers or those with more than 12 points are too often still driving.
This is not about cyclists v drivers or bikes v cars, it’s about some people having no respect for anyone else and specifically for another group of road users.
Only one side is killing the
Only one side is killing the other, only one side is putting the other in hospital.
ktache wrote:
And on top of the physical harm they way people drive is causing millions of people who would like to cycle more to say they are too afraid because the roads (i.e. drivers) are too scary.
No, I don’t.
I drive, I cycle and I walk. What I see every day is drivers being selfish and endangering other road users including other drivers. I was diverted round a head-on crash yesterday morning, there was a fatality on the road near our office in the afternoon and was subjected to a dangerous overtake last night. All while driving my car.
How is publicising bad driving perpetuating the problem?
I have never tarred all drivers, and I am sure that I am subjected to fewer close passes than I used to (though that doesn’t include the knob in a Royal Mail van who couldn’t wait 10 seconds this morning). But there is a widespread problem of open contempt for cyclists and other vulnerable road users and some of us are frankly sick of it.
Anything that serves to highlight this problem can hopefully be used as evidence to demonstrate that it’s not some bleating ‘snowflake’ cyclist rhetoric but a serious issue.
In what way have the NMoTD articles and road.cc coverage contributed to the problem?
Do you not accept that NMoTD may have helped push some police forces to start accepting video footage? Or perhaps you agree that we shouldn’t see the CCTV images of the cyclist hit on Swains Lane recently?
What alternative approach are you proposing to of highlight the issues and shine a spotlight on dangerous or aggressive drivers?
It’s really astonishing that
It’s really astonishing that after reading an article from a cycling ambassador that suggests divisive ‘us and them’ rhetoric will only make the situation worse – a good proportion of forum contributors fell compelled to reply that it’s ‘them’ not ‘us’ that causes the problems on the roads.
Similarly, many media outlets cheer loudly when some guy splats an egg on a right wing politician and everybody shouts ‘yeah right on’ – giving no thought at all to that fact that all they’re doing is making it publicly acceptable to splat an egg on any public figure anywhere, of any persuasion. But really, how does this type of moronic mud-slinging advance any type of reasoned argument that might actually improve a situation?
Respect starts with me, not others.
ridiculouscyclist wrote:
As I said – this bogus ‘false equivalence’ tactic gets applied to many topics. You seem to be getting close to that here.
I’ve been reading a few
I’ve been reading a few articles about this today and the one in the guardian sums up how I feel quite well
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2019/may/09/the-uks-feral-roads-deter-cycling-we-need-enforcement-not-calls-for-respect
Feral is probably the way to describe roads. There is no enforcement of traffic laws; aggressive and bullying driving is the norm.
A few years ago I finally got round to passing my driving test. The examiner commented that by not accelerating all the way to the 40mph limit on the 250m between two roundabouts I could be antagonising other drivers, at the same time he had to tick a box saying that I had demonstrated driving economically. At the time I had shrugged it off, after all I had passed my test. But the message he gave was that 40mph was the speed I had to do on that stretch and anything less would annoy other drivers and then anything could happen – it would be my fault.
Since passing my test I’ve driven a couple of times but the levels of aggression make it more stressful than its worth. I’ve seen how people I know change when they get behind the wheel. There is no room for the weak and feeble out there on the roads, they will be bullied, cut up, sworn at and intimidated. Doesn’t seem to matter if you’re in a car driving at a reasonable speed, on a bike or on foot – if you’re in somebody’s way you are a problem.
On a bike I get close passed almost all the time, I’ve become immune to that. I probably have one or two passes a day that are close enough for me to freak me and change speed or direction, one or two a week that cause an emergency response and add 50bpm to my heart rate. About 6 months ago I got a set of cameras thinking I could help do something about these people. A few attempts at submitting videos to Thames Valley Police and I’ve given up.
I’m a bit stuck now, two really scary passes at the weekend made me wonder if I should just give up, get a turbo and join the ratrace. But do I really want to be part of the problem?
bobbypuk wrote:
No, don’t give up. Report the close passes. Even if (as is likely) you get no result from the police, if you don’t report it there’s no evidence of a problem. Certainly don’t stop riding – because (a) you like doing it so why should the brain-dead bullies stop you; and (b) the more of us that do it the more aware the (non-cyclist) drivers will have to be, whether they like it or not. Ride all the more if you can. Despite many people’s disgraceful attitudes on the road, and whilst I certainly don’t wish to dismiss or minimise your rough recent experiences, cycling is statistically a safe activity.
bobbypuk wrote:
deleted duplicate. Note sure what happened
Mutual Respect ….. more and
Mutual Respect ….. more and more education is the answer for new drivers. There should be a dedicated and comprehensive cyclist module in the driving test which needs to cover all the hazards of being a cyclist. Need everyone to contact the road safety charity Brake.
Likewise, all people buying new bikes in shops etc need to sign declaration re responsible cycling. Newbies should be encouraged to take a course in road safety on a bike.
“Mutual respect”. It’s that
“Mutual respect”. It’s that equivalence thing going on again.
“They” will kill two of “Us” this week.
“They” will also kill at least a pedestrian a day, for some reason that appears to be a silent slaughter, and the word war does not seem to be used. Perhaps if pedestrians started to become a bit more vocal about it.
“They” do quite a good job at killing themselves, each other and vehicle occupents too.
I think government have ‘lost
I think government have ‘lost control’/’are scared stiff’ of motorists; feels like we’re getting to ‘peak car’ and something has to give.
Was at a friends house recently and the subject of the environment came up; his 17 y/o daughter was pretty vocal on the subject (fair enough). Almost as soon as this conversation came to an end the subject of the negotiations over her getting a car after passing her test came up. Me: (thinking ‘WTF’!!). Couldn’t afford a car until I was 23, even then it was only when I was offered a cheap, low mileage car from an elderly relative who’d stopped driving.
It’s really astonishing that
It’s really astonishing that after reading an article from a cycling ambassador that suggests divisive ‘us and them’ rhetoric will only make the situation worse – a good proportion of forum contributors fell compelled to reply that it’s ‘them’ not ‘us’ that causes the problems on the roads.
As others have pointed out, it is a mistake to believe that in every debate, each side of the argument has exactly equal merit.
What you fail to understand is that the important arena is ‘on the road’ not ‘on a forum’. And on the road, people riding bikes are intimidated (and in millions of cases, bullied off the road altogether) by people driving cars. Not the other way round.
#5
#5
I’ll just leave this here:
I’ll just leave this here: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/video/2019/may/09/do-cyclists-think-theyre-above-the-law-and-does-it-even-matter-video
The problem lies with drivers
The problem lies with drivers and their feeling of entitlement and security. Its not about drivers and cyclists.
Only last night was I walking my daughter back from school with our dog on quite a narrow pavement, very wet road. 30 limit village road. A grey Skoda (so there goes the white Audi myth) passed us at 60mph+.
I literaly howled with rage and would have lobbed a used doggie bag at the oncoming car if I’d thought quick enough.
Such people are thoughtless, ignorant and dangerous, and I sincerely hope he finds himself upside down in a ditch in the near future.
hawkinspeter, that is a fine
hawkinspeter, that is a fine Guardian video, well posted. I also dared to look at the helmet one after, shockingly balanced.
Though a bit disappointed in the lack of squirrels.
I believe that a very large
I believe that a very large part of the problem is a basic ignorance of, indeed unwillingness to engage with what might be termed “facts”. Go to any website discussion about cycling and the same old tropes will be posted; Jumping red lights, pavement cycling, riding 2 abreast, cyclists holding up traffic, road tax, insurance, licencing and all the other dribble. The same counter arguments will be put forward that debunk the outright myths and explain the relevant sections of the highway code and yet you will see the same postings from the same contributors in the very next similar discussion thread. Very rarely is there reference to evidence, best practice advice or statistics from reliable sources in either the lead article or in the comment responses.
There is also the effect that, just like you only need a few arseholes to tar an entire group with a certain reputation, you only need a few loud voices to hijack any discussion that frankly vast swathes of the population really care very little about, but those few can certainly create the impression of tribes at war to further their own agendas.
I know that people have opinions about anti cycling clickbait articles in national and local media but I find the discussions on this forum often include some very concise, factual, powerful arguments with links to authoritative sources of evidence that would be useful to compile into a resource for use in those online comment sections.
Mungecrundle wrote:
Facts seem to be discarded by most people.
There’s a beautiful short story by Ted Chiang that investigates “facts”: The Truth of Fact, The Truth of Feeling: https://subterraneanpress.com/magazine/fall-2013
You can read it online here: https://web.archive.org/web/20140222103103/http://subterraneanpress.com/magazine/fall_2013/the_truth_of_fact_the_truth_of_feeling_by_ted_chiang
So… the us vs them
So… the us vs them mentality only arose with the growth of, and is stoked by, on-line media on the world wide web?
Bollocks. I was getting called a farkin cyclist cnut by nobber drivers more than 30 years ago. Used to get abused on the basis of “You lot want farkin….” whilst riding legally and safely in London in the late 90’s well before the bomb-dodgers fuelled the boom in cycling there.
Cyclists are an out group regardless of what the media says. When I “delay” a nobber driver by riding in primary on a country lane when there are cars coming the other way their frustation isn’t informed by the media, it is informed by their overweaning sense of entitlement, and the voices in their heads screaming “MUST GET PAST!”
The problem is a media in the
The problem is a media in the UK for which ‘a “turf war” between people’ is their bread and butter and for which division brings more readers than information.
This was a very good analysis of the problem:
https://www.monbiot.com/2019/03/28/bring-on-the-clowns/
“If our politics is becoming less rational, crueller and more divisive, this rule of public life is partly to blame: the more disgracefully you behave, the bigger the platform the media will give you. If you are caught lying, cheating, boasting or behaving like an idiot, you’ll be flooded with invitations to appear on current affairs programmes. If you play straight, don’t expect the phone to ring.”
The media drive conflict between motorists and cyclists because it makes money for them.