Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Foul-mouthed anti-cyclist rant from farmers' Facebook group goes viral

'Farmers Against Misinformation' posted a "polite-ish note" (that wasn't so polite) and has since been shared 15,000 times...

A foul-mouthed Facebook post from Farmers Against Misinformation, in which cyclists are asked to stop on country lanes to allow oncoming tractors to pass, has been shared 15,000 times.

The page committed to "helping people understand successful livestock and crop farming practices around the world, by providing news, views, and real world data" posted the "polite-ish notice" on Saturday. It has since been liked 42,000 times and attracted 10,000 comments.

From "an irritated farmer"...

A polite-ish notice to all cyclists on country roads during harvest.
Please understand I have zero issues with you using the roads to ride your bicycle, I’m all for exercising and if slipping in to a lycra suit and impaling your self on a cock-shaped bike seat for hours keeps you satisfied then each to their own.

If I’m driving a car I always give plenty of ‘safe space’ when passing cyclists which is only fair, we know how sensitive you are to your requested road space, you have just as much right to the roads as anyone....

HOWEVER, if I’m coming at you in a bloody great big tractor with 20 tons behind me on a single track road, do me and yourself a favour and STOP for one second, either move as far over to your side of the road or just step on to the verge if there is one, so I can pass safely, do not just continue at full speed and then piss and moan as you go past because if it goes wrong you’ll end up being pressure washed off a tractor wheel.

Unfortunately for you we take all your space and we can’t help it, so unless you want to lend a hand either changing a tyre that’s blown out or shovelling up a spillage, then we’re not dropping our wheels into drainage grips so that you can continue your bicycle ride.

Cars, horse riders and runners are capable of it, I seem to be missing something with cyclists, I presume either you don’t want to get your special bike dirty, you’re trying to beat your PB or more than likely you’re just a complete cock in general.

Regards your Road Safety Advocate for the 3 shires

Cycling and farming don't overlap too often, so we've not got too much in the road.cc archives however, last June, a certain Jeremy Clarkson released his new Amazon Prime series 'Clarkson's Farm' in which there's a scene where former Trek-Segafredo pro Charlie Quarterman rides past the now-tractor-based presenter.

Filmed during lockdown, Clarkson says (to his camera operator, also out doing their job): "Everyone's told to stay at home unless their journey's essential. That doesn't apply to cyclists, obviously!"

At least one good thing came from that episode...one follower added: "...not sure what’s more awkward, him owning himself while being a smart-arse as per or the fact he’s pretty much in cardiac arrest putting up a small sign." 

Anyway, it seems Farmers Against Misinformation have taken a leaf out of Clarkson's book on this one...

Dan joined road.cc in 2020, and spent most of his first year (hopefully) keeping you entertained on the live blog. At the start of 2022 he took on the role of news editor. Before joining road.cc, Dan wrote about various sports, including football and boxing for the Daily Express, and covered the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Part of the generation inspired by the 2012 Olympics, Dan has been 'enjoying' life on two wheels ever since and spends his weekends making bonk-induced trips to the petrol stations of the south of England.

Add new comment

89 comments

Avatar
chrisonabike | 1 year ago
2 likes

Actually this image from David Hembrow's excellent archive (on "pragmatism") probably illustrates all we need here.  (This is a farm track converted into a bike path but with access retained for farm vehicles).  But yes - plenty of places in the UK where farm vehicles are as big as the farmers can afford but aside from asphalt the roads haven't kept pace with the invention of the car.  Plus a measure of culture in that we (predominantly urban people) want the countryside for holiday, recreation, an ideal place to bring up the kids or to retire to and that can be at odds with its viability.  Finally our prestige / high resource use / centralising culture cements the "need" for motor vehicle ever more in the countryside.

Avatar
wycombewheeler | 1 year ago
11 likes

If only tractors had tyres suitable for surfaces other than tarmac, so they could easily pull onto the verge.

Post seems like it was written by a sociopath. "I appreciate there is risk to you and this road is not wide enough for us to pass safely, but I'm not stopping, so get out of the way. "

Avatar
ChrisB200SX | 1 year ago
8 likes

The comments on that facebook post are the worst bin fire you could imagine. 10,000+ posts about how much self-confessed bigots hate people on bikes for no actual reason and they should die, etc.

Anti-cyclist comments need to be made a hate crime and socially unacceptable. Vulnerable road users are killed and injured daily due to these self-propogated false stereotypes and hatred being published.

Avatar
notMyRealName | 1 year ago
1 like

This post is not new, I saw it shared on facebook and twitter last summer, although I think some of the words have changed. It's disgusting, hurtful and vicious. I am disappointed roadcc decided to give it more publicity. 

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 1 year ago
12 likes

I've been digging through all of the relevant data and to date, I cannot find any tractor driver that has been hurt by an errant cyclist. However, there are incidents where cyclists have been hurt by tractor drivers.

From this, I deduce that it's the tractor drivers that need to moderate their behaviour as they are a risk to the health and safety of other road users.

Thinking about it logically, it's obviously much safer for cyclists to pass a stationary tractor than it is for a tractor to pass stationary cyclists.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to hawkinspeter | 1 year ago
6 likes

You forgot the classic - "ah, but the cyclists cause the 'accidents' (and they wouldn't be hurt if they weren't on a toy vehicle)"

Avatar
JimM777 | 1 year ago
3 likes

As usual in these sort of cases, the problems only arise because of certain obstinate inconsiderate individuals. On one side we have the cyclist whose stance is: I have as much right to be on this road as anyone else, and I can't afford to waste any time. On the other the farmer whose stance is: I have important work to do and I have to use this road and I can't afford to waste any time.

While the majority of both sides simply slow down and use common sense and care to manoeuvre past each other.

Avatar
ChrisB200SX replied to JimM777 | 1 year ago
10 likes

You are totally mistaken.

In these situations the problems are caused entirely by the self-entitled tractor drivers who don't care that their dangerous driving can kill and injure other people. They are the only individual that can cause any danger in this situation and should slow down to a safe speed when passing cyclists. 

Cyclists simply do not play chicken with tractors and such... and even IF they did, it is the driver's responsibility to drive safely. It's clearly never going to be the cyclist(s) that will be taking up 3/4 of the width of the road forcing the tractor into the ditch to avoid a collision.

Avatar
HarrogateSpa replied to JimM777 | 1 year ago
5 likes

Only one of these two parties is a criminal threatening to murder the other. That's why your analysis is completely wrong.

Avatar
JimM777 replied to HarrogateSpa | 1 year ago
1 like

Did you actually read what I said instead of jumping to the conclusion that you wanted? My post pointed out that it was certain individuals who caused problems - one being inconsiderate tractor drivers. Get your facts right - a criminal is someone who has committed a crime, someone who has a desire to commit a crime but has not committed one is not a criminal. As someone who has driven farm vehicles on road and is also a cyclist, your simplified blanket assertions don't help to foster good relations between various road users, which is an objective that we should all be striving for.

Avatar
vthejk replied to JimM777 | 1 year ago
6 likes

Not to make too fine a point of it, but these 'good relations' between various road users can't be fostered when one group of road users is threatening the other with violence if the other don't simply bow out of the way and secede.

The farmers in this instance are not asking for courtesy, they are threatening physical harm if others are not subservient to them.

There is zero point saying things on this forum, that is usually populated by people who ride bicycles, asking for courtesy when we are raising the issue of actual risk of violence towards us.

Also: threat of violence and verbal abuse - still illegal.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to vthejk | 1 year ago
5 likes

Share the roadocean...

Avatar
wtjs replied to vthejk | 1 year ago
4 likes

Also: threat of violence and verbal abuse - still illegal

Not really, in Lancashire anyway. A BMW driver close-passed me and was then stopped by temporary lights- I remonstrated with him (no swearing by me), and he threatened to "fucking flatten" me, and declared that I would get "knocked off". I had video and audio of the entire incident, but it took 3 persistent months working against Lancashire Constabulary indolence and indifference to achieve the negligible result of 'words of advice'

Avatar
vthejk replied to wtjs | 1 year ago
3 likes

You've of course hit the nail on the head that the problem is lack of enforcement. Little Johnny is not going to stop his bullying and misbehaving if he keeps just getting 'final warnings' and angry little demerit stickers.

Avatar
JimM777 replied to vthejk | 1 year ago
1 like

And your solution is what? I don't accept that all tractor drivers are threatening cyclists with violence. There may be a few rotten applies, and if possible, cam footage should be used to deal with those individuals. Otherwise, cyclists should show courtesy and consideration, which helps to foster good relations.

Avatar
brooksby replied to JimM777 | 1 year ago
4 likes

JimM777 wrote:

And your solution is what? I don't accept that all tractor drivers are threatening cyclists with violence. There may be a few rotten applies, and if possible, cam footage should be used to deal with those individuals. Otherwise, cyclists should show courtesy and consideration, which helps to foster good relations.

Admit it - you work for the Met, don't you?  3  4

Avatar
vthejk replied to JimM777 | 1 year ago
7 likes

This is exhausting. We are not talking about 'all tractor drivers.' We are talking about the ones who have made a post threatening to hurt other road users. My point is that this abusive and threatening post is the problem and should be treated seriously. I am not legally minded so don't have a legal solution and, as wjts was correct in pointing out, while illegal, this kind of threatening language goes unenforced anyway, cameras or not.

I know what the solution is NOT - that vulnerable road users simply act as polite and genteel as possible while a potentially agressive road user capable of killing us dominates the road. This is not 'courtesy and consideration.' It is subservience.

Please don't patronise me by saying that my courteous behaviour is somehow going to save me from deadly encounters - I've been knocked off my bicycle thrice in one year and am (admittedly, by my own account, but happy to be observed and corrected) a careful and considerate cyclist.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to JimM777 | 1 year ago
2 likes

What's the solution?  Dunno what vthejk's one is but mine would look a bit like this.

I don't think all tractor drivers are threatening cyclists with violence - or even most. However if the average person feels in fear of their life even a few times while going to a certain place / engaging in a certain activity they will just avoid that area or stop the activity.

The tractor driver isn't going to stop driving there - but then that's the difference between irritation (which often says as much about your individual character) or inconvenience and fear (some things frighten everyone).

We should be pragmatic of course.  I doubt that many people are campaigning for cycle access through every farm yard. Currently though the vast majority of places are in practice inaccessible to most people by cycling.  That's part of why most people don't cycle.

"Good relations" - well, yes, but to be blunt "good relations" require relationships.  That takes repeated encounters between the same people and mutual regard.  Or people identifying with the other party's "group" - not likely if you, your parents, children and friends don't cycle.  It's also harder to establish where people with fundamentally different requirements / needs are using the same resource.  I'd rather safety and convenience were built in (with a design that doesn't rely on the motorist getting it right) - I think that's more likely to allow good relations to develop because it's obvious what each party should be doing.

Avatar
vthejk replied to chrisonabike | 1 year ago
1 like

chrisonatrike wrote:

I don't think all tractor drivers are threatening cyclists with violence - or even most. However if the average person feels in fear of their life even a few times while going to a certain place / engaging in a certain activity they will just avoid that area or stop the activity.

This is something else I was trying to say but couldn't articulate. So reminiscent of the 'not all men' argument against rapists isn't it? I couldn't care less if the tractor driver behind me is a murdering maniac but the possibility that they exist and can be murdering maniacs is enough to make my experience fearful/uncomfortable.

Avatar
Flintshire Boy replied to JimM777 | 1 year ago
1 like

.

Balance. Sense. I'm afraid that you are not going to do too well on here, Jim.

.

Avatar
Simon E replied to Flintshire Boy | 1 year ago
2 likes

Flintshire Boy wrote:

.

Balance. Sense. I'm afraid that you are not going to do too well on here, Jim.

.

Coming from you that's truly comical!

I guess you anti-cyclists and the trolls need to stick together when you're outnumbered and outflanked.

But all road users should show courtesy and consideration, not just the vulnerable ones.

Avatar
ktache replied to JimM777 | 1 year ago
5 likes

Thing is, and this is often seemingly forgotten when excusing "a few rotten applies", if you don't get rid of the few rotten applies, and sharpish, they turn the entire barrel of applies rotten.

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to ktache | 1 year ago
5 likes

ktache wrote:

Thing is, and this is often seemingly forgotten when excusing "a few rotten applies", if you don't get rid of the few rotten applies, and sharpish, they turn the entire barrel of applies rotten.

Very true, and equally if you get poisoned by a rotten apple it's not much consolation to know that you were unlucky to draw one of the few in the barrel.

Avatar
JimM777 replied to ktache | 1 year ago
0 likes

Analogies can be fine and dandy, but can also be very misleading. Do the majority of people who see someone doing dangerous driving then proceed to start driving dangerously? If that were so, by now there shouldn't be any non dangerous drivers left.

In any case, you're never going to create a perfect group of humans by removing certain individuals, there's always going to be be another rotten one to take their place.

That said, if a dangerous driver can be brought to account, of course, he should be, and appropriate action taken against him.

Avatar
wtjs replied to ktache | 1 year ago
3 likes

if you don't get rid of the few rotten applies, and sharpish, they turn the entire barrel of applies rotten.

How true!

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to JimM777 | 1 year ago
4 likes

JimM777 wrote:

Get your facts right - a criminal is someone who has committed a crime, someone who has a desire to commit a crime but has not committed one is not a criminal. 

I'm sure plenty of people in prison for planning to commit acts of terrorism or bank robberies but not carrying them out would be very interested in your legal advice. Planning a crime or threatening to commit one can very definitely be a criminal offence.

Avatar
JimM777 replied to Rendel Harris | 1 year ago
0 likes

Why are you twisting my words? I referred to a desire to commit a crime, and yes, I claim that that is not a crime (except in fiction such as Minority Report)

I wrote that in response to someone who posted "One party is a criminal threatening to murder the other", which I considered unhelpful inflammatory hyperbole and which had no evidence to support it. Angry words (the classic example "I'm gonna kill you") are never accepted on their own as evidence of actual intent.

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to JimM777 | 1 year ago
2 likes

JimM777 wrote:

Angry words (the classic example "I'm gonna kill you") are never accepted on their own as evidence of actual intent.

Still a criminal offence I'm afraid, comes under the heading of causing fear or provocation of violence (threatening behaviour) under section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 (POA 1986).

Avatar
JimM777 replied to Rendel Harris | 1 year ago
0 likes

You conveniently left out the bit that requires the offending act to cause the other person to believe that "immediate unlawful violence will be used against him..."

 

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to JimM777 | 1 year ago
2 likes

JimM777 wrote:

You conveniently left out the bit that requires the offending act to cause the other person to believe that "immediate unlawful violence will be used against him..."

I was responding to the example you gave, "Angry words (the classic example "I'm gonna kill you")". Or don't you think when someone says "I'm gonna kill you" to another person that person wouldn't think they were threatening violence?

Pages

Latest Comments