preferred-google-button
log in
register

So why do cyclists get a bad name?

  • Creator
    Topic
  • July 28, 2014 at 6:11 pm #22011
    Eebijeebi

    I haven’t cycled into central London to work for many years now but often have to drive in and out. Yes, there’s bad driving and riding on both sides, but to give an idea of why so many have a downer on cyclists, here are my observations from just one short leg of a journey in this afternoons rush hour.

    At cyclist coming towards me from opposite side of a crossroads who was chatting on a mobile phone, makes a left and all the way to the next lights and who knows where one handed still chatting.

    A minute later, I overtake a lady well in front of red light cross roads. She rolls up my inside through the stop line, sees that the traffic crossing us is stationary, then swings a left straight through the pedestrians crossing on the green man.

    A mile down the road, ladies ambling two abreast swinging out past stationary vehicles etc with not a look or signal or a care in the world. Only went to single file to get up the inside of queuing traffic before resuming two abreast in font of said vehicles.

    Within another mile, three kids (teenage at a guess), all on one bike riding on the wrong side the road against the traffic (as in opposite kerb).

    Why post? Admittedly they may have been ‘fair weather’ non-commuting cyclists this afternoon, but they were a let down. I see enough bad with the commuters too to understand both sides of the argument.

  • Creator
    Topic
Viewing 15 replies - 16 through 30 (of 69 total)
1 2 3 4 5
  • Author
    Replies
  • July 29, 2014 at 8:38 pm #806185
    0
    crazy-legs

    Quote: I think we need to

    I think we need to challenge the notion of the “bad name” whenever it is trotted out.

    Absolutely.

    Try this: next time someone says that xxx “gives cyclists a bad name” try asking them to replace the word “cyclist” with any other “group”
    Black people, gay people, Jewish people. Anything you want really.

    Then ask if they’d use the same kind of contextual argument. Of course they wouldn’t – at best they’d be accused of putting forward a stupid argument, at worst they’d be up on charges of inciting racial/religious hatred or homophobia.

    As mentioned above, if a “cyclist” jumps a red light and it doesn’t affect you or anyone else, is it a problem? Now let’s say a pedestrian crosses the road on a red man and it doesn’t affect you or anyone else, does that give all pedestrians a bad name?

    Pointless argument and one that’s easy to refute.

    July 29, 2014 at 8:06 pm #806183
    0
    kcr

    That kind of attitude is what

    That kind of attitude is what really gets up the decent drivers noses, especially the inference that it’s only the drivers who should be judged.

    I don’t see anyone here suggesting that only drivers should be judged. Everyone is subject to the same rules of the road. What I am challenging is the popular assertion that cyclists have a bad name and have some collective responsibility to assume the moral high ground before they can be taken seriously.
    Speaking personally, as a motorist, all the factual evidence I can see suggests that we are the problem, not cyclists, and the roads would be far safer if there were more people cycling and fewer driving.
    I don’t think it would actually transform attitudes if every cyclist behaved perfectly, and as Michael Hutchinson said “Why should my safety be dependent on the behaviour of other people?”
    There’s nothing tribal about this, and there are very few adult cyclists who are not also drivers. I think we need to challenge the notion of the “bad name” whenever it is trotted out. Not in a sensationalist or confrontational manner; simply by asking people to look at the facts and consider if they have really thought about what makes the roads dangerous, or if they are just repeating what everyone else said.

    July 29, 2014 at 5:48 pm #806181
    0
    Eebijeebi

    Jimmy Ray Will

    Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
    userfriendly wrote:
    Eebijeebi wrote:

    Killing potential does not relate to ‘fault’ in an accident.

    Killing potential does relate to liability.

    Not taking the additional amount of care appropriate for wielding additional killing potential does relate to fault.

    Eebijeebi wrote:

    That kind of attitude is what really gets up the decent drivers noses

    Quite the contrary, I’ve found that it’s the decent drivers who are fully aware that they bear the higher responsibility. People who let something that should be common sense get up their noses are usually road raging idiots.

    Absolutely agree with this…

    I would also suggest that the ‘decent drivers’ are also the ones that are not looking out for all the minor indiscretions of other road users to fuel animosity for particular groups.

    What I mean is… if a guy rides through a red light when it is clearly safe to do so, and in no way inhibits your journey, is it really your concern?

    If someone does something that forces you to take avoiding action or unreasonably inconveniences you, I understand the frustration, however for everything else, the problem is with you and your reaction.

    1. Riding through a red light? What’s good for the goose.

    2. Problem with reaction? Reaction was to come on a cycling forum and effectively say, “From what I can see I understand why many have a downer towards cyclists on the road’.

    3. Re fault and killing machines why should the cyclist not give the same attention and ride to the same standard as you would expect the driver to adhere to?

    July 29, 2014 at 3:13 pm #806179
    0
    richiewormiling

    They have a bad name simply
    They have a bad name simply because car drivers generally don’t want them on the road. It doesn’t matter what we do as cyclists it doesn’t seem to improve much. It will only happen when there are so many more cyclists and they will have to take note, and many of those drivers become cyclists.

    I personally don’t see what the fuss is about, but of course we come from one of the most ‘tribal’ countries in the world where everybody is labelled and scrutinised and judged on what they do. You can see the way people look at you sometimes…funny enough I do the same in that respect and say, Daily Mail reader. I simply don’t care what others think of me but i remain polite as best as I can.

    July 29, 2014 at 2:49 pm #806177
    0
    bendertherobot

    Van driver parked on yellow
    Van driver parked on yellow lines – van driver is an idiot

    Car driver on mobile phone – car driver is an idiot. And a dangerous one.

    Lorry driver speeding – Lorry driver is a dangerous idiot.

    Cyclist goes through red – gives cyclists a bad name.

    Cyclist filters legally – gives cyclists a bad name.

    Cyclist doesn’t wear helmet or high vis – gives cyclists a bad name.

    What gives cyclists a bad name is the perpetual label that whatever any one of them does should be reflected on all of them. It has to stop.

    July 29, 2014 at 2:34 pm #806175
    0
    Jimmy Ray Will

    userfriendly wrote:Eebijeebi

    userfriendly wrote:
    Eebijeebi wrote:

    Killing potential does not relate to ‘fault’ in an accident.

    Killing potential does relate to liability.

    Not taking the additional amount of care appropriate for wielding additional killing potential does relate to fault.

    Eebijeebi wrote:

    That kind of attitude is what really gets up the decent drivers noses

    Quite the contrary, I’ve found that it’s the decent drivers who are fully aware that they bear the higher responsibility. People who let something that should be common sense get up their noses are usually road raging idiots.

    Absolutely agree with this…

    I would also suggest that the ‘decent drivers’ are also the ones that are not looking out for all the minor indiscretions of other road users to fuel animosity for particular groups.

    What I mean is… if a guy rides through a red light when it is clearly safe to do so, and in no way inhibits your journey, is it really your concern?

    If someone does something that forces you to take avoiding action or unreasonably inconveniences you, I understand the frustration, however for everything else, the problem is with you and your reaction.

    July 29, 2014 at 2:16 pm #806173
    0
    farrell

    userfriendly wrote:People who

    userfriendly wrote:
    People who let something that should be common sense get up their noses are usually road raging idiots.

    Quite correct.

    July 29, 2014 at 2:10 pm #806171
    0
    userfriendly

    Eebijeebi wrote:
    Killing

    Eebijeebi wrote:

    Killing potential does not relate to ‘fault’ in an accident.

    Killing potential does relate to liability.

    Not taking the additional amount of care appropriate for wielding additional killing potential does relate to fault.

    Eebijeebi wrote:

    That kind of attitude is what really gets up the decent drivers noses

    Quite the contrary, I’ve found that it’s the decent drivers who are fully aware that they bear the higher responsibility. People who let something that should be common sense get up their noses are usually road raging idiots.

    July 29, 2014 at 2:03 pm #806169
    0
    HKCambridge

    LinusLarrabee wrote:Cyclists

    LinusLarrabee wrote:
    Cyclists are human. Most humans are f**king stupid most of the time.

    This is the absolute heart of the matter.

    I shout at cyclists doing stupid things on my commute. I also see an enormous amount of dozy driving and dozy walking.

    Difference is: other pedestrians and cyclists irritate me; drivers risk my life.

    July 29, 2014 at 1:35 pm #806167
    0
    LinusLarrabee

    Cyclists are human. Most
    Cyclists are human. Most humans are f**king stupid most of the time.

    July 29, 2014 at 1:34 pm #806165
    0
    Matt eaton

    Shades wrote:Shades wrote:The

    Shades wrote:
    Shades wrote:
    The ‘occasional’ summer cyclists; kind of entertaining in a scary sort of way :O . Only a few more weeks and they’ll be hibernating again.

    In addition, I also notice a lot of ‘hardcore’ cyclists on my commuter route that seem to disappear once the darkness sets in. Perhaps they ‘retreat’ to indoor training and fair weather weekend riding.

    It all depends what their motivation for cycling is. I suspect a lot of the ‘hardcore’ don’t really have any great interest in utility cycling but use their commute for extra training miles rather than considering the bike as a primary form of transport. When it comes to lights and mudguards these guys aren’t interested. It’s a shame but really no different to runners who turn to the treadmill in the winter.

    July 29, 2014 at 1:32 pm #806163
    0
    MarcMyWords

    PurpleDog wrote:MarcMyWords

    PurpleDog wrote:
    MarcMyWords wrote:
    Please accept my apologies and safe riding! =D>

    No worries đŸ™‚
    Hopefully, between us, we might even have ended up doing a little good?

    I think that’s problem solved as far as I’m concerned! đŸ˜‰

    In all seriousness, if even just a hand full of people read those articles, it’s been a worthwhile conversation.

    July 29, 2014 at 1:21 pm #806161
    0
    Shades

    Shades wrote:The ‘occasional’

    Shades wrote:
    The ‘occasional’ summer cyclists; kind of entertaining in a scary sort of way :O . Only a few more weeks and they’ll be hibernating again.

    In addition, I also notice a lot of ‘hardcore’ cyclists on my commuter route that seem to disappear once the darkness sets in. Perhaps they ‘retreat’ to indoor training and fair weather weekend riding.

    July 29, 2014 at 1:15 pm #806159
    0
    PurpleDog

    MarcMyWords wrote:Please

    MarcMyWords wrote:
    Please accept my apologies and safe riding! =D>

    No worries đŸ™‚
    Hopefully, between us, we might even have ended up doing a little good?

    July 29, 2014 at 1:11 pm #806157
    0
    MarcMyWords

    PurpleDog wrote:Sorry, I

    PurpleDog wrote:
    Sorry, I didn’t intend you to think I meant you were wrong to ride where you chose – that is your choice of course – just that you were wrong to tell everyone who made a different choice that they were wrong!

    I’m only making my point so strongly because I felt your statement was unjustified, wrong and dangerous. If others read it and thought there was some reason they should undertake rather than overtake, and put themselves in unnecessary danger as a result, that needs to be challenged.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2011/apr/04/cyclists-pass-traffic
    http://www.cyclescheme.co.uk/community/how-to/filtering
    http://www.cyclelaw.co.uk/overtaking-and-filtering-whilst-cycling

    As well as myself, my girlfriend, my kids, many of my friends all cycle on the roads, and safety is a big issue for me When I see statements like yours my hackles raise. I apologise if you think my point was just to be a git – that’s the farthest thing from my mind, but the safety of cyclists is very important to me.

    I don’t expect you to change your mind (you are free to ride however you wish) but I don’t want you to persuade anyone to change to a riskier behaviour in the mistaken belief that overtaking is “wrong” and undertaking is “right”. Read the links, or don’t, but if anyone here is unsure what to do, please read the links I included here before you decide how you will ride.

    Really interesting articles and I’ve learnt something today. I believe I do make safe decisions on my bike and they’ve kept me safe for a long time, I also agree with some of the comments on the Guardian article about assuming drivers haven’t seen you – It’s generally what I do. You’re right in that I shouldn’t have said that you ‘shouldn’t’ do it because you clearly can if the situation presents itself so it’s about doing what’s best at the time (mainly filtering by the looks of it). To be honest, I’d still stick to the inside in general unless completely blocked but I guess the wider point is to do whatever is safe, like you said. Please accept my apologies and safe riding! =D>

  • Author
    Replies
Viewing 15 replies - 16 through 30 (of 69 total)
1 2 3 4 5
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.