A newly-launched petition calling for the Department for Transport to run a public information campaign aimed at driver aggression towards cyclists has now amassed 10,000 signatures, meaning that it will get a response from the Government. It comes shortly after another petition received a lot of media attention, but has so far failed to get quite so many signatures…
> road.cc readers open up on the stress of riding on Britain’s roads, with one giving it up for good
The petition, started by Helen-Louise Smith, says “the attitude that cyclists should not be on the roads needs to end”, and that motorists should be educated about “dangerous, inappropriate and aggressive behaviours that can lead to the injury and even death of cyclists.”
It continues: “In 2019, 16,884 cyclists were injured in reported road accidents, including 4,433 who were killed or seriously injured.
“These figures only include cyclists killed or injured in road accidents that were reported to the police. Many cyclist casualties are not reported to the police.
“Driver aggression towards cyclists feels to be increasing & we are calling on the Department of Transport to run a national public awareness campaign to educate motorists about dangerous behaviours.”
This is so needed. Car drivers, bus drivers, private delivery & public services vehicle drivers each play their part in aggressive behaviour. So awareness raising in and out of the workplace is badly needed.
— David Porter (@davidfporter) June 17, 2021
The petition started to be widely shared on social media last week, and had just over 2,000 signatures before road.cc published the first version of this article. 48 hours later, there are over 10,700. The government will now respond, and if it gets 100,000 signatures before 16 December 2021, it will be considered for debate in parliament.
The petition can be viewed here.
Do you think a public information campaign could reduce aggression towards cyclists on the roads, and if so what would it look like? Let us know in the comments as always.
92 thoughts on “Petition calling for public awareness campaign to address driver aggression towards cyclists hits 10,000 signatures”
It makes sense…. If there
It makes sense…. If there is such thing as a ‘driver awareness‘ course then there should be a ‘driver agressiveness‘ course
Signed
Signed.
That picture makes me chuckle every time I see it!
Unfortunately, I think we
Unfortunately, I think we need more than an education campaign. For those that are already aggressive, any such campaign will go in one ear, and straight out the other. Sad as it is to type, I think that aggression towards cyclists needs to become a hate crime. We already have hate crimes where the only consequence of the hatred is someone’s hurt feelings. A lot of the aggression on the roads genuinely threatens peoples’ lives, and it is purely based on a hatred of how we have chosen to move around. If there are no consequences of hatred, there will be no change of attitudes. As it is, unless real harm is done, the police consider there to be no crime and the aggressions continue.
You may be right, but an
You may be right, but an education campaign is pretty cheap and may well change some reactions out there on the road. If a driver sees an example of cyclist-hate and thinks “that was almost me the other day” then they might just decide to not be “that person”.
I think there’s also another benefit in helping drivers that wind themselves up with hate, anxiety and general stress. If they can learn that their emotions are caused by the general stress of driving, then they could maybe relax a bit and hopefully achieve the zen driving state of Ogmios (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FEO-XKo4cw&t=1s). It could have a dual benefit of improving mental health and increasing safety, so I reckon it’s worth a try.
Why is Mike Gatting so angry?
Why is Mike Gatting so angry?
Organon wrote:
Probably spotted Shakoor Rana
This needs to be stickied.
This needs to be stickied.
It’s called the Department
It’s called the Department FOR Transport.
Which is what the article
Which is what the article calls it. Except where it’s directly quoting the petition author. That’s where you need to direct your pedantry.
I’m sure a lot of the
I’m sure a lot of the aggression I experience is due to the driver being ignorant about what a cyclist can legally do, what is actually taught in cycle training and even stuff in the highway code.
So many haven’t a clue that filtering is ok or that riding primary is a taught method.
Im not sure how much
Im not sure how much difference it would make even if they did, I often feel alot of the ultra aggression I witness on the roads is chemically induced, the rest of the stuff might be bourne of ignorance with a good dollop of British queueing theory in play, but can you really enourage people not to be angry all the time ?
In a word. Yes. It’s the law
In a word. Yes. It’s the law to not to be so aggressive that you assault people.
With your reasonings we’d all be Neanderthals and civilisation wouldn’t exist – because ignorance is an excuse?
All bets are off if it’s a
All bets are off if it’s a drunk/drug driver. That’s where police taking dash/cycle cam footage seriously might have an impact (or some more police on the roads).
But the majority of issues I experience I’m sure are out of ignorance. It’s not going to work just asking people to be nice to cyclists. You’ve got to explain why they’re ‘cycling in the middle of the road’ or ‘undertaking’ or ‘weaving about’ or pay more for the upkeep of the roads than the average car driver etc.
HoarseMann wrote:
I have much less faith than you. This is hate first , then find an excuse by a minority. Most drivers are absolutely fine around people on bikes.
Signed
Signed
A certain portion of the
A certain portion of the world needs to de-Trump their illogical emotions from reality.
A DoT campaign might improve
A DoT campaign might improve the situation, just as it did for ‘pass wide and slow’ for horses. However, I feel a much better improvement would be to ensure police forces take reports of aggression, close passes, etc. seriously. When the police have the same disregard for cyclists as a lot of drivers we don’t have a chance of improving road safety. Some drivers will never have empathy for cyclists, but they will appreciate punishment that seriously inconveniences them .
Muddy Ford wrote:
That’s one view, but surely prevention is better than cure? I’d rather that the drivers didn’t close pass than punish the tiny proportion who were caught.
Quite so. But the more that
Quite so. But the more that are caught on camera and prosecuted and then publicised, the more will take more care.
“Three-quarters (74%) of people say drivers can get away with motoring offences due to a lack of traffic police officers.”
Bucks Cycle Cammer wrote:
But as we all know from bitter experience, the media would never report it that way, and would just criticise the vigilante cyclists for reporting innocent motorists going about their business; if they reported it at all that is.
eburtthebike wrote:
Both. Why not both?
When the police have the same
When the police have the same disregard for cyclists as a lot of drivers we don’t have a chance of improving road safety
Correct! police are the Secondary Enemy which allows the Primary enemy to carry on unchecked, by simply ignoring perfect evidence of indisputable serious traffic offences.
I have no idea why people
I have no idea why people think that such a petition will work.
Recently I’ve been following a number of Facebook posts by local police forces trying to emphasis the “close pass” message. And every time the post is rapidly overwhelmed by cyclist-hating drivers, posting about red-light-jumping pavement cyclists who ride 5 abreast while paying no road tax and scaring the horses. Every Single Time. The actual message posted by the police? Completely lost. If it makes any impression at all, it’s to get a few of the worst posting about hanging a 1.5m long plank out of their windows so they can be absolutely sure to leave the right amount (but if they don’t, to eliminate the source of their problem).
Frankly a lot of people out there are pretty wretched, and my daily riding experiences just back up the idea that it’s not just online that these morons think and behave like it – there are plenty of drivers quite prepared to behave like selfish, entitled, dangerous twats on the road.
But making them pass a test, be registered and licensed before they can drive is making no difference. Personally I think it will only change when we start shooting them by the dozen; anything else is just hot air.
West Midlands Police are
West Midlands Police are currently running a scheme. For the next 3 months, they will be educating (or prosecuting the worst offenders). After that, they will stop educating and prosecute every single one.
This needs to be rolled out nationwide.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2016/sep/16/undercover-bike-cops-launch-best-ever-cycle-safety-scheme-in-birmingham
Bucks Cycle Cammer wrote:
We will see. Probably entirely coincidental, but I uploaded my latest footage to WMP yesterday.
That article was 5 years ago.
That article was 5 years ago. They should be prosecuting every single one now but unfortunately they do not tell you if they are or not.
Richard D wrote:
I’m all for a bit of hyperbole to add colour and vim to a post, but could you confirm that you’re calling for the mass murder of errant motorists?
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Works for me. At the moment we have mass murde of cyclists by errant motorists, after all.
PS – your bridge is over there ….
Richard D wrote:
It very probably won’t Richard. However any kind of activism (I mean trying to effect societal change) will inevitably have multiple failures before gaining traction and success. It’s why it’s so facking hard.
Perhaps cyclists could learn
Perhaps cyclists could learn and follow the highway code. Perhaps they could get insurance and registration so when THEY commit and offence they can be traced. Perhaps they could use cycle tracks when they are avilable instead of the roads and perhaps on the roads they could ride single-file instead of three abreast?
Perhaps they could get insurance and an MOT for their bikes like ALL other road users.
And perhaps they could not pass so close or weave in and out of the traffic or pass both sides and perhaps they could not ignore red lights or road junctions.
Perhaps they could not ride with two kids in a trailer and one on the seat or on a weird bike with a big carrier in front which is both dangerous to them, their kids and dog and other road users.
So, don’t give me the ‘all cyclists are saints’ routine. They are not and usually deserve the treatment they think they get.
Oh, where to even begin to
Oh, where to even begin to start with this?
Perhaps drivers could learn and follow the highway code (speeding, crossing solid whites, unsafe overtaking, etc. etc.)
How would insurance help with tracing? Insurance is to cover costs that you may be unable to pay if there’s a claim against you; have a guess how many claims against cyclists went unpaid (or were even made). Go on, guess.
Registration has repeatedly been considered, and dismissed as unworkable and too expensive. Not to mention that a significant number of motor vehicles go untraced due to cloned, obscured, or illegally altered plates – so that’s not a panacea anyway.
What would an MOT even cover? Brakes are pretty much the only part of a bike relevant to the test; again, any scheme would be prohibitively expensive. And that’s ignoring the fact that not all motor vehicles require an MOT.
Filtering is perfectly legal, and taught in Bikeability training (run by the government in case you didn’t know)
Red lights is your first good point. We are all agreed that cyclists should follow all of the rules & laws that actually apply to them.
Junctions – well, apart from giving way and stopping where required, without further information it’s impossible to know what you’re talking about. But I’ve personally seen (and been on the receiving end) of many more drivers ignoring priority – both as driver and cyclist – than I have from a cyclist.
And what do you have against cargo bikes? There is nothing inherently dangerous about them. It’s idiot motorists that are responsible for most danger on the roads.
“We needed to do something about driver behaviour. In about 98% of cases [the collision] was down to driver action, it was nothing to do with the cyclist.”
nothing inherently dangerous
nothing inherently dangerous about them??
Well apart from the issues of steering stability and braking ability and speed ability, there is the minor issue of having an accident with two exposed kids at road level…
Braking ability??
Braking ability??
Have you any idea of the size of the rotors on their disc brakes? Have you even seen a photo of one let alone seen an actual one?
hirsute wrote:
It’s Schroedinger’s cargo bike: too slow and too fast
A car can carry children in
A car can carry children in weird seats and a dog. I suspect those people should not be on the roads as if they are in danger from other road users.
I suspect a google image search flagged up that Mr SH74’s image was used in an article header and so he decided to signup.
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
I think you could be right! He has a string of companies with odd names like STR 54 Ltd. and a new venture in Strawberry Hill (could that be the SH bit?!) is that you J W?
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
It certainly occurred to me that that is the case
sh74 wrote:
exposed to dangerous motor vehicles? If they bring so much danger to the urban enivornment perhaps they should be banned.
Insurance has nothing to do
Insurance has nothing to do with traceability, registration does and some countries have it as well as insurance and a technical test to see if the bike is fit and the rider is also fit.
This seems to be common sense to most people but not the lycra brigade – wonder why not..
So, stick to the issues I raised. I agree with many of the points made about motorists but this is not the subject of this string.
Another issue of course is a simple law of dynamics which seems to escape cyclists – bikes stop more quickly than cars so if you weave in front of a car and slow, don’t be surprised if they honk or worse.
I must admit I am surprised by the level of vitriol in the replies from people who would have us think they are our moral superiors
Which countries have
Which countries have “registration, insurance and tests” then?
To see if the rider is fit – do they also have fitness tests for pedestrians in this strange country?
hirsute wrote:
Oooh Sir, Sir I know!
Is it North Korea?
sh74 wrote:
— sh74No you aren’t surprised, it’s exactly what you expected and wanted, and there really isn’t any doubt about who is morally superior either.
Is your real name Clarkson by any chance?
sh74 wrote:
Exactly. So why imply that it does? “Perhaps they could get insurance and registration so when THEY commit and offence they can be traced”
Perhaps you meant “they could get registration so they can be traced, and insurance so they can cover the cost of any claim”.
On the first point, it’s been shown as unworkable on many occasions (most recently in the government’s study published in 2018); any benefit would far outweigh any cost.
On the second point, do you know how many claims are unpaid by cyclists? Have a guess. Then ask why even insurance companies, who would stand to gain from compulsory insurance, don’t want it.
Besides, most cyclists are actually insured; home insurance, *free* liability insurance given away because it’s so rarely required, etc.
You’ve clearly never ridden a bike above 5mph, have you? Especially on less-than-perfectly-smooth-and-dry surfaces. What seems to have escaped you is consideration of contact patch size, 4-wheel v 2-wheel stability, ABS, CoG, and other factors. Please come back when you have an actual clue about the “simple law of dynamics”.
Red lights isn’t really a
Red lights isn’t really a very good argument – yes its visible but ultimately, you can’t take one isolated type of offence on its own when motorists are 13 times more likely to break road traffic laws:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/05/10/cyclists-break-far-fewer-road-rules-than-motorists-finds-new-video-study/?sh=25f812c94bfa
Bucks Cycle Cammer wrote:
Is it a good point? I see plenty of motorists ignore red lights and many other aspects of the Road Traffic Act. And of the cyclist who do cycle through red lights – the vast majority only do so when it is *perfectly* safe, because guess what, being involved in a collision, when you are on a bike, is going to hurt every time.
“Usually deserve”?? Seriously
“Usually deserve”?? Seriously?? Oh do F off, you f-ing troll
You win! The first wally to
You win! The first wally to accuse someone of being a ‘troll’ because they have a different point of view
Pathetic..
sh74 wrote:
You registered on here and your first ever post was that above? I’ve never seen anyone on here say “all cyclists are saints” so that’s a bit of a straw man, but it’s a good long while since I’ve seen anyone post such a detailed anti cyclist rant.
I note that you didn’t say “I’m a cyclist myself…” so you lose points there 😉
Calling someone a troll is
Calling someone a troll is Road.cc’s own peculiar version of Godwin’s law – basically means “I lost the argument but I’m morally superior (despite my clear hatred of others)”.
You’re entitled to your opinion as much as anyone else. Just wondering though as you haven’t stated yet – Do you ride a bike yourself?
As you know Nigel, very few
As you know Nigel, very few people actually get called a troll and only where the post is obviously trolling as we see here or where they a history of making provocative comments. I’m sure you are very familiar with the latter
Nigel Garrage wrote:
I’ve disagreed with most folk here at some point Nige, and so far not been called a troll.
I’m not sure that you’re correct on this one
Congratulations on hitting
Congratulations on hitting the bingo win line on your first post.
“Perhaps they could not ride with two kids in a trailer and one on the seat or on a weird bike with a big carrier in front which is both dangerous to them, their kids and dog and other road users.”
You get a bonus for that one.
Not really sure how a cargo bike used by many types of people and organisations and provided by companies and even local authorities is dangerous to other road users. Unless of course those road users are unable to cope with different types of traffic on the roads.
As to insurance have a look at this long running thread
https://road.cc/content/forum/car-crashes-building-please-post-your-local-news-stories-276441
Throwing insurance into it is simply a mistaken concept that there is an equivalence of risk between bikes and 1.5T to 2.5T vehicles. As you can see from the stories, the level of damage caused by vehicles is the reason for insurance (plus of course vehicle on vehicle damage). A bike is not going to be able to cause this and hence require insurance cover.
Perhaps you can’t fix stupid?
Perhapsyou can’t fix stupid?edit: no perhaps required (phew, we nearly ran out of those), it’s scientifically proven!
Now, I realise that you must
Now, I realise that you must be a person of low intelligence with poor social skills, but I’d like to point out that not all other road users require insurance and/or MOT.
e.g.
Now I could easily continue and take apart the rest of your nonsensical rant, but your “deserve the treatment they think they get” is obviously just hate speech and deeply insensitive to anyone who has lost someone to a traffic incident.
I sincerely hope you do not use the public roads as you are in no fit state of mind to interact with others in a safe manner.
All vehicles require
All vehicles require insurance – period.
And what has this to do with bikes ferchrissakes?
sh74 wrote:
I could explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.
It always amazes me how people who dislike cyclists using roads are so ignorant of the laws. It just becomes tiresome explaining time and time again why there are different requirements for different vehicles – often relating to their mass and speed.
Now, you’ve managed to combine ignorance, stupidity and viciousness in your very first post, so I shan’t bother reading any more of your bilge.
Ok, let’s try and knock the
Ok, let’s try and knock the insurance one on the head.
For a start, if you have a standard UK domestic insurance policy, you almost certainly have up to £2million third party liability cover which includes cycling. If you don’t have third party insurance through such an arrangement, then I would suggest that you get some, even if you don’t intend to cycle.
E.g From my own Aviva home contents policy
“Personal Liability – Your liability in a personal capacity (not as owner or occupier of any building, land or fixed property).
This includes accidents from your leisure activities such as golf or cycling.”
As for the lycra brigade? Many serious cyclists also benefit from additional third party cover via membership of British Cycling and other cycling organisations. Or, shock, horror actually buy cycle specific insurance policies.
At the end of the day, cycling is such a low risk activity to others that basic insurance is effectively bundled free into other financial products.
No. Not all vehicles require
No. Not all vehicles require insurance. Otherwise you wouldn’t be asking for them to do so.
Motor vehicles require insurance only because the average cost of claims against drivers far outweighs their ability to pay, and there are so many claims against them. This is why it used to be the case that large organisations did not require insurance on their vehicles; they could effectively self-insure as long as they could prove their ability to do so.
Cyclists merely have a similar risk/ability profile. The average cost of claims against cyclists, coupled with the negligible number of such claims, means that the number of unpaid claims is negligible and so it is not worthwhile mandating insurance. This is also why liability insurance is bundled in for free in home insurance policies and cycling-specific liability insurance (of at least £10m) is included for free in cycling memberships.
I hope this is the first step along your road to enlightenment, but perhaps I’m just an eternal optimist.
sh74 wrote:
A bicycle is a vehicle, you are simultaneously claiming that all vehicles require insurance and complaining that some types of vehicles don’t. Honestly, one wonders what they teach at troll school these days…
Don’t forget cars/vans
Don’t forget cars/vans/motorbikes & ‘light passenger vehicles’ over 40 years old.
sh74 wrote:
— sh74Great first post, thanks for your fact-free contribution!
People with a shitty preconception like you have provided are the real problem – for all road users, not just cyclists.
very constructive
very constructive
Looks like they are here for
Looks like they are here for a bit…
sh74 wrote:
Nobody did dude. It’s just that motorists kill about 1800 people a year through negligence
No drivers are ever killed by riders, and on a bad year we might have 2 pedestrian deaths involving cyclists
The fact is that folk like you act in an intimidating and bullying way around people on bikes, especially round women and children – you often haven’t quite got the guts to do it around grown men unless you think you can get away with it.
Most drivers are cool, but the ones who act aggressively around riders are also doing it around pedestrians. ~450 peds are killed annually by people like you. 50 of those are on the pavement when they die.
So no, this isn’t just about cyclists v drivers. It’s about the public against incompetent fools like you. We want you off the road.
Hi Sh74. The reason you are
Hi Sh74. The reason you are getting some negative comments is that your arguments are poor and unconvincing.
They are also old and boring, apart from the comment about cargo bikes, with is as least new to me. I’m intrigued by this one. What is wrong with cargo bikes? Despite potentially carrying more people in much less space ( if we compare a cargo bike to a sports car) being much less polluting, needing less space to park, being less likely to kill someone if they do run into someone you don’t like them.
All your other “ideas” would lead to more cars and this more pollution, more congestion and probably more road deaths, as well as a less active population. Is that what you want?
Just seen this: https://www
Just seen this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-57544083
This is just one example of why cycling and motor vehicles are treated differently
sh74 wrote:
I think you have confused the source of the danger. A bicycle designed for the purpose is no danger to its rider or passengers. However I accept that it might [i]expose[/i] them to danger presented by drivers of motor vehicles. But since your argument enjoins [i]all[/i] road users to observe the Highway Code, that danger ought surely to be minimised.
Wow! Really?? Give your head
Wow! Really?? Give your head a wobble….
sh74 wrote:
First, thanks for your post, and I’m sorry for some of the hostile responses you’ve had. Testing one’s own beliefs against a differing view is always a useful exercise. Here is my opinion on what you’ve written:
– I think a mandatory cycling proficiency test at the age of 12 would be welcome for all children to teach them of the highway code and how to cycle safely. However, I think above and beyond this including bike tests and MOTS would be disproportionate and discourage cycling, which is contrary to active travel goals, environmental targets and government policy.
– Often cycle lanes are unfit for purpose, and also are unsuitable for someone travelling at speed on a road bike, although I do have sympathy for other road users about large groups of cyclists who (for leisure) block and obstruct the roads needlessly.
– Red lights etc I completely agree. Cyclists should observe the highway code like anyone else.
– Cargo bikes I don’t know – that’s quite a novel one I haven’t heard before. I’d have yo give that more consideration,but it was certainly used recently as an excuse to ride on the pavement for manoeuvrability reasons.
– Virtually no one thinks all cyclists are saints, but the upside is that if they are riding a bike they aren’t driving a car, so let’s be thankful for that. Let’s not forget what kills and seriously injures thousands each year.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
No, that was for safety reasons as you well know.
Your revisionism is becoming tiresome, old fruit. I wish I could recall what some orange gentleman from across the water called this – he had a pithy phrase. Perhaps you might be a better student of his work and could help?
TheBillder wrote:
I’m delighted to set the record straight for you – safety reasons were given as the underlying factor for being on the pavement, but the cargo bike’s manoeuvrability was the excuse for not dismounting: “Given the weight and size of my cargo bike, I ride across because it is more manoeuvrable that way, I need to keep momentum to aim at the uphill dropped kerb between four bollards on the other side.”
If you have any other concerns, do reach out at any time. I’d hate for you to fall foul of any fake news.In the meantime, in the spirit of the 45th and greatest president I hereby name you “Cowboy” Billder!!
This article is about
This article is about reducing aggression by people in cars towards people using bikes.
How would all the things you suggest people on bikes should do actually reduce aggression towards them?
Perhaps they would do nothing because none of them are a reason for people in cars to choose to be aggressive.
sh74 wrote:
In any large group you will get some idiots and low performers. Having said that cyclists largely do follow the Highway Code. Many are drivers and are fully aware of the Highway Code. A bigger issue is drivers who are not cyclists, who do not know what the highway code says in relation to cyclists, and criticise cyclist for things that are allowed, and even advised. Like taking a primary position.
Cyclists are so low risk, insurance is sometimes given away free, or very cheap. Usually bundled in house insurance at no extra cost, or bundled in with membership of cycling clubs or organisations. As a result most cyclists are carrying liability insurance
The government have looked into insurance and registration. The problems caused by law breaking cyclist, and not being able to trace them, are so negligable the goverment, the DVLA and the police wants nothing to do with it.
Give us consistent decent quality cycle tracks (do you mean lanes?), preferably segregated, and we’ll probably use them consistently. Until then you’ll have to learn how to share.
It’s legal and permitted for cyclists to group up 2 or even 3 abreast. Those who look after safety on our roads will tell you that it’s often safer for all concerned. It usually obliges drivers to wait until there is a proper opportunity to overtake, then they can overtake the group quicker.
Insurance again, I think we’ve covered that. MOTs are not applicable for the same reasons registration isn’t. The cost of adminstering such a system is far in excess of the problems created by a tiny number of cyclists riding a rusty bike. The police are not interested, The DVLA isn’t interested. The government isn’t intersted.
The passing close is called filtering. It is explicity allowed in the highway code! You know, the document that everyone should learn and follow. HC 88
You have a good point with Red Light Jumping. That’s an annoyance that has to go. Mind telling motor vehicle drivers as well? because acording to Surrey police, data from 2007-2016 showed that nobody was killed by RLJ cyclists, but 5 a year were killed by motor vehicles. Of those injured, about 6-7% were caused by cyclists. The rest? Motor vehicles.
I have no idea what you mean by ignoring junctions!
By now all sublety has gone out the window, and you’re basicaly saying “Get your wierd vehicle off MY roads! You’re changing things and it makes me feel uncomforatable! I DON’T LIKE CHANGE!!”
And there it is, the climax! “You’re all wrong uns’ and you deserve everything you get!”
You sound like you are ready to blow a gasket, it’s not good for you to hold onto this much anger.
You know what is good for you, cycling!
sh74 wrote:
Well if all the people blocking the highway with big stationary metal boxes would line up nicely behind each other cylists could happily filter down just one side, no need to weave or pass on whichever side the motorist collective objects to.
But of course drivers are not one group with a hive mind capable of acting in perfect unison, just like cyclists, so why the imagined misdemeaners of some cyclists should be seen as justification for retirbution on all cyclists is beyond me.
sh74 wrote:
Dear Sir/Madam.
You have quite eloquently expressed nearly all of the mis-guided opinions that are fuelling exactly what this petition is seeking to address.
May I suggest that you are the exact target that needs to be better informed to reduce this hate?
sh74 wrote:
You are living proof of the need for the petition.
sh74 wrote:
You total and utter troll. 60 people A DAY are killed or seriously injured on our roads, and it ain’t by cyclists. You blindly parrot every anti-cycling cliche there is.
The biggest thing that would
The biggest thing that would change drivers attitudes would be that the courts start giving out proper punishments that fit the crime for driving offences. The fact that a driver can drive uninsured and kill a cyclist but escape a prison sentence is ridiculous. Perhaps then the police would be able to give more resources to prosecuting drivers for driving dangerously around cyclists if they thought it would lead anywhere. Also, purposely driving into a cyclist needs to be removed from being classed as a road incident and be treated at GBH or attempted murder.
This article is about
Need law changes
Need sentencing guidelines
Need sentencing guidelines changes.
Bucks Cycle Cammer wrote:
…which reflect attitudes in wider society.
I was hoping you’d all ignore
I was hoping you’d all ignore the d1ckhead. Please count to 10 next time, and move on.
What have you changed the
What have you changed the headline image? Genuine question Jack
It’s because the article got
It’s because the article got updated and the other pic was older, just to make sure Google recognises that it’s fresh content now I’ve revised it. Sorry, not a very exciting answer!
Jack Sexty wrote:
Seems a little tooooo convenient to me. they’ve got to you haven’t they….
Captain Badger wrote:
I was thinking the same – but it’s still all over the internet, so unlikely for him to be troubling road.cc for a take-down.
One of the comments in that
One of the comments in that link links back to http://road.cc/content/news/152934-video-road-rage-meltdown-driver-who-threatened-kill-cyclist-fined-public-order
Maybe that bloke really was
Maybe that bloke really was sh74…?
(I’ll get my tinfoil hat).
It’s car culture that needs
It’s car culture that needs changing (and a change in law to assist that). We’re so ingrained with the right to use a car, whereas it is a privilege.
On another note, I ride in weekends in Kent and hardly ever come across aggressive or dangerous drivers. I avoid busy / fast roads and stick to the code. Pretty much all drivers give me space and respect my place on the road. There’s a lot of good, average and ok drivers out there.
MrWinterkorn wrote:
Don’t worry! The comprehensive review of road laws will solve all that; eventually; when they get around to doing it.
Whilst aggressive driving is
Whilst aggressive driving is a problem. The number of incompetent drivers greatly outweighs the number of aggressive drivers and they are no less dangerous.
It is astonishing the number of drivers who think blind bends are a safe place to overtake, because they cannot see the oncoming driver who they are endangering (or other road users, but as drivers are the most common…). Or will completely cut across a junction as they turn into a side road, before they are even in a position to be able to see if there is anyone approaching the junction. And then people (probably the same people) come here and complain about cyclists riding through red lights, when they can see that it is perfectly safe.
This kind of initiative is
This kind of initiative is sorely needed.
A small minority of drivers feel that they are within their rights to use their vehicle as a weapon against cyclists for what in most cases amounts to the cyclist simply being on “their” road. In most cases their revenge is against a cyclist who in all likelihood has done nothing wrong and just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and is on the receiving end of aggression caused by someone else.
Could you imagine the outrcry if cyclists (remember all cyclists are bad
) decided to randomly smash a car windscreen with a D Lock at a set of traffic lights for no reason other than the cyclist was cut up/close passed by a completely different car a couple of weeks ago.
I asked that question of a friend who is notoriously anti-cycling and they were horrified. Then I turned the question round to ask him why they feel it is ok for a car driver to threaten the life of a completely random cyclist by doing a close pass or whatever because of the one time they saw a completely different cyclist run a red light.
They tried to tell me it was completely different, but couldn’t say why