Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => On The Road => Topic started by: Wowbagger on 01 July, 2015, 10:39:55 pm
-
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/jul/01/sabotage-and-hatred-what-have-people-got-against-cyclists
I think we will all recognise much of what is written in that piece. I quite liked Dr. Ian Walker's research, none of which surprises me.
-
Rachel Aldred's recent article comments on the discrepancy between the near miss project's findings and Ian Walker's wig results. The suggestion is that the perceived gender of the cyclist is actually irrelevant to driver behaviour, other than as an indicator for cycling speed.
My own experience is that concealing gender cues (eg. with winter clothing or a recumbent tricycle) has an effect on the amount/nature of harassment you get, but probably not on driving standards unrelated to harassment.
But fundamentally, it sucks to be an out-group. There's only two ways to win that, and one of them (altering your behaviour to achieve in-group status) is even worse.
-
Living in South Wales, at seeing how Velothon Wales became controversial in the days before it took place, I am sure the incident with the tacks was due to the road closure aspect of the event. In that specific case the conflict was all about some roads being closed for 8 hours or more and some people being very upset about it. I'm not excusing the tacks, but it would be wrong to see this as an attack on cycling as a whole. You would have had a similar response if the roads had been closed for a motor rally. I can remember a South Wales community being upset by a motor rally disrupting life some years ago.
-
In villages in the approaches to the biggest Vosges climbs I've seen banners strung across the road reading "Non aux cyclistes". It's unusual, though.
Re resentment of cyclists increasing since separate lanes were developed: in the 60s when I was working during the university vac and mentioned that I was a student the reaction was hostile about 50% of the time. Same idea: here's this guy enjoying privileges at our expense.
-
But fundamentally, it sucks to be an out-group. There's only two ways to win that, and one of them (altering your behaviour to achieve in-group status) is even worse.
This really. And why those 'it reflects badly on us' annoy me, because there's no us. Replace 'cyclist' with any other group and replay the narrative. That somehow if we pretend to be little cars then we'll earn the respect of the big cars and they'll let us play.
Surrey attracts the usual anti-cyclists rants, mostly because of occasional road closures for events. Very few and infrequently, well-publicised, but the shocking and horrifying tales of minor inconvenience. You'd cry, seriously you would. Some people are held up for entire minutes, or have to adjust their trip to Tesco to a different time. Seriously, it's so pathetic and these are the people who conveniently omit from their comprehension that they block the roads every single day. Lead chap was pictured in the local paper, the usual pampered podgy white bloke, Costa del Sol permatan, leaning against some marque of sports car in a way that made it look like he was precipitating its likely collapse. If he's not a got a Range Rover Evoque too I'll eat my socks. They'll complain about minor council expenditure, omitting the utterly massive subsidy that every single car driver gets. All that infrastructure they rely on apparently forms de novo when no one is looking.
-
My thoughts on this subject (posted on CTC Forum December 2010)
As you are probably aware, everybody who is anybody (ie anyone NOT on a bike) drives a car. These "somebodies" are constantly coming across "nobodies" on non-motorised vehicles who hold them up and prevent them from going where they like as fast as they like. These non-motorised "nobodies" DO NOT pay any tax to use the motorised "somebodies" roads, constantly refuse to use the lovely facilities provided at great expense for the purpose of clearing said roads of non-motorised traffic, constantly mow down thousands of pedestrians on the pavement, refuse to obey red traffic lights or to show lights at night, seem to be slimmer, sexier and more healthy than the car-bound "somebodies, and have the gall to look cheerful when riding to work in the mornings.
How can they NOT hate us?
-
I believe it's OK to ride a bike in London if you have a Rolls following you.
-
Here's some of 'them'. (https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2015/06/22/us-not-them/)
-
You would have had a similar response if the roads had been closed for a motor rally. I can remember a South Wales community being upset by a motor rally disrupting life some years ago.
Did the locals come out and deploy stingers on the rally? If not, I don't see it as a similar response. I agree that it would be a similar level of upset but there's a fundamental difference about how that gets exercised. I strongly suspect that a a motor rally wouldn't be treated in a way that would put people at risk of serious injury and damage to property. However it's frequently socially acceptable to treat cyclists that way.
-
Grr. There are many reasons why I try and avoid news and newspapers. One of which is my blood pressure. I've just been reading the comments. How bloody depressing.
On so many levels. Most prominently, the childish dependency of both "sides". "Please Miss, please Miss, the big boy's bullying me - make him stop" v "Miss, Miss, someone over there's breaking the rules. It's unfair. Make them stop!"
I started adult cycling before it was " a thing". It was outside transport planning and outside any media (or other) debate. We rode unnoticed between the cracks, as it were, of infrastructure, regulation, and expectation. Happy anarchy and liberty.
-
I'm not denying any of the bad experiences people report, but I'm not sure things are getting worse. Round here (Vale of Glamorgan) I feel things have got less hostile (with rare exceptions) in recent years. There are a lot more cyclists on the roads, and driver behaviour (with rare exceptions) has improved. So much so that I don't expect problems when I go out.
My wife rides through country lanes to get to work and a couple of weeks ago she was riding up a very narrow lane (moderately steep uphill with passing places) when she met a black Vauxhall coming the other way. The driver pulled in at a passing place and my wife increased her speed to get past with minimal delay. The driver wound down his window. The man was aged about 60, she says, and in a friendly tone of voice (think good Welsh valleys accent) he said "Slow down now - no rush!". Since then he has waved at her every morning as they pass.
-
No one is denying the majority of motorists/non cyclists are careful and friendly. It is the size of the small minority of twunts that may (or may not) be growing.
-
I'm not for massive infrastructure improvements aimed solely at cyclists. We have a perfectly good cycling network in this country - our roads. That's not to say that there shouldn't be improvements at key locations proven to be downright dangerous for cyclists.
As Wow's thread title suggests there is a "them and us" thing going on between cyclists and drivers. In my view solving this problem will do more to improve cyclist's safety than an number of cycle lanes. If you spot a problem I always think it's best to identify what you can do to solve the problem as opposed to sitting back and waiting for the problem to be solved by some other bugger.
As cyclists there is stuff we could be doing to help the "them and us" situation. Firstly cyclists should obey the fooking traffic laws! Jumping red lights, riding on pavements and not displaying lights at night or in poor visibility is totally and utterly unforgivable.
Secondly, lets be nicer to drivers. Smile at them, give them a wave if they do the right thing. If a driver hangs back and only overtakes me when its safe I give them a thumbs up as they pass. A bit of charm never hurt anyone.
-
I'd certainly be a lot less racist if black people would just smile a bit more. And gay people, what's with all the parades and that flamboyance? The should stop and be a bit a less gay. It's no wonder people don't like them.
-
Oscar's dad is right. Building bridges between people is a good thing. I don't think he is advocating going around with an inane grin on your face, smiling at each and every motorist. Just being friendly towards the people we interact with on the road. Where possible. Nothing wrong with that.
-
Can you actually point to an example of how an out group has been received better by ingratiating itself with the majority group?
The whole point is the majority expect people to change to be like them. There is no expectation of compromise.
-
I'm not for massive infrastructure improvements aimed solely at cyclists. We have a perfectly good cycling network in this country - our roads.
The roads are only a perfectly good cycling network for a very small part of the population, chiefly the fit, male, desperate or belligerent. Everybody else doesn't see them as such, which is why they don't cycle.
You could say "it's not the roads, it's the drivers". Sure, the roads would be much better if they weren't full of carelessly or aggressively driven motor vehicles, but they've got to go somewhere. It's been repeatedly demonstrated that it's much simpler and more effective to create safe space for cycling by re-engineering the road environment than it is by attempting to manipulate driving habits through education or even law enforcement.
But I agree that infrastructure improvements shouldn't be solely for cyclists. They should be for all non-motorised users - first and foremost pedestrians - including the young, the old and the disabled. That means things like having priority when wanting to cross roads along the shortest path, as well as not being made to share the same physical space as cyclists.
-
Can you actually point to an example of how an out group has been received better by ingratiating itself with the majority group?
Arguably, same-sex marriage.
-
Can you actually point to an example of how an out group has been received better by ingratiating itself with the majority group?
The whole point is the majority expect people to change to be like them. There is no expectation of compromise.
I used to work on improving or reopening public footpaths and bridleways, working alongside members of the Ramblers Association. As part of that work I had to approach farmers and landowners to discuss opening up what were, in some cases, long disused paths. Delicate negotiating was needed, especially given the stereotype Rambler that some farmers had in their imaginations.
In all but a few instances we soon established good, friendly relations between all parties. The Ramblers, in particular, were good at winning the farmers over. As soon as a farmer realised he / she had a lot in common with the Ramblers (love of the countryside, hatred of fly tipping, etc) we were home and dry.
"Ingratiating" is not a nice word and I would not practice the subservient behaviour it implies. But winning friends and influencing people is a good thing.
-
Oscar's dad is right. Building bridges between people is a good thing. I don't think he is advocating going around with an inane grin on your face, smiling at each and every motorist. Just being friendly towards the people we interact with on the road. Where possible. Nothing wrong with that.
I'm all in favour of being polite and respectful of others. A good philosophy for a less troublesome life. For everyone.
That it's brought up disproportionately when considering safety of vulnerable road users (c.f. Niceway Code) helps to deflect attention from where real difference can be made.
-
I think there's a difference between integrating with the majority, and educating the majority so that they're no longer perceived as an out-group.
-
So what some of you are saying is very little if nothing can be achieved by cyclists extending an olive branch to drivers in the hope that each party might better understand the others point of view?
-
So what some of you are saying is very little if nothing can be achieved by cyclists extending an olive branch to drivers in the hope that each party might better understand the others point of view?
Not unless the olive branch is hefty enough to survive repeated applications to the backs of drivers' heads.
-
So what some of you are saying is very little if nothing can be achieved by cyclists extending an olive branch to drivers in the hope that each party might better understand the others point of view?
I think jo explained it more succinctly than I could.
-
I don't think anyone is disparaging politeness and reasonableness, it's a reasonable mode to operate under, and life is a lot better all around. But that's not really what this is about. Do you really think that those who hate cyclists give a damn about them jumping red lights, riding on the pavement, not having lights? They don't. The nature of any prejudice is that there will always be some kind of implausible justification that floats to the top. You skim one off and up pops another one.
There's a fundamental inequality between people in motor vehicles and those outside them. The vulnerable can't – and shouldn't have to – ask politely for due consideration. The argument that we should somehow offer an 'olive branch' sidesteps that inequality, pretends that we're somehow equal, that 12 kg of bicycle can somehow counterbalance 3 tonnes of Audi Q7. It's a ludicrous premise.
-
I'm not for massive infrastructure improvements aimed solely at cyclists. We have a perfectly good cycling network in this country - our roads.
The roads are only a perfectly good cycling network for a very small part of the population, chiefly the fit, male, desperate or belligerent. Everybody else doesn't see them as such, which is why they don't cycle.
You could say "it's not the roads, it's the drivers". Sure, the roads would be much better if they weren't full of carelessly or aggressively driven motor vehicles, but they've got to go somewhere. It's been repeatedly demonstrated that it's much simpler and more effective to create safe space for cycling by re-engineering the road environment than it is by attempting to manipulate driving habits through education or even law enforcement.
But I agree that infrastructure improvements shouldn't be solely for cyclists. They should be for all non-motorised users - first and foremost pedestrians - including the young, the old and the disabled. That means things like having priority when wanting to cross roads along the shortest path, as well as not being made to share the same physical space as cyclists.
my bold
I disagree, the reason most people don't cycle is that they are fundamentally lazy, its not a criticism really, its just human nature. Cheap motoring has just made laziness super easy.
-
That assumes that everyone has access to a motor vehicle, which they clearly don't.
-
But fundamentally, it sucks to be an out-group. There's only two ways to win that, and one of them (altering your behaviour to achieve in-group status) is even worse.
I understand that sentiment. But I actually like being in this out-group. A rebel without a clue maybe, and a minor league rebel at that. The difference with this out-group I can decide whether to be in it or not. Other out-groups clearly don't have that choice.
-
Laziness? That old trope. Really, so places were people don’t cycle, we accord that to them being ‘lazy’? That’s patronising and nonsensical. Are the Dutch somehow less lazy? Does some strange lethargy strike the people of Nottingham, while those of London buzz and fizz with unstoppable energy?
People will, of course, take the path of convenience. That’s not laziness. We’ve gradually let our environments mould themselves around the car, becomes products of a freely motorised lifestyle, to the point where we feel it may collapse if the car is removed. Pedestrians and cyclists have been deprioritised, public transport stripped back, distances extended as businesses flee to the concrete excrescences blistering the edge of our towns, we abandon local schools to decrepitude for the promise of a better education on the other side of town. Driving is cheap and convenient. Pavements have become places to park, roads have become infrastructure for cars, people are tolerated only as an inconvenience to traffic flow. Parking must be defended at all costs. The traffic warden becomes some kind of suburban ISIS, threatening our inalienable right to drive and park wherever and whenever it is convenient. Drivers have been convinced of their absolute entitlement. Who dares to tell them otherwise? They get to dress up as the victim. The war is against them. It’s never clear who’s on the other side of this war and quite what weapons they might be using. Somewhere around 1700 people will die on the roads this year. Tens of thousands more will be seriously injured. It’s not just the car that’s left wrecked and managed on the roadside, it’s lives. Somewhere around 30,000 people will have their death hastened by pollution, possibly hundreds of thousands other will have their activities curtailed and abbreviated. Millions of hours are lost in traffic jams, kids are locked away in their home away from traffic so they can instead get fat and sick, and people queue forlornly for the permission of the green man to cross. It's not about cycling, it's about the way we live.
Is it any wonder people don’t walk and cycle. Go look outside. The streets have become a hostile environment for anyone not in a car. We have a population who only drive. They have little empathy with those outside their own car, they've no need for it.
I’m sure it’s great for some cyclist to want to be an out-group. But seriously, that’s just selfish towards those from whom that choice has been stolen.
-
I’m sure it’s great for some cyclist to want to be an out-group. But seriously, that’s just selfish towards those from whom that choice has been stolen.
It's the out-group that generally brings about change .... Say it loud, I'm a cyclewanker and Proud .....
-
I’m sure it’s great for some cyclist to want to be an out-group. But seriously, that’s just selfish towards those from whom that choice has been stolen.
It's the out-group that generally brings about change ....
Except it isn't.
-
I have always tried to be smiley to other road-users and to acknowledge considerate behaviour when I experience it. But it's more to do with how I was brought up than out of a belief that I can change the minds of those who think I am a problem. Not everyone smiles back. I don't think considerate behaviour is going to change the minds of people who string lines across a path or throw tacks on the road. Some of those people may think they are just putting over a point of view. In fact they are dangerous criminals. The sad thing is that in the current climate anyone prosecuted for such an offence is likely to have it dealt with as a problem of resentment, rather than the violent sociopathy that it is.
Peter
-
Thought experiment: Let's imagine an alternative universe which is identical to this one except that all cyclists are careful to always obey every traffic law. No cyclist ever rides on a footpath or jumps a red light, for example. Let's further imagine they all have some kind of registration, liability insurance and even pay some amount of a notional 'road tax'.
If that were all that true, does anyone really believe that drivers of motorised vehicles would consequently consider cyclists equals on the road, drive considerately about them, be careful to give them lots of space and time, consider them valuable collaborators in an integrated transport system? I don't. I think they'd just find some other excuse to behave as bullies.
-
I’m sure it’s great for some cyclist to want to be an out-group. But seriously, that’s just selfish towards those from whom that choice has been stolen.
It's the out-group that generally brings about change ....
Except it isn't.
It will ....
-
What will bring about change is the dawning governmental realisation that there simply isn't room to allow a continual increase in the number of vehicles trying to access the work, leisure and shopping honeypots via the ever-more-overloaded road system. The eureka moment when they accept that devoting less space to cars and more to pedestrian and cycling commuters means not only a better use of space, but a very much healthier environment. Cycling isn't just for lycra-clad roadies, or gnarled, be-sandalled barons of long-distance torture. It is - or should be - a valid transport choice for all those who don't wish (or can't afford) to use a car, irrelevant of their fitness levels or clothing choice. As the Netherlands and Denmark, in particular, have shown, the way to give people access to that choice is to provide the infrastructure to allow them not only to feel safe, but to feel that they belong. As Kim intimates, those of us who wish to continue sticking a metaphorical middle finger up to the motorist by riding our mean machines on the road will do so whatever, but it ain't about us.
-
At last........
-
Maybe some of us ride worse roads than others, but my riding experience is generally a good one. I wouldn't do it if it wasn't. Most of my rides have no seriously close passes from motor vehicles, nobody pulling out in front of me, and no verbal abuse. Communication with other road users is mostly along the lines of a friendly wave (from them or me) to acknowledge one of us giving way. That is my normal experience on the road. Most road users are okay most of the time and we have to keep that in our minds or we will hate being out there.
-
Maybe some of us ride worse roads than others, but my riding experience is generally a good one. I wouldn't do it if it wasn't. Most of my rides have no seriously close passes from motor vehicles, nobody pulling out in front of me, and no verbal abuse. Communication with other road users is mostly along the lines of a friendly wave (from them or me) to acknowledge one of us giving way. That is my normal experience on the road. Most road users are okay most of the time and we have to keep that in our minds or we will hate being out there.
On a sunny day on the lanes on a Sunday yes that is true enough. But commute on a wet Wednesday in heavy traffic, or go through a busy roundabout or near a supermarket or one of the other many many "no go zones" and you will be cut up, close fast passes will happen and occassionally worse
I wish I lived in the halcyon world of P Walsh but I feel this won't happen until cars are banned from town centres, drivers are actually sent to prison for injuring people with their cars and all commercial vehicle operation has safety as the top priority
-
Maybe some of us ride worse roads than others, but my riding experience is generally a good one. I wouldn't do it if it wasn't. Most of my rides have no seriously close passes from motor vehicles, nobody pulling out in front of me, and no verbal abuse. Communication with other road users is mostly along the lines of a friendly wave (from them or me) to acknowledge one of us giving way. That is my normal experience on the road. Most road users are okay most of the time and we have to keep that in our minds or we will hate being out there.
On a sunny day on the lanes on a Sunday yes that is true enough. But commute on a wet Wednesday in heavy traffic, or go through a busy roundabout or near a supermarket or one of the other many many "no go zones" and you will be cut up, close fast passes will happen and occassionally worse
I wish I lived in the halcyon world of P Walsh but I feel this won't happen until cars are banned from town centres, drivers are actually sent to prison for injuring people with their cars and all commercial vehicle operation has safety as the top priority
Do you think the conflict is mainly a city thing?
-
To answer that you would need to separate out lazy, careless or dangerous driving caused by lack of knowledge or empathy and the downright Clarksoneque " Sod cyclists,I'll give him a fright " type of driving .
When you are on the receiving end of a close shave or cut in ,do you know the reason for it?
-
As an inveterate cyclist, I go places by bike. Because it's convenient and it's means of locomotion I like. Every time I freewheel down a hill, there's that little jouissance of childhood, and that's something I've never felt in the driving seat of a car. Cramming myself onto a train a bus doesn't capture it either. That's just travel. A means to a literal end. I go by bike and I mostly enjoy it. Plus I'm uncoupled from travel delays, waiting for trains, even the traffic jams. I can get on and go and pretty much be where I want to be when I want to be. As a boon it keeps me skinny and healthy.
But I find the roads of London fairly hostile. It not news that cyclists like cycling. I stretch myself far enough to understand why people don't find the prospect attractive. I'd hazard even the most hardcore cyclist here won't be sending off their kids to do a couple of laps of E&C after school. Cycling, as it stands, is something that appeals to sporty males, confident and speedy, willing to fight it out with traffic. Often that's the game itself, you see them yelling at drivers, sprinting head down, arse up, trailing machismo.
I arrive at a meeting by bike and there's three responses to my mode of transport:
1. The Cool. They've done the same, or wish they had.
2. The Comments-Below-the-Line. They'll start on about 'those cyclists'. I'll be rude.
3. The Incredulous. 'Oh you must be so brave!' they'll utter, like you've just rode a hungry tiger up Everest. 'In London! I'd never...' and so on.
You can guess the biggest group. It may be convenient to call them lazy, but these are people I know. They go to gym, they climb mountains, they'll happily cycle back in the Netherlands or Germany. A couple have even tried it, and won't go back. My wife won't cycle on a road. She thinks I'm mad. Possibly I am, but really I want to see more ordinary people cycling. It should be an option for everyone. And the more people that cycle, the more that empathy grows. It stops being us and them and just becomes us.
-
Maybe some of us ride worse roads than others, but my riding experience is generally a good one. I wouldn't do it if it wasn't. Most of my rides have no seriously close passes from motor vehicles, nobody pulling out in front of me, and no verbal abuse. Communication with other road users is mostly along the lines of a friendly wave (from them or me) to acknowledge one of us giving way. That is my normal experience on the road. Most road users are okay most of the time and we have to keep that in our minds or we will hate being out there.
This, exactly this.
Yes, even in London.
-
Thought experiment: Let's imagine an alternative universe which is identical to this one except that all cyclists are careful to always obey every traffic law. No cyclist ever rides on a footpath or jumps a red light, for example. Let's further imagine they all have some kind of registration, liability insurance and even pay some amount of a notional 'road tax'.
If that were all that true, does anyone really believe that drivers of motorised vehicles would consequently consider cyclists equals on the road, drive considerately about them, be careful to give them lots of space and time, consider them valuable collaborators in an integrated transport system? I don't. I think they'd just find some other excuse to behave as bullies.
Practical experiment: Get a small, underpowered car. The sort of thing generally used by primary school teachers and those too young to afford to insure anything better. Drive politely and in strict accordance with the highway code. See how you're treated by other drivers.
QED.
People do what they think they can get away with, which includes bullying those of lower perceived vehicular status than themselves.
-
Kim, you get treated like that in a bigger car if you stick to the Highway Code.
Lawbreaking is endemic and unpunished.
-
Kim, you get treated like that in a bigger car if you stick to the Highway Code.
Lawbreaking is endemic and unpunished.
Yes, but a small car increases the amount of failures to yield, though not as much as a bike, and they're still looking for you.
I discovered this the first time I drove a big car. Everyone was suddenly weirdly nice.... turned out they were just expecting me to drive like a bully.
-
I have to say I don't really notice much difference in drivers' behaviour towards me, no matter what vehicle I'm operating (bicycle, small car, big car, 4x4-alike, white van).
It is of course quite possible that I drive (or ride) like a bully no matter what.
-
Maybe it's a London thing? Dunno. It's been a while. I don't do much driving these days.
-
I actually find that I'm treated worse when I'm driving than when I'm cycling.
Of course the worse treatment I receive is less life threatening.
Mrs. B has often commented that I drive like I'm riding my bike. (Usually in urban conflict situations) I'm not quite sure what she means, but I take it as a compliment rather than the criticism which she probably means.
-
Maybe it's a London thing? Dunno. It's been a while. I don't do much driving these days.
Quite probable.
I am used to a traffic dynamic that means if you move to take advantage of the merest hint of a gap, it opens up for you, but if you wait for more than a hint, you'll be waiting a long time. (My version of courtesy to other road users is that I'll give a big hint if I'm in a position to let them out - but they still need to take it.)
I realise that in a non-London environment, my driving may be seen as unnecessarily assertive - I do try to adapt to different ways when I'm acting as chauffeur to my MiL in Ireland ...
-
So the original question was "What have people got against cyclists?". The answers seems to be that drivers resent having to share the roads with cyclists.
Certainly better infrastructure, like that in the Netherlands and Denmark, would solve the problem as drivers and cyclists would mostly be on separate bits of infrastructure. Undoubtedly introducing such infrastructure to the UK would increase the number of everyday cyclists using as a bike as transport.
But, here's the thing, for a whole variety of reasons I can't see the UK ever having cyclist infrastrure like the Dutch and Danes enjoy. So, if we can accept this uncomfortable truth what do we do? We improve infrastructure where we can, we enforce traffic laws both for cyclists and drivers, maybe we change the law so drivers are assumed to be in the wrong if a cyclist gets hit (can't think of the term), we make cycle training part of the driving test, Bikeability training gets introduced into the National Cirriculum, VAT on bikes and bike gear is removed, advertising of cars as aspirational objects is banned, we have campaigns to encourage road users to be nicer to each other etc.
Slowly as cycling is positively promoted as an everyday activity not a hobby, as non-cyclists get new skills which build their confidence the resentment between road users will fade. But it will probably take a couple of generations at least.
-
I think we're forgetting that it's not just cyclists they hate. They also hate caravans (hell, Clarkson blows them up regularly), they hate tractors and they hate old ladies driving at an appropriate speed (the speed that they can stop safely at). They hate lorries (elephant racing, and ?40 ?50mph on b-roads). They hate each other. Get in that box and every other fucker is just out to ruin your day.
-
The 'cyclists are Mamils' meme needs to be changed too.
Trouble is, the Mamils is where the money is. Not the flat cap and boiler suit off to work, or the flowers and basket down to the shops.
-
I think we're forgetting that it's not just cyclists they hate. They also hate caravans (hell, Clarkson blows them up regularly), they hate tractors and they hate old ladies driving at an appropriate speed (the speed that they can stop safely at). They hate lorries (elephant racing, and ?40 ?50mph on b-roads). They hate each other. Get in that box and every other fucker is just out to ruin your day.
True that.
They are the same people who will push my wife out of the way whilst walking to the train station, despite there still being 5 minutes before the train comes.
They is we. We are all in too much of a hurry. No one has the right to hold us up for even a fraction of a second. How dare they? I need to get to that red light now.
I am just pleased that so many people are so enjoying their job that they need to get there quicker.
As ever, the likelihood of significant injury to others is somewhat amplified when the person in a hurry is in two tonnes of wankpanzer.
-
I suspect that marcusjb & fobs do have one major part of the issue that many of us experience as the problem*
Since I stopped commuting, and stopped driving at 70+ I find travelling much more bearable in that I don't have the time pressures that want me to 'push your wife out of the way' or to get in front of the next car ahead. We are as a society in to much of a rush.
*I rarely experience anything other than generalised consideration when cycling - but I accept others have a very different experience, but I don't know why. Most of my cycling these days is leisure riding in rural Leicestershire. Sure, I get occasional close passes (usually from East European lorries on one particular stretch of the A47 when they are heading for the Caterpillar factory) but they I feel them as unpleasant rather than dangerous.
-
So the original question was "What have people got against cyclists?". The answers seems to be that drivers resent having to share the roads with cyclists.
Certainly better infrastructure, like that in the Netherlands and Denmark, would solve the problem as drivers and cyclists would mostly be on separate bits of infrastructure. Undoubtedly introducing such infrastructure to the UK would increase the number of everyday cyclists using as a bike as transport.
But, here's the thing, for a whole variety of reasons I can't see the UK ever having cyclist infrastrure like the Dutch and Danes enjoy. So, if we can accept this uncomfortable truth what do we do? We improve infrastructure where we can, we enforce traffic laws both for cyclists and drivers, maybe we change the law so drivers are assumed to be in the wrong if a cyclist gets hit (can't think of the term), we make cycle training part of the driving test, Bikeability training gets introduced into the National Cirriculum, VAT on bikes and bike gear is removed, advertising of cars as aspirational objects is banned, we have campaigns to encourage road users to be nicer to each other etc.
Slowly as cycling is positively promoted as an everyday activity not a hobby, as non-cyclists get new skills which build their confidence the resentment between road users will fade. But it will probably take a couple of generations at least.
See, we're back with an improbable range of things having to happen in accord. Our built environments are continually renewed and maintained. We can certainly build, amend, and improve. The current road system didn't just arrive overnight. All that really needs to change is the focus on motorised vehicles. That's one simple thing.
-
[snip]But, here's the thing, for a whole variety of reasons I can't see the UK ever having cyclist infrastrure like the Dutch and Danes enjoy. So, if we can accept this uncomfortable truth what do we do? [/snip]
No, I don't accept that at all. We build infrastructure all the time, and spend a great deal of money on it. As yet, it's not intended to reduce vehicle use and increase cycle and pedestrian travel, but the pressure is building and it will come. In the meantime we can demand that greater efforts are made by the authorities to deter and penalise unsafe drivers, and attempt to encourage a greater sense of sharing, but that essentially is an attempt to change human nature, and is a damn sight more difficult than building infrastructure!
-
I think we're forgetting that it's not just cyclists they hate. They also hate caravans (hell, Clarkson blows them up regularly), they hate tractors and they hate old ladies driving at an appropriate speed (the speed that they can stop safely at). They hate lorries (elephant racing, and ?40 ?50mph on b-roads). They hate each other. Get in that box and every other fucker is just out to ruin your day.
Disagree.
The difference is that lorries and tractors and old ladies is that they're not out playing. Theyre working. Cyclists are usally just men out playing on their bikes. This makes it inconvient but understandable when your held up by tractors but how dare the cyclists. I'd say around half of the cyclo-commuters I see are in cycle-specific clothing (lycra) singling them out as sporty/enthusiast/cyclists (or the 'us' as Ian dislikes so much)
-
Cannot see the UK building cycle tracks everywhere. There isn't the space or the political will power or the money.
-
I think that depends where and when you encounter them. I'd suggest that the overwhelming majority of people cycling on-road in a city are doing so for transport. At commute o'clock, the majoirty of the city off-road cyclists probably are too. Out in the lanes it's mostly going to be sport and leisure, with a handful of committed longer-distance commuters.
But I don't think that makes all that much difference to how you're treated (other than looking like you might be fast might get you a bit more respect on the road). I find that utility cycling causes me to "get in the way" of far more motorists than leisure cycling does, and the whole "get a fucking car" argument hinges on the journey being for transport rather than exercise.
When I'm riding for fun, I do make a habit of pulling over and letting vehicles that are clearly on the job (tractors, HGVs, etc) past as soon as possible. I'm less accommodating when lugging the shopping about in town.
-
Cannot see the UK building cycle tracks everywhere. There isn't the space or the political will power or the money.
There is the space, when you re-allocate it from motor vehicles. It will pay for itself in reduced maintenance alone if the modal share changes accordingly.
It's the political will that's the sticking point.
-
What have people got against cyclists? Easy! They know we're right and what's more they know we own the moral, ethical and environmental high ground (and we're probably all kind to dumb animals as well) and it really gets on their tits. :D
Seriously? I don't know, don't care and I am just going to ignore them and get on with enjoying my cycling.
-
They is we. We are all in too much of a hurry. No one has the right to hold us up for even a fraction of a second. How dare they? I need to get to that red light now.
I am just pleased that so many people are so enjoying their job that they need to get there quicker.
As ever, the likelihood of significant injury to others is somewhat amplified when the person in a hurry is in two tonnes of wankpanzer.
I'm not sure it's "in a hurry" that motivates this behaviour. It doesn't explain why you get that overtake 20 metres before the back end of a stationary queue of traffic. Or why people drive in situations when it is clear other modes of transport (including walking and cycling) would be quicker. There's something else going on to do with power plays and the illusion of control and independence.
-
They is we. We are all in too much of a hurry. No one has the right to hold us up for even a fraction of a second. How dare they? I need to get to that red light now.
I am just pleased that so many people are so enjoying their job that they need to get there quicker.
As ever, the likelihood of significant injury to others is somewhat amplified when the person in a hurry is in two tonnes of wankpanzer.
I'm not sure it's "in a hurry" that motivates this behaviour. It doesn't explain why you get that overtake 20 metres before the back end of a stationary queue of traffic. Or why people drive in situations when it is clear other modes of transport (including walking and cycling) would be quicker. There's something else going on to do with power plays and the illusion of control and independence.
I think it does explain the overtake just before a queue or a red light - it's "in a hurry" modified by (literal) myopia, as the driver focuses on the immediate delay caused by that oh-so-slow cyclist to the absolute exclusion of anything further up the road, feeling that the sooner they are in the queue, the sooner they will be out of it.
As for where other modes would be quicker, first you're assuming that people will have calculated this rationally (because walking and cycling and buses are slo, as any fule kno, and therefore driving *must* be faster), and second, how on earth is a driver supposed to avoid getting sweaty or to carry their briefcase¦handbag¦shopping if they can't put it in the boot?
I think you're right about illusions of control and independence (hell, having seen those illusions for what they are, my reasons for utility cycling are largely about control and independence) - not so sure about power games, at least for the majority.
-
In their perception it's quicker. Although of course it isn't in fact. 90% of the time.
I had a right ding-dong argument with a woman in a car a few weeks back after she accelerated hard past me with about an inch to spare between the car and my leg - with a traffic jam being visible all the way to the horizon. Her mistake was that I finally lost it with this shit momentarily and that she had her window open when she stopped.
My first enquiry was to where she thought she was going to go.
After she told me her destination ( :facepalm: ) I re-explaine, gesturing at the massive stationary jam that she wasn't moving anywhere in a hurry.
I then could see the cogs in the brain turn as she looked ahead and mentally thought - 'oh yeah'
Some of these people are - *whispers* - not very intelligent.
Keeps them out of the rain and they can listen to those traffic reports telling them about the jam they're already in on the radio too.
-
Cannot see the UK building cycle tracks everywhere. There isn't the space or the political will power or the money.
This was my point.
-
I'm not sure it's "in a hurry" that motivates this behaviour.
I reckon it's perceived social pressure not to hold up the vehicle behind.
-
Some of these people are - *whispers* - not very intelligent.
There's an awful lot of villages missing their idiots.
-
Some of these people are - *whispers* - not very intelligent.
There's an awful lot of villages missing their idiots.
Are you saying that some people in this fine nation of ours are below average?
-
Around half of them, perhaps?
-
Kim, you get treated like that in a bigger car if you stick to the Highway Code.
Lawbreaking is endemic and unpunished.
Yes, but a small car increases the amount of failures to yield, though not as much as a bike, and they're still looking for you.
I discovered this the first time I drove a big car. Everyone was suddenly weirdly nice.... turned out they were just expecting me to drive like a bully.
As the owner of The Only Beemer With Indicators (;)) I have to agree. I suspect I get a little more "competitive" aggro from other Rep Car Wankers, typically Audis, but ignoring them is easy and on the whole I get a lot more space than in a little runabout.
-
As the owner of The Only Beemer With Indicators ( ;) )
Mine came with them too, and I use also use them. O:-)
-
Isn't the reality that drivers, as well as being financially fleeced by just about everyone, now find that driving itself is just becoming a royal PITA. Cyclists are handily placed to target the resulting venom. There are no traffic jams in car sales advertising land.
-
Cannot see the UK building cycle tracks everywhere. There isn't the space or the political will power or the money.
This was my point.
Whilst population density isn't the only factor in the amount of space available, it is one of the important ones.
The Netherlands has a far higher population density than the UK.
-
Isn't the reality that drivers, as well as being financially fleeced by just about everyone
That'll be "financially fleeced" in the 'heavily subsidised' sense?
-
;D Perceptions and reality.
-
Kim, you get treated like that in a bigger car if you stick to the Highway Code.
Lawbreaking is endemic and unpunished.
Yes, but a small car increases the amount of failures to yield, though not as much as a bike, and they're still looking for you.
I discovered this the first time I drove a big car. Everyone was suddenly weirdly nice.... turned out they were just expecting me to drive like a bully.
As the owner of The Only Beemer With Indicators (;)) I have to agree. I suspect I get a little more "competitive" aggro from other Rep Car Wankers, typically Audis, but ignoring them is easy and on the whole I get a lot more space than in a little runabout.
For the moment we have two cars (don't ask why, it's complicated) one is a Peugeot RCZ, the other is a Peugeot Bipper covered in flower stickers.
The diffefence in the behaviour from other drivers -particularly on dual carriageways & motorways - is most amazing.
Many drivers treat the RCZ as a challenge to be beaten; whereas the Bipper is treated like potential roadkill. Both can be scary, but in different ways. I must admit to finding the extra acceleration of the RCZ a blessing when I need it. But unlike DibDib I find it's not the Rep car Wankers (maybe I'm too slow for
them) but the 18 year olds in Y reg Saxos.
So yes, to get back on track, they do see you, they do care what you are moving in /on, and some of them can be real tossers.
-
Cannot see the UK building cycle tracks everywhere. There isn't the space or the political will power or the money.
This was my point.
Whilst population density isn't the only factor in the amount of space available, it is one of the important ones.
The Netherlands has a far higher population density than the UK.
As I understand it much of the Netherlands' infrastructure was created by stopping up through routes to motor traffic - effectively making them useless for cars, but great for peds & cyclists. Thus creating a dual network of motor roads and 'human routes'.
If you think about many of your local rat runs, town or country - a lot (if not all) could be closed off somewhere along their length to achieve this end in the UK without major expenditure or the country grinding to a standstill (despite what the Daily Paranoia would surely claim).
What we do here is build by-passes for town that are, in reality, just relief roads - look at Newbury.: Just about as clogged as before the by-pass was built.
-
Yebbut think of all those poor people who will die when the ambulance can't get through! It'll be carnage I tell ye!
-
Yesterday's aggressive driver was purely that - aggressive. A woman in late middle-age with a heavily made-up face and dyed black hair had been a couple of cars behind me for a few hundred yards. I was cycling along a residential road with cars parked either side so car no. 1 was unable to overtake. Eventually, just after I turned left onto a slightly more major road, driver no. 1 overtook but within 100 yards had to stop at a roundabout. I took primary but driver no. 2 hurled her car into the other lane, oblivious of whatever might have been approaching from the roundabout, but still didn't have enough power to get past me, instead, cutting in and forcing me to the left.
I remained in front and I'm afraid that my PCness left me with the expression "God, you're an aggressive cow, aren't you?"
I pulled out onto the roundabout in front of her, she overtook me on my left, turned into the same exit that I needed (my house is along that road) and promptly joined a queue of about 50 vehicles. My parting shot as I overtook was "Have a nice queue!" and within a minute or so I was home.
None of that was as a result of inattention or laziness. It was pure, calculated aggression borne of a prejudice against cyclists.
-
You've drifted well off the original question, "what have people got against cyclists?" (the answer to which is obvious) and moved..
1. Line of tinned fat, poor people[1] will usually contain a few who'll have a problem with someone gliding past with a smile on - for free.
2. No amount of rule-following or smiling nicely will change this.
3. So ride your bike. Walk places. Catch a bus. Ditch the car. It's easy. You can do it today.
4. Revel in all the things drivers hate about you. Tell your pals how cheap it is. How much fun it is. How fit you are. Glory in being able to do the things they want to do; jump red lights, get pissed and ride home, take shortcuts along the pavements.
5. Or wait for someone to give us stricter driving rules, segregated bike lanes, rain free days. And wait. And wait. And wait.
[1] I can be very harsh about drivers. In reality, it's self-loathing as for a few years I was one. I spent 10s (maybe 100s) of thousands of pounds on driving and became fat and ill from it. Drivers, in addition to being impoverished and sickened by their compulsion, are also anti-social in the extreme - poisoning the environment, hounding people from the streets, and requiring that whole cities are rebuilt as racetracks for them.
-
None of that was as a result of inattention or laziness. It was pure, calculated aggression borne of a prejudice against cyclists.
Doesn't sound as though any of that was calculated, to be honest.
-
Sounds more like impatience, seeing everything slower than you as an obstacle to get past.
Cars aren't very good for your brain, are they, whether you're driving one or bouncing off the front of one :-\
-
Ditch the car. It's easy. You can do it today.
My life would be inconvenienced (not a total disaster, mind) without a car, so I'm prepared to pay for the privileged.
-
Ah, yes. Convenience - the drug of a nation. Heroin would be less damaging and less seductively addictive.
-
...doth protest too much?
I find that when people leap into a discussion to defend their behavoiour, its a strong sign of guilt.
Well done Sisti - admitting your problem is the first step! :thumbsup:
-
Drivers, in addition to being impoverished and sickened by their compulsion, are also anti-social in the extreme - poisoning the environment, hounding people from the streets, and requiring that whole cities are rebuilt as racetracks for them.
I drive a car. Does that include me?
-
The lives of millions of people are inconvenienced by people each thinking their own lives are made more convenient using a car.
Lack of access to clean air is inconvenient. Roadsides full of parked cars are inconvenient. Denying kids football in the street is inconvenient. Scaring children away from riding or walking to school is inconvenient. Preventing two people who see each other on opposite sides of a busy road having a friendly chat is inconvenient. Being kept awake by traffic noise is inconvenient. Taking two hours to cross a congested city is inconvenient. Potholes and broken kerbs are inconvenient. Being hit by an inattentive driver is inconvenient. Being scared off the road by speeding drivers is inconvenient. Having to clean the grime off shop fronts from thousands of exhausts is inconvenient. Forcing the police to deal with thousands of car-related crimes is inconvenient. Disposing of thousands of unwanted dumped vehicles is inconvenient.
Sometimes inconvenience is so normalised we forget we can do something about it.
-
...doth protest too much?
I find that when people leap into a discussion to defend their behavoiour, its a strong sign of guilt.
Well done Sisti - admitting your problem is the first step! :thumbsup:
I didn't admit to any problem. People have cars and will drive them. Just accept it. People have bikes too, and will ride them.
-
I ditched my car last year - I'm so pleased to be (as someone put it above) decoupled from the daily grind of the commute - although I'd ditched that two years before I actually got rid of the car. I'd actually found myself getting irritable and aggressive as a result of being fed up with that daily grind - traffic jams aren't fun.
We have out shopping delivered now. I've hired a car once since.
Don't miss it one iota.
Maybe half an iota is that I now find it more inconvenient to get to audax rides. That's really it. Don't regret ditching it at all.
I would like to thank the wife for the suggestion that we get bikes that time in 2012. I suspect she regrets it a bit - her bike is moldering in the garage whereas I now have 3 (+Fred mr forum bike still - anyone need it, I don't any more - hint hint?) and have really gone quite bananas about the whole thing :-[ ;D
-
This whole debate on the role of cars and how much we do or don't need them depends largely on where you live and work. Like many who live in a village, and whose nearest towns are small, I would have real problems without access to a car. Today (Sunday) I could stand at the bus stop all day and see no buses go by. Tomorrow I have to get my teenage daughter to and from school (roughly 7 miles away) and she does not want to arrive sweaty. Avoiding the busy bits of road would add a mile or two and would make it more hilly. She won't do it. So I take her and a neighbour's boy in the car, and the neighbour brings them back. Public transport would turn a short trip into a long expedition as the buses go to the wrong town and a change would be involved. School buses are not provided because we chose (and would choose again) a school for which we are just outside the catchment and the County Council does not want to encourage others to do the same.
(My wife usually cycles to work and back, and she loves it. Mainly rural lanes and tolerable traffic.)
Another thing that is different is fuel efficiency, which is much better on rural roads. And the lower density of traffic means air quality is very good. I drive a diesel with no concerns. We try not to make too many trips in the car, and it is our only car.
And returning to the original post, anti-cycling sentiment is fairly rare on the rural roads around here. Most of my riding involves no aggro with other road users.
-
If cars were not an option for the more affluent in rural areas, we'd soon see good public transport put in place.
I'm reminded of Palaces of Gold.
Rules would be broken.
Strings would be pulled
And magic words spoken.
Invisible fingers would mould
Palaces of gold.
http://youtu.be/YpWluQXKTZk
-
Drivers, in addition to being impoverished and sickened by their compulsion, are also anti-social in the extreme - poisoning the environment, hounding people from the streets, and requiring that whole cities are rebuilt as racetracks for them.
I drive a car. Does that include me?
Yup!
-
This whole debate on the role of cars and how much we do or don't need them depends largely on where you live and work. Like many who live in a village, and whose nearest towns are small, I would have real problems without access to a car
Indeed. Cheap, easy, and subsidised private motoring is what you enables to live in clean air of the countryside while depending on town for work, leisure, commerce, etc.
Most people living in the country these days are in exactly your position. Probably not realising how much the car both enables their lifestyle and also encourages it.
Today (Sunday) I could stand at the bus stop all day and see no buses go by. Tomorrow I have to get my teenage daughter to and from school (roughly 7 miles away) and she does not want to arrive sweaty.
Ahh, diddums.
Hey. Guess what? If you didn't have a car, you'd not need one. Either she'd learn to ride sedately, or you'd live somewhere which didn't require a tonne or two of resources and miles of bespoke concrete infrastructure to get from home to destination.
Avoiding the busy bits of road would add a mile or two and would make it more hilly. She won't do it. So I take her and a neighbour's boy in the car, and the neighbour brings them back. Public transport would turn a short trip into a long expedition as the buses go to the wrong town and a change would be involved. School buses are not provided because we chose (and would choose again) a school for which we are just outside the catchment and the County Council does not want to encourage others to do the same.
(My wife usually cycles to work and back, and she loves it. Mainly rural lanes and tolerable traffic.)
Another thing that is different is fuel efficiency, which is much better on rural roads. And the lower density of traffic means air quality is very good. I drive a diesel with no concerns. We try not to make too many trips in the car, and it is our only car.
Of course you have no concerns. Few people do. That's the bloody problem!
-
Maybe one of the things people have against cyclists is cyclists telling them how to live? Just sayin'.
-
Motorised traffic does far, far more in telling me how I should live than does discussion on the Internet.
-
People's choices of lifestyle will always depend on the options available to them, and the relative ease with which those choices can be afforded and achieved. Don't castigate people for choosing cars when doing so is in accordance with the way we have structured our society. If you want to change my choice, don't lecture me (you might find the reaction is not to your taste) but provide me with the tools and the infrastructure, both physical and political, to make a different choice. And if I still don't fall in line with your preference, tough.
Persuasion, not evangelism.
-
And that why people hate cyclists. ;D
-
It's true that my need for a car is lesser than some, I don't live in a rural area (well I do nearly in fact) and I don't have dependents who need transportation, I do have good local public transport when the need arises.
However, that is also true for the vast majority of the 300,000 people who live within the confines of my local city (not the dependents bit admittedly). I can't remember the exact figure but isn't it true that something like 90% of car journeys are of less than 2 miles?
When I used to drive it took me 40 minutes+ to drive 5 miles to work, on my bike it takes 18-20 minutes typically. The car was vastly more expensive to run and was slower! A lot slower.
The vast majority of those I commute alongside would also be in this position if they chose to try it. Most people live in the cities and most of them don't need a car as much as they think they do.
I'm happy to accept that many people do 'need' a car, but there are many many more who don't I suspect.
-
I think there's jealousy, dislike of The Smug and the irritation people (well me at least) get when something fast-moving suddenly appears in the peripheral vision.
Cyclists are very much an out group.
Bicycles are seen as toys (and cyclists in the UK given piffling inadequate infrastructure to match).
-
Maybe one of the things people have against cyclists is cyclists telling them how to live? Just sayin'.
Apols if my post read as telling someone how to live. It wasn't intended that way - more as a boggle at the weirdness of the world these days.
I don't think "the answer" is to tell people how to live their lives. Asking people to stop driving is about as realistic as asking the the clouds to stop raining. Both cars and rain can infringe my cycling idyll - but I just need to gnash my teeth a bit and get on with it.
Equally, no point in hoping for the govt to spend money on minority infrastructure. They only do what will get them votes from a majority - and the majority drive cars. That's just the way it is.
"The answer" is simply to revel in all that's good about cycling (and/or being car-free). Tell people about it. Open their eyes to some of their odd habits and dependencies. Maybe some will follow your lead. Maybe none will. But, whatever, you'll have had the benefit of riding a bike - and also have a positive framework in which to hold the experience. Which is far better for you than the "cycling is Hell, let me tell you a scary horror story - and everyone hates us sob sob" mentality that I keep coming across in cycling circles.
-
The owner(s) of Toyota owe their jobs (and millions of pounds) to motorised commutes - that will not persuade me that driving to work is a good thing!
As for "telling people what to do" - well tough. Sometimes its a necessary breech of politeness; to point out to some people that they are f**king over many other people.
I feel a Godwinism coming on (the sort that involves Adolf, not Tommy!)
-
Maybe one of the things people have against cyclists is cyclists telling them how to live? Just sayin'.
Apols if my post read as telling someone how to live. It wasn't intended that way - more as a boggle at the weirdness of the world these days.
I don't think "the answer" is to tell people how to live their lives. Asking people to stop driving is about as realistic as asking the the clouds to stop raining. Both cars and rain can infringe my cycling idyll - but I just need to gnash my teeth a bit and get on with it.
Equally, no point in hoping for the govt to spend money on minority infrastructure. They only do what will get them votes from a majority - and the majority drive cars. That's just the way it is.
"The answer" is simply to revel in all that's good about cycling (and/or being car-free). Tell people about it. Open their eyes to some of their odd habits and dependencies. Maybe some will follow your lead. Maybe none will. But, whatever, you'll have had the benefit of riding a bike - and also have a positive framework in which to hold the experience. Which is far better for you than the "cycling is Hell, let me tell you a scary horror story - and everyone hates us sob sob" mentality that I keep coming across in cycling circles.
No worries - and I totally agree with your last paragraph!
-
The owner(s) of Toyota owe their jobs (and millions of pounds) to motorised commutes - that will not persuade me that driving to work is a good thing!
As for "telling people what to do" - well tough. Sometimes its a necessary breech of politeness; to point out to some people that they are f**king over many other people.
I feel a Godwinism coming on (the sort that involves Adolf, not Tommy!)
Well, the thing is you're not in a position to tell people what to do, and they will resent it if you try. If you must have a Godwinism, it's really only in a dictatorship that a solution can be imposed - and, of course, what is imposed is a solution only in the eyes of the dictator, not those who have it imposed on them!
If you want change, you have to take people with you not harangue, chastise and badger them. And you have to be prepared to see your 'solution' be adapted and evolve and take a different direction than you'd envisaged as people with different opinions influence the outcome.
-
This whole debate on the role of cars and how much we do or don't need them depends largely on where you live and work. Like many who live in a village, and whose nearest towns are small, I would have real problems without access to a car
Indeed. Cheap, easy, and subsidised private motoring is what you enables to live in clean air of the countryside while depending on town for work, leisure, commerce, etc.
Most people living in the country these days are in exactly your position. Probably not realising how much the car both enables their lifestyle and also encourages it.
Today (Sunday) I could stand at the bus stop all day and see no buses go by. Tomorrow I have to get my teenage daughter to and from school (roughly 7 miles away) and she does not want to arrive sweaty.
Ahh, diddums.
Hey. Guess what? If you didn't have a car, you'd not need one. Either she'd learn to ride sedately, or you'd live somewhere which didn't require a tonne or two of resources and miles of bespoke concrete infrastructure to get from home to destination.
Avoiding the busy bits of road would add a mile or two and would make it more hilly. She won't do it. So I take her and a neighbour's boy in the car, and the neighbour brings them back. Public transport would turn a short trip into a long expedition as the buses go to the wrong town and a change would be involved. School buses are not provided because we chose (and would choose again) a school for which we are just outside the catchment and the County Council does not want to encourage others to do the same.
(My wife usually cycles to work and back, and she loves it. Mainly rural lanes and tolerable traffic.)
Another thing that is different is fuel efficiency, which is much better on rural roads. And the lower density of traffic means air quality is very good. I drive a diesel with no concerns. We try not to make too many trips in the car, and it is our only car.
Of course you have no concerns. Few people do. That's the bloody problem!
Calm down. We're singing from the same hymn sheet. Of course I realise that my lifestyle is dependent on a car, and that there are problems with that. I'm just telling it the way it is, warts and all.
My central point was that the choices available in a large metropolis are not the same as those in a rural area or a small town. The practicalities are different. The benefits of cars are greater outside cities, and the drawbacks are smaller.
And I suspect that anti-cycling sentiment is less outside cities, but I don't know that for a fact.
-
There is plenty of anti-cycling sentiment for mass cycling events.
Other expressions of anti-cycling sentiment are displayed in the way crashes are investigated and followed up.
-
There is plenty of anti-cycling sentiment for mass cycling events.
Other expressions of anti-cycling sentiment are displayed in the way crashes are investigated and followed up.
I watched Welsh TV coverage of the controversy over the recent Velothon Wales event (with subsequent tacks incident) and the reporting was not anti-cycling. The opposition to the event was also not openly anti-cycling. It was all about roads being closed for 8 hours or more. If it had been my local B-road I might have been a bit miffed too, so I can relate to those concerns. It can come over as outsiders taking over your community for a day and saying "keep off".
-
The owner(s) of Toyota owe their jobs (and millions of pounds) to motorised commutes - that will not persuade me that driving to work is a good thing!
As for "telling people what to do" - well tough. Sometimes its a necessary breech of politeness; to point out to some people that they are f**king over many other people.
I feel a Godwinism coming on (the sort that involves Adolf, not Tommy!)
Well, the thing is you're not in a position to tell people what to do, and they will resent it if you try. If you must have a Godwinism, it's really only in a dictatorship that a solution can be imposed - and, of course, what is imposed is a solution only in the eyes of the dictator, not those who have it imposed on them!
Nonsense!
Society operates around justice and fairness. We make laws to stop people doing selfish things - you know, like
theft,
racial discrimination
tax evasion,
rape.
We dont stop to get the rapists' permissions to pass such laws!
-
I'm not absolutely against cars (as I have one, albeit rarely used), but I'm against the tyranny of motor vehicles, that we've become utterly dependent on them. I was sitting in the cinema yesterday and all the adverts were about smooth and sexy cars, sliding down empty roads through perfect countryside. Well groomed men extolling the virtues of their sports car, happy nuclear families bundling into their SUV on happy family adventures. Not one of them sitting in a wake of another argument in a fume belching BMW on Brighton Rd on a Saturday morning so they can go stare dully at consumer goods. Another day in the car that sucks up so much money, trapped in competition with peers for a slightly better marque, caught up in bills, and endless parking anxiety. Having to drive everywhere. To distant work, to distant shops, paying out of our own pockets to do so, while others accrue the benefits. The constant rumble of traffic. The breath of pollution. It does on and on. It's a con trick.
The future generation will boggle when they look back, if for no better reason, that we kill 30,000 people a year, and impair the lives of so many more through our obsession.
-
I was sitting in the cinema yesterday and all the adverts were about smooth and sexy cars, sliding down empty roads through perfect countryside. Well groomed men extolling the virtues of their sports car, happy nuclear families bundling into their SUV on happy family adventures. Not one of them sitting in a wake of another argument in a fume belching BMW on Brighton Rd on a Saturday morning so they can go stare dully at consumer goods. Another day in the car that sucks up so much money, trapped in competition with peers for a slightly better marque, caught up in bills, and endless parking anxiety. Having to drive everywhere. To distant work, to distant shops, paying out of our own pockets to do so, while others accrue the benefits. The constant rumble of traffic. The breath of pollution. It does on and on.
It's a con trick.
People fall for it. Especially those who want a different vehicle every 3 years or so.
-
The owner(s) of Toyota owe their jobs (and millions of pounds) to motorised commutes - that will not persuade me that driving to work is a good thing!
As for "telling people what to do" - well tough. Sometimes its a necessary breech of politeness; to point out to some people that they are f**king over many other people.
I feel a Godwinism coming on (the sort that involves Adolf, not Tommy!)
Well, the thing is you're not in a position to tell people what to do, and they will resent it if you try. If you must have a Godwinism, it's really only in a dictatorship that a solution can be imposed - and, of course, what is imposed is a solution only in the eyes of the dictator, not those who have it imposed on them!
Nonsense!
Society operates around justice and fairness. We make laws to stop people doing selfish things - you know, like
theft,
racial discrimination
tax evasion,
rape.
We dont stop to get the rapists' permissions to pass such laws!
Ok, try passing a law that we can't use cars and we must ride or walk! Any government that tried it - or anything that significantly moved in that direction - would soon find itself out of a job. Permanently.
-
Society and government take plenty of more subtle measures.
For one thing, we already ban the driving of cars in certain places. We ban driving cars that do not have the right emission controls. Or certified braking systems.
We have many many "sticks" to discourage anti-social behaviours e.g. parking fines, taxation in many non-transport areas.
These things have been around for centuries. There is no need to simply roll over and plead with the nasty selfish people to be nicer to the rest of us. Be a man and fucking stand for something, Tim!
-
You can hector me all you like, Matt. I'm not the target you seek, however. I already do my shopping by bike, drive the smallest car I can reasonably live with (a Fiesta), and agitate for greater cycling and pedestrian provision at every opportunity. I don't live in a city or town, so my direct experience of, and influence on, the problems of urban congestion are limited. But I'm also a realist, and I understand that people need to be persuaded, not told what to do. If you - and by 'you' I mean local or national politicians - attempt to impose major lifestyle changes on people without a mandate to do so, they will resist and you will have lost. If you convince, by the power of argument and example, people that a different behaviour is beneficial, they will - maybe reluctantly, and with some wailing - accept the changes and learn to live with them. In essence, that is happening now. No, it's not fast enough and the intermediate goals aren't sufficiently ambitious for those already convinced of the benefits, but that's because the argument has not yet been won. It won't be won by diktat, however much you wish otherwise.
-
Its interesting that you see me as "hectoring" and "targeting" you.
This strand blossomed mainly out of jo* pointing out all the harm motorists do. Then drivers started leaping up and down, wailing about their right to use these devices. We weren't telling you what to do - merely telling you all the harm you are doing.
But then you started wailing about being "harangued, chastised and badgered". Its a sort of reflexive - and rather guilty sounding - defence mechanism.
*A post good enough to be worth repeating:
The lives of millions of people are inconvenienced by people each thinking their own lives are made more convenient using a car.
Lack of access to clean air is inconvenient. Roadsides full of parked cars are inconvenient. Denying kids football in the street is inconvenient. Scaring children away from riding or walking to school is inconvenient. Preventing two people who see each other on opposite sides of a busy road having a friendly chat is inconvenient. Being kept awake by traffic noise is inconvenient. Taking two hours to cross a congested city is inconvenient. Potholes and broken kerbs are inconvenient. Being hit by an inattentive driver is inconvenient. Being scared off the road by speeding drivers is inconvenient. Having to clean the grime off shop fronts from thousands of exhausts is inconvenient. Forcing the police to deal with thousands of car-related crimes is inconvenient. Disposing of thousands of unwanted dumped vehicles is inconvenient.
Sometimes inconvenience is so normalised we forget we can do something about it.
-
Ok, so when does your revolution take place? Or are you all hot air?
-
Boys, boys, boys!!
Last Thursday and Friday, I was working in London, and used m'bike to commute from West Hampstead to Tower Bridge and back, and I have to say everybody seemed to behave themselves. Mostly. From personal observation, what irked me about m'fellow road users, was mostly to do with other cyclists. I was still seeing people squeezing up the sides of buses, getting to the head of traffic lights and plonking themselves directly in front of vehicles to make some kind of 'point' I guess, though can't imagine what.
Oh well.
Friend treated me to a very nice pint on Thursday of Beavertown Sump Oil (or Snake Oil) or something like that at The Red Cow pub. Very nice too. And so it should be at £6.00 a pint!!
-
It's a pretty good idea to 'plonk yourself in front of a vehicle' at traffic lights surely? Prevents the F1 start that seems to be favoured by some and also an immediate left hook.
-
It's a pretty good idea to 'plonk yourself in front of a vehicle' at traffic lights surely? Prevents the F1 start that seems to be favoured by some and also an immediate left hook.
Ostensibly yes, but I prefer the 'plonk yourself behind a vehicle at traffic lights' manoeuvre. If the fast vehicles are in front of you, then there's no overtaking to worry about.
Yes, I'm filtering averse, but when I do it it's because the traffic is jammed solid for some distance, rather than because a queue has formed at a light that will clear if I wait half a minute.
-
It's a pretty good idea to 'plonk yourself in front of a vehicle' at traffic lights surely? Prevents the F1 start that seems to be favoured by some and also an immediate left hook.
Ostensibly yes, but I prefer the 'plonk yourself behind a vehicle at traffic lights' manoeuvre.
Yes, I'm filtering averse, but when I do it it's because the traffic is jammed solid for some distance, rather than because a queue has formed at a light that will clear if I wait half a minute.
Me too.
Filtering on the left: horrible idea. Nobody expects to see you there and their concentration is mostly in front waiting for the lights, not on their mirrors.
-
Filtering on the right isn't much fun either.
It isn't helped by the only bike I feel confident[1] filtering on - the Brompton - having a cloak of invisibility effect.
[1] Due to various combinations of bar width, turning circle and ability to see over the top of cars.
-
I'm not a fan of filtering either (don't get much practice out here), though I can see the appeal of being on the left. On the right if you don't time it right yu can get stranded a line of cars accelerating past you on either side.
-
Been cycling now for 50 years boys and girls, and can pretty accurately discern when approaching sets of lights: when it's advantageous to be at the head of the queue, when to hold back ("they're gonna change soon!"), what the approach of a vehicle tells you about the driver and their attitude to moving off from the lights is going to be, taking a quick scan ahead, left and right beyond the lights, and I'm sure we all do these things. At junctions, and areas that engage the cyclist and other road users (include zebra crossings here) you have to adopt a more relaxed, less aggressive demeanour than one might have say, for the open sections of a road. Give and take I say.
My trust in other road users, which includes for the most part here, car drivers, has diminished hugely over the last 5-10 years, and I would say that is largely due to the increase in vehicle use. We pay for it of course, but what can you do? I'm prattling on as usual, as this particular subject matter has been covered infinitum elsewhere. So I'll stop.
And I'm not an old fart.
-
... My trust in other road users, which includes for the most part here, car drivers, has diminished hugely over the last 5-10 years .....
My trust in other road users is zero and always treat them as completely irrational and likely to do the ridiculous. That way, I hope to survive for a little longer when using the roads.
-
Relating the original question to this stuff, one thing British people tend to hate is queue jumpers. It's in our psyche. If you thread your way around standing traffic then plonk yourself in front of the centre of the bonnet of a car whose driver has been waiting for a while, you will not be greeted with warmth and affection. Brits, for better or worse, hate someone pushing in, regardless of vehicle type.
This reaction is (I hope) more muted where there is an advanced stop line for cyclists, since that is where we are supposed to be.
-
I'm not a fan of filtering either (don't get much practice out here), though I can see the appeal of being on the left. On the right if you don't time it right yu can get stranded a line of cars accelerating past you on either side.
You'd have to be pretty inattentive to get your timing wrong. Lines of traffic are not like railway trains. They don't all move off together. I pay attention to what's going on ahead. If a gap appears, either they're beginning to move/speed up and I pick my spot to move back into line, or someone is giving way to a vehicle from the side or a ped.
The moving to the front, no matter what, I just don't get. Particularly with large vehicles. I'd much rather follow a bus or truck through a crossing than have it follow me.
-
I'm not a fan of filtering either (don't get much practice out here), though I can see the appeal of being on the left. On the right if you don't time it right yu can get stranded a line of cars accelerating past you on either side.
I am a fan of filtering, tbh there's not much choice unless you want an 18k commute to take 2 hours. I always prefer filtering on the right, it just seems to work out better. It helps when you can out accelerate a lot of cars as they make that pause between first and second gear, but as others have said its really about picking your gap in advance, mobile phone users create plenty of them.
-
Can you actually point to an example of how an out group has been received better by ingratiating itself with the majority group?
The whole point is the majority expect people to change to be like them. There is no expectation of compromise.
We got our fingers burned the last time we tried to help minorities.
You won't find a better example of the majority trying to build a bridge to a minority than the Black & White Minstrel Show.
I mean you bend over backwards sometimes but did they thank us? No. "Offensive" apparently.
And what about Lesbians? I only asked if I could watch for ten minutes!!
Last time I try to "understand" people.
-
I'm not a fan of filtering either (don't get much practice out here), though I can see the appeal of being on the left. On the right if you don't time it right yu can get stranded a line of cars accelerating past you on either side.
I am a fan of filtering, tbh there's not much choice unless you want an 18k commute to take 2 hours. I always prefer filtering on the right, it just seems to work out better. It helps when you can out accelerate a lot of cars as they make that pause between first and second gear, but as others have said its really about picking your gap in advance, mobile phone users create plenty of them.
Agreed about spotting the gap in advance, assuming there is one.
Like most things vehicular cycling, it's not so good when you can't out-accelerate cars (hence I pretty much never filter if I've got a heavy load). And do you really want to be in front of a driver who's using a mobile phone?
-
<snip> And do you really want to be in front of a driver who's using a mobile phone?
IME its endemic*, so I guess I might as well get some benefit from it
* to such an extent that last night I saw a woman driving repeatedly round the 70% empty car park of Evans holding her phone to her ear while she waited for her friend to finish work :facepalm:
-
Wow, I seem to have sidetracked the conversation nicely.
I can quite easily keep up with traffic usually and am pretty confident in it. I almost never filter to the left. I guess that's just me though.
-
Interestingly (or not!) the only way to legally enter an advanced stop box for cyclist without stopping is on the left hand side of the traffic.
-
? Surely it's legal for a cyclist to ride on whichever part of a lane they choose. How is it illegal to enter it from the right hand side of a vehicle?
-
It's illegal to enter the ASL over an unbroken white line (when the light is red). The idea is that the 2' of dotted line to the left is the only legal way to get in
-
Nonsense, of course.
-
Interestingly (or not!) the only way to legally enter an advanced stop box for cyclist without stopping is on the left hand side of the traffic.
Actually in Manchester its impossible to enter 90% of them legally because the first stop line runs across the whole lane
-
VM's post should include "when the lights are red" - the stop line at the start of the box applies to bikes just as much as it does to motor vehicles, so legally cyclists are supposed to enter it through the dotted entry lane. Normally that's in the gutter, though there are some junctions where there's a central feeder (and inevitably, there are some without one at all, which it's therefore technically illegal to use for their intended purpose).
(Crossed with hatler and Si, inevitably ...)
-
Ah, didn't know that, thanks, I shall continue to be oblivious ;)
-
Angela Epstein's pouring petrol on the fire in today's Torygraph. No linkie cos it's just stupid.
(She ghost writ Mr Loophole's book)
-
VM's post should include "when the lights are red" - the stop line at the start of the box applies to bikes just as much as it does to motor vehicles, so legally cyclists are supposed to enter it through the dotted entry lane. Normally that's in the gutter, though there are some junctions where there's a central feeder (and inevitably, there are some without one at all, which it's therefore technically illegal to use for their intended purpose).
(Crossed with hatler and Si, inevitably ...)
IIRC that anomaly no longer exists. The Gubbermint changed the rules and an entry lane is no longer required.
-
That rings vague bells, now you've prompted me.
-
Relating the original question to this stuff, one thing British people tend to hate is queue jumpers. It's in our psyche. If you thread your way around standing traffic then plonk yourself in front of the centre of the bonnet of a car whose driver has been waiting for a while, you will not be greeted with warmth and affection. Brits, for better or worse, hate someone pushing in, regardless of vehicle type.
IN theory I'd agree with you but in practise I've often had cars move to one side when they are stuck in stationary traffic so I can get through. That's happened far more frequently than the very rare motorists who seems to think the best approach is to move left to stop me getting past, only to then appear even more irate when I just go around the other side.
Where filtering is concerned it's much like anything else on the road where there's really no single correct answer. To me the advantage of filtering is that it means I get through the lights in one cycle, rather than necessarily getting right to the front of the queue. There's really not much point weaving to the front of the queue if all it means is that as soon as the light turns green I've got a dozen cars trying to overtake me again, on a narrow road. I know it would be nice if people did leave enough journey time to absorb a bit of delay but there's a time and a place for making a stand on things like that, and when I'm the squidgy bag of bones in front of their two-tonne metal box generally isn't it. Even if it's 100% their fault if we collide, and it's confirmed by witnesses and they get the book thrown at them in court, that isn't going to help whatever's left of me to get on with life.
This reaction is (I hope) more muted where there is an advanced stop line for cyclists, since that is where we are supposed to be.
Ah, I think you've got that bit wrong. The advanced stop line is intended for drivers of Audi Q7s, so they can save a few nanoseconds when the lights turn green. You can tell the ones who are sufficiently important to save a few more nanoseconds because they stop slightly further forward still.
-
I stand corrected on the subject of Audi Q7s. It all makes sense now you put it that way.
-
It's reserved for buses, taxis, police cars, ambulances in Cardiff.
Or it just what I originally thought that the big red/orange box is a prize special place to park in when you arrive at the traffic lights first?
-
Sligtly OT. I was chatting to a bloke at the greengrocer's while we waited for the rain to stop. He mentioned cyclists cycling 2 abreast so I was able to educate him on that being OK according to the highway code (apparently he thought it was forbidden). I also pointed out that 2 cyclists abreast take less time to pass than 2 cyclists in singe file. I threw in the fact that any overtaking manoeuvre shoul assume that it was overtaking a car-width objct and explained why.
I was also able to point out that the wannabe Bradley Wigginses were ikely to be the same people as the wanna be Jensen Buttons, but it was better for the rest of us that they stuck to being Braley.
Fortunately for him the rain stopt before I could move on to point out that the reaction required on coming round a blind bend and seeing 2 cyclists was no different to that for coming round a blind bend and seeing a motor car.